Greyhawk Is and Isn't

There is quite a bit of talk about WotC creating a 4th Edition version of the World of Greyhawk. Based on forum readings, blogs, and podcasts I don't think there is a very good picture as to what Greyhawk is and isn't. This post addresses many of the misconceptions and problem areas I've noticed when discussing Greyhawk as a campaign setting. Much of this has to do with the rewriting that took place during the 2nd Edition era as TSR tried to remodel Greyhawk as Forgetten Realms. The Greyhawk Wars metaplot has left an indelible mark on the campaign setting. Ever since the direction has been to support this rather than refute it. The error is easily seen in remaking of the Realms as a Campaign Setting first. When canon forces DMs and players to accept a heavy-handed story arc the setting quickly becomes played out.

Greyhawk is human centric - Nope. It requires explication to understand what was taking place. The WoG was written from a human perspective. The voice of the text is Pluffet Smedger, a human historian who is looking back to a lost world. The world back then is largely unknown now, even moreso when humans from the Flanaess aren't directly involved. This is not to say that humans are the center of everything, but it does cleverly create intentional storyteller bias "These are my ancestors and we are here today." In other words, to Pluffet Smedger they're the center of his studies.
Greyhawk is generic fantasy - What does that even mean? You mean it has dungeons and dragons? Or maybe elves and dwarves? What about ancient war machines and mechanical titans, lost cities of the gods, or time traveling pistol wielding wizards? The fringe fantasy of Greyhawk is the legends that are unique, a hallmark of the setting. Greyhawk was never fully invested in Vancian magic as say Eberron or FR. But Greyhawk does seem to have the "Empire of the East" or "Book of Lost Swords" backstory where ancient warmachines (M1 Abrams) are "lost magic." There's a slight oWoD MtA feel that magic and technology do not coexist in the same realm, like matter and anti-matter. It was fringe enough to be ignored but existed in modules and fluff none-the-less and many DMs ran with it. To say there is D&D and no Greyhawk would be a lie. It's not generic, it's just what D&D is made of. WotC had to simply accept that Bigby and Mordenkainen are archtypal wizards in ways that Elminster or Raistlin aren't. They are, but they're Greyhawk wizards. That world is their story and it deserves a telling.
Greyhawk is Living Greyhawk - Certainly not. Dropping LG fluff via rewind is a much needed change. People said the same for Battlestar Galactica. Or the Ultimates. People tend to forget that Greyhawk is a collaborative world. It's a campaign setting first, as opposed to FR or DL which are novelist settings first. The canon of Greyhawk was written with dice, not word processors. Gygax ran a Greyhawk campaign and Kuntz co-DMed, Arneson ran a Blackmoor campaign, Lakofka did a Lendore Isles campaign; they all merged into Greyhawk. The problem with post 1983 is they created a metaplot (From the Ashes) which pigeonholed every story thereafter. Metaplot killed the original design of Greyhawk because now all DM plots must choose to either ignore or incorporate a single event. Prior to this there were literally few GH campaigns that were similar. Eberron campaigns tend to either explore the Mournland or Xendrick, or work within or around the Last War. I've played in several, with different DMs. These plots appear with stale regularity. FR is suffering from the same with the Spell-scarred (Greenwood's answer to Dragonmarks). That said, Greyhawk needs to return to a world of vastly different nations (deeper lines need to be drawn in the Barbarian lands of the icy north) where a single plot doesn't exist to intertwine them all. Using the LG and "From the Ashes" fluff as possibilities to an uncertain future or casual references of things to come would be an excellent primer, but as it stands they replaced intrigue with a pair of brass knuckles.
Greyhawk is built with dice - From the beginning the World of Greyhawk was conceived by the actions of players and DMs alike. They were professional players, among the best, and their actions live on in every D&D since. The lifeblood of Greyhawk was the module. Every campaign setting except GH will find more supplements to explain the nit-noid history of the world. Greyhawk doesn't have DMPCs and Mary-Sues solving all of the problems. Read any of the sparse fluff and it often implies to the outcome of an out of date module saying, "A group of adventurers..." If WotC would rewind Greyhawk they need to support it with solid modules and adventures to allow the DM and players to make it their own, and not live under the shadow of a metaplot or some novelist's Mary-Sue.
Greyhawk is adventure and intrigue - This commandment was lost somewhere during the dark days of TSR and was never rediscovered. The early days of Greyhawk allowed DMs to have dozens secret societies to choose from - Baklunish Assassins, Scarlet Brotherhood spies, Agents of Iuz, follows of the mysterious Egg, cultists of the Temple of Elemental Evil, Slavelords, and so on. These were supported by a central tenet that no single event or idea was given precedence over another. Anyone who picked up the 1983 boxed set (not to mention the Hardcover) didn't feel as if the "Temple of Elemental Evil" story line was less important than "Against the Giants/Descend into the Depths" story line. Why? Because neither was considered a single defining metaplot of the setting. Nor could the "Tomb of Horrors" considered a metaplot, nor "The City of the Gods" which is also mentioned. Despite the lack of heavy-handed story arcs each contributed to the setting as either a piece of fluff or an a major story. It became a major story because the DM and players rolled their dice. Their existence wasn't clearly defined until the dice were rolled which creates intrigue in and of itself. In essense, nobody in the world knows until the DM runs the module and the players adventure.

Critical Fumbles

There is one crucial element missing from the Crit Fumble debate and that is the purpose of an RPG. A Roleplaying game is not a board game. People always forget that many of the rules and mechanisms that govern RPGs descended from boardgames and still possess several of the worst traits, one of which is random generation. The purpose of a board game is exactly opposite of an RPG. In a board game players are supposed to be eliminated because they're competing. In an RPG players are supposed to work together and grow, both as players and characters (Gygax, Roleplaying Mastery). When we look at the objectives they appear diametrically opposed:
* Board Games seek to eliminate players, removing them from the game and playing session. They use random elements to hinder players individually and create an uneven playing field. Board games are designed to eliminate players early on. This increases competition and decreases game time allowing more games to be played.
* RPGs are designed to keep players returning at the table. RPGs often include rules that allow players to act out of turn, ensuring that players always have an option to keep playing. RPGs level the playing field among players granting each equal access to and representation within the game. All of these factors seek to improve cooperation rather than competition.

There are no real rivals among players in an RPG as character elimination will not end a game with a clear winner. Eliminating a character could end an entire campaign. Given the nature of a Fumble, characters dying because they roll too many dice is a board game strategy. It eliminates/stifles players in the same fashion as drawing a card and going to directly to Jail would.

When we look at early versions of RPGs we see a board game trend:
1) Rolling for stats and hitpoints which created the deadman walking.
2) Rolling for race and class.
3) Rolling for survival (Traveler and Twilight 2000 I'm looking at you).
4) Rolling for background

All of these are board game mechanisms. Rolling characters is like grabbing a character card in Descent (tm). It's a random character. In many ways it's like a pregen character. You have no control over the creation of a character you many be playing for the next year or two. How many DMs would roll to determine which modules they'd use? How many gaming groups would roll to determine which game they will purchase and play for the next 4 years? Each makes about as much sense.

Simply put, board game strategies are destructive to RPGs. They're "exciting" like landing in the Molasses Swamp in Candyland. But unlike Candyland, no child is spending time writing about the backstory behind Redpeg and why they're adventuring with Greenpeg and Bluepeg in a dangerous realm of sweets.