Update to the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer?
Peter Ouimette
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windows Live Hotmail: Your friends can get your Facebook updates, right from Hotmail�.
ukegreg
property to continue producing stuff for it then yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Ouimette [mailto:peter_o...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 11:01 AM
To: GREYTALK List
Subject: [greytalk] Update to the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer?
Vest III, Robert W
In article <395555....@omp408.mail.mud.yahoo.com>,
uke...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>If Paizo decided to be awesome and buy the Greyhawk intellectual
>property to continue producing stuff for it then yes.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Mooney
> Paizo can't buy if Hasbro isn't selling.
Unless something's changed in the last few months, the last I read on the
issue made it seem pretty clear that Paizo no longer had any real interest
in licensing Greyhawk. They've committed to Pathfinder and Golarion
(sp?). I imagine they might consider it if they could license Greyhawk
for a song, but the likelihood of that happening is small.
Tim
Bryan Blumklotz
Galorian and you can safely say, �that ship has sailed.� We all know
that WotC/Hasbro is not going to let its IP slip away to become a rival
in the market place anyway.
The Living Greyhawk Gazetteer was for the RPGA anyway and the tangled IP
considerations for that campaign preclude an update from the materials
developed for it. So why bother updating a book with new info if you
cannot draw from the campaign it was written to support?
Frankly the only way Greyhawk is going to get an �official� update is if
WotC makes it one of their yearly published campaigns. Don�t hold your
breath. Dark Sun was chosen for next year�s campaign because it will
highlight the �non-core� assumption possibilities with 4e.
Let�s face it Forgotten Realms and Eberron both hew pretty close to core
with minor flourishes. Besides some God tweaking, mechanically core 4e
is pretty much Greyhawk ready. Everything else is story/fluff.
Everything that has been published on the subject of what D&D R&D wants
to do with future campaigns leans away from another �core� based
campaign. Hence the likelihood of Greyhawk (and Dragonlance for that
matter) appearing in the release schedule is pretty damn low.
Some will wail about being ignored, others will revel in the same. In
the end Greyhawk is going to lie fallow for awhile with an occasional
published item to keep the Greyhawk trademarks alive. For now, Greyhawk
will be what you make of it. And that is that.
In Service,
Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article
<0869317D6FDFF347B2603...@iu-mssg-mbx01.ads.iu.edu>,
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Add to the fact that Paizo is heavily invested in their own world of
> in the market place anyway.
>
Which is something I've never understood, in large or small industry.
If you ain't USING it, why hold onto it? Selling it will at least get
you SOMETHING.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Tom Nolan
> Are there any plans to update the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------- Windows Live Hotmail: Your friends can get your Facebook
> updates, right from Hotmail..
Living Greyhawk has gone the road of so many other RPGA Campaigns, like
Living City, Living Death, Living Jungle, Virtual Seattle, Green
Regent, etc. It's dead and buried. There will be no more updates unless
perhaps in a Fanzine or something of that nature. As far as official
canon from Wizards of the Schmucks goes, the campaign has ended as of
the end of Last year and there will be no more geyhawk product, unless
they bring out a 4e version of the setting, and if they do to GH what
they did to Forgotten Realms, be prepared for Iuz winning and the
Circle being killed off. An LG campaign can now only exist as a home
campaign, where your gaming group decides what is canon. Not Wizards.
I'm doing Living City as a home campaign using the Pathfinder rules. As
a matter of principle, I refuse to purchase any more WOTC product. Ever.
T
--
Tetsubo
>
> I'm doing Living City as a home campaign using the Pathfinder rules. As
> a matter of principle, I refuse to purchase any more WOTC product. Ever.
>
> T
>
Sadly I have made the same decision. I say sad because there are a
number of Star Wars SAGA books I want. Maybe I will luck out in the
future on the secondary market.
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Bryant Durrell
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>Bryan Blumklotz wrote:
>> Add to the fact that Paizo is heavily invested in their own world of
>> in the market place anyway.
>>
>
> Which is something I've never understood, in large or small industry.
>If you ain't USING it, why hold onto it? Selling it will at least get
>you SOMETHING.
Which reminds me of the third option: saving it for later. WotC has
disciplined about their one setting per year plan (which I rather like,
since there's no supplement treadmill for each world). If I were them
I'd absolutely hold onto Greyhawk; it's a fully developed world and
they'll profit more off using it themselves someday than they ever would
licensing it out to someone else.
I personally wish Greyhawk had been the flagship classical fantasy setting
instead of Forgotten Realms, but c'est la vie.
--
Bryant Durrell // dur...@innocence.com // dur...@gmail.com
Tom Nolan
I thought I remembered something back when 4e first came out. They
planned on doing a game setting per year, and I remember GH being one
of those settings, along with Eberron and possibly DL. I'm still
puzzled why they brought back Dark Sun. The original game setting
tanked back when it was released in 2e (IIRC, Spelljammer sold better
than DS did). Then again this is Wizards of the Crud, the poeople who
thought it would be fun to rape the FR with an abortion called the
Spellplague (I've seen some of Ed Greenwood's notes on candlekeep, he
wasn't happy). I've stated it in the past, and I'll state it again. I
refuse to EVER purchase another WOTC product. I'll stick with 3.x, and
have really gotten into Pathfinder lately. Paizo can have my money.
--
Keith Davies
> In article <he96gd$fgn$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>Bryan Blumklotz wrote:
>>> Add to the fact that Paizo is heavily invested in their own world of
>>> Galorian and you can safely say, �that ship has sailed.� We all
>>> know that WotC/Hasbro is not going to let its IP slip away to become
>>> a rival in the market place anyway.
>>>
>>
>> Which is something I've never understood, in large or small
>> industry.
>>If you ain't USING it, why hold onto it? Selling it will at least get
>>you SOMETHING.
>
> Which reminds me of the third option: saving it for later. WotC has
> disciplined about their one setting per year plan (which I rather
> like, since there's no supplement treadmill for each world). If I
> were them I'd absolutely hold onto Greyhawk; it's a fully developed
> world and they'll profit more off using it themselves someday than
> they ever would licensing it out to someone else.
This is a case I can see making it worth holding onto GH rather than
selling. I was under the impression of 'GH never' not 'GH later'.
> I personally wish Greyhawk had been the flagship classical fantasy
> setting instead of Forgotten Realms, but c'est la vie.
They did that for 3e though, sort of.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "Do you know what is in beer? The strength
keith....@kjdavies.org to bear the things you can't change, and
keith....@gmail.com wisdom to ignore them and fsck off for
http://www.kjdavies.org/ another beer." -- Owen, discussing work
Bryant Durrell
Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>Bryant Durrell <dur...@innocence.com> wrote:
>>
>> Which reminds me of the third option: saving it for later. WotC has
>> disciplined about their one setting per year plan (which I rather
>> like, since there's no supplement treadmill for each world). If I
>> were them I'd absolutely hold onto Greyhawk; it's a fully developed
>> world and they'll profit more off using it themselves someday than
>> they ever would licensing it out to someone else.
>
>This is a case I can see making it worth holding onto GH rather than
>selling. I was under the impression of 'GH never' not 'GH later'.
Nobody's said anything. Mike Mearls likes Greyhawk a lot but I don't
think he gets to make the final call. They definitely haven't ruled
it out, however.
>> I personally wish Greyhawk had been the flagship classical fantasy
>> setting instead of Forgotten Realms, but c'est la vie.
>
>They did that for 3e though, sort of.
Yep. Also, of course, it was the big RPGA setting. These days it's
Forgotten Realms, which means I'm seeing a lot of that world... I
actually liked Rob Heinsoo's slant on it in 3e. Very pulp, it sort of
embraced the goofy, and so on. I don't think the 4e version works as
well, because it's trying to be more serious.
Phlip
>> selling. I was under the impression of 'GH never' not 'GH later'.
I thought the 4e promo material mentioned Castle Greyhawk.
That would be a good place to start. Note that each 4e campaign, so far, has
emphasized one primal aspect of the original concepts. There's a "dungeon crawl"
(Keep on the Shadowfell), a "skill checks vs Drow" (Demon Queeen's Enclave), the
War against Giants ("Revenge of the Giants"), etc. But they seem to be saving up
the "big castle" theme, right?
--
Phlip
http://zeekland.zeroplayer.com/009_Uncle_Wiggilys_Travels/1