Canonfire!

Fri May 25, 2007 5:15 pm The Greyhawk Wars

Anyone here actually play the wars out using whatever warfare system available for them? Curious if anyone done this to see if any other outcomes had come up. I actually planned to use the battlesystem rules for this back in the days but never got around to getting it done.

anyone? if so what were the outcomes?

Fri May 25, 2007 6:04 pm

We played Greyhawk Wars but not for any campaign relevant outcomes. Just as a board game really, which I might point out can be good for teaching the geo-political framework of GH even if you don't like the game. Every game we played was won by 'Good'. Iuz and the SB just aren't in a good position to succeed. It's been too long since I played it so I can't recount specific details. I liked the game and I still use the counters for general table top combat.
I once used Battlesystem too, but that was too much paper work. I still use those counters as well in lieu of minis. For quick and clean mass combat I reccomend the old D&D Companion set Warmachine rules. And for an interesting army unit and 'battle field mauevering' mass combat system 2E's Birthright rules was extremely fun.

Fri May 25, 2007 9:28 pm

We play Wars at least once a year (between our group we have 4 sets!) just for fun. Never used a alternate system (and btw Mort never thought about using the counters in lieu of minis, nice idea) b/c the original system is rather easy. Which is what we want when we play the game, an easy, fun break.

Sat May 26, 2007 12:52 am

I'm going to plan an historical campaign: my purpose is to drive my pc through the best and most important adventures written for GH. Starting from the TOEE and ending with the Greyhawk Wars. My first problem is to convert the old modules to 3.5 edition, but I thought also to the wars... and my solution is something like a board game... do you know RISK? (In Italy we call it RISIKO)
Happy

_________________
<div align="left"><em>Once upon a time...</em></div>

Sat May 26, 2007 7:06 am Have you seen...?

http://www.greyhawkonline.com/greyhawkrisk/GCR-index.htm

~Scott "-enkainen" Casper

Yak-Men don't even know what risk is!

Sun May 27, 2007 11:16 am Heretical tangent

I'm going to go off on a heretical tangent here, and say it publically... I HATE Greyhawk Wars, or more specifically, what it did to Greyhawk in FROM THE ASHES. The idea of Iuz replacing several countries' leaders with animated undead just seemd like a total cop-out to me. One country, maybe.... half of freaking Greyhawk, it seems? Weak. I always found that the Wars and Ashes made Greyhawk a much darker, much less fun place to be. I always felt it was a place for heroic adventure, and what happened in the Wars with all the animii just felt... wrong. I dunno. Maybe it's me. If I run another Greyhawk campaign (which I am planning), I am not sure how I plan to reconcile the Before and After.

Sun May 27, 2007 12:47 pm

Actually it was Ivid not Iuz who created the animus of the former Great Kingdom.

Granted like you; I originally found the GH Wars jarring but I have to say it has grown on me, especially since later supplements have attempted to correct the more extreme abuses, and was an agent for change.

Looking at the earlier supplements such as Iuz the Evil given the disparity of forces, Iuz arguably should have done better especially in Furyondy regardless of the spirit of the militia and healing magic.

Sun May 27, 2007 3:39 pm

Ivid... Iuz.... whatever. 8)

I dunno... I think I'll just pull out my copy of the Greyhawk boxed and start looking at history, seeing what I can use and what I can't use. Thank god there's so much ino on Greyhawk here, and elsewhere on the net. 8)

Sun May 27, 2007 6:33 pm

Greyhawk has always been 'dark' in mood. With or without the Animus, the GK was always a major evil land. Mad Overkings, Hextorian church states, Demonic guards, Death Knights, Evil wizards...the GH Wars only served to scatter the evil more. Adding Animii was needless yes, but the tone of the setting hasn't grown more dark IMO.

And yeah Iuz should've done better. A waste of a War really considering the 591 relaunch undid alot of his advances.

Mon May 28, 2007 5:08 pm

Ive always saw the '83 boxed set and FTA as two seperate gaming scenerios.
the '83 boxed set is awesome if you just play a free and easy game were your adventurers just run around exploring dungeons and the unknown
But if you are into politics and world-wide events and how all the countries fit into each other, then FTA is the way to go

Tue May 29, 2007 7:30 am

A little shift in topic Wink

I've been curious as too the reaction to the SB role in the GHW; it seems to be an love/hate relationship.

Granted the "hidden" aspect was somewhat lost but again a careful read of tSb accessory, I don't feel I need to rehash its numerous faults, shows the actions of its leaders and collapse later was consistent. Since the establishment of the SB its "destiny" was to prepare to conquer and its assurance of its racial superiority within the factions sections; the debate isn't "if" but "how" to accomplish that goal.

The Strong Hand faction which finally controls the majority of the leadership believes this is done through open warfare, after centuries of effort sees a chance to put their beliefs into practise - why not. In short; the leadership saw a chance to stop planning and finally act and they took it.

The failure was due to the belief that the "degenerates" once defeated would not continue to resist. Granted the flaw was not considered given the superiority dogma of the SB which is entirely plausible given the real world example of totalitarian superiority governments often fall into grandiose self-delusion which the fanatical followers wish to act upon.

So from a social and psychological view the actions of the SB, I believe do make sense rather than the nonsensical arbitrary ruining of the SB some have claimed. Some may not like the SB role in the GHW but it definitely is plausible.

Just a thought...

Tue May 29, 2007 10:58 am

Yeah I agree. The SB acted on that faction's policy and it stretched them too thin I guess. What would've worked better is if they used the tactics they used the Lordship of the Isles more. The Duxchaners went over w/o a fight basically and they were a member of the Iron League! It reminded me at the time the GHW was published, of Deep Space Nine and the Dominion (pardon the Trek reference). The Dominion began conquering areas not thru arms but alliance first, with a subtle hint of intimidation of course. The SB isn't that big, so they need to buff up with alliances before they can think of tangling with anyone north of them. With the Sea Princes, the Duxchaners (and pirates from Pomarj), the SB should rule the waves not only by force but by commerce. But somehow that all got screwed up by the designers...:P

Tue May 29, 2007 1:50 pm FACT: Mort CHEATS

Hi all -
I've never had the mis-fortune to be in a game with Mort, but it's still a Fact. He's just the latest person I'm on a rampage to disparage! First it was Holian, then the prolific poster, Amaril, and now Mort! Smiles!

Ok, I for one have played GH Wars a couple times. I think it sucked as a game. As a concept I loved it. I loved FtA, and it's attempts to rebuild after a war. I dislike 591 - 597 (LGG right?) concepts about making the world all happy-go-lucky. I'm HGL in Real Life. Sure RL has tons of war and such, and that is why I think Greyhawk should have another war. The World has major wars (major to those that are fighting and dying) constantly. Never has there been lasting peace. Yes, border skirmishes between Furyondy / Iuz and Keoland/Ulek vs Pomarj are constant, as are the stuff between the GK and it's two subdivisions. But with these it is good vs evil. Why can't Furyondy win, get the wolf and tiger nomads to help out. Why not have Ket be the aggressor and start heading WEST. Or better yet, why not have Ket be invaded by invaders from the WEST, which then come in and attack Keoland, Furyondy and other places.
I think WARS need to be a bit bigger in the world.
My Hegemony Wars article plays on anothers posts about countries attacking each other. In my GH, The Pale teamed up with portions of the GK and attacked Nyrond.
Since my current game takes place in Dyvers, I've had Dyvers start being aggresive in it's bid for more land. No more stopping at Eastguard. They've moved further east to the hills (no map in front of me to point at) but not too far, where Robliars Castle is located. Same with taking lands in the woods. Why don't nations and Free Cities decide that they need to enter a glory age. Why not hire brave adventures to conquer and return artifacts that would permit them to claim some more land.

And going back to the original thread idea - I'm working on a Greyhawk Monopoly - so this way you could buy yourself some land! I'd love to see a better Greyhawk Risk than what's on my site - something like taking the Dungeon Maps and marking new lands and how many men they'd be worth. I love risk!
Be Well. Be Conqured Well.
Theocrat Issak
_________________
Theocrat Issak

Tue May 29, 2007 5:36 pm

I agree that campaign worlds tend to be unduly static. War and civil unrest are pretty commonplace historically. You can have long stretches in a country, though those are still pretty rare. But across an area the size of the Flanaess?

I think there's a lot of 'stuff' going on, but too much of it is thought of from the point of view of an adventure, rather than an adventuring backdrop. Meaning, too much of the stuff is done as 'something the PCs can directly get involved in and deal with', rather than "stuff that's going on and affects how and what the PCs are up to." So you have master villians engaging in schemes all over the place, but few rulers (or ruled) getting a war on.

There also tends to be relatively few disastrously incompetent rulers, like Edward II of England say, in power in fantasy campaigns. If they are incompetent, it tends to be in the maniac villian mode, like Ivid the Undying.

Tue May 29, 2007 6:16 pm

I'm divided on the Wars. On one hand I do see it as something brewing for awhile on the other I didn't like the execution of them. For one I think they should have been longer and there not be a signing at Greyhawk. I have tinkered with making them stalemate and simmer for a few years but not end.

I was opposed to Iuz as conquorer but when I saw he did the same thing in the Gord novels I softened by stance. I Agree that LGG did soften the aftermath up alot and I only use it for mining purposes.

Of note I have not been lucky enough to get or read FtA yet.
_________________
Agape,

Julian<div><br /></div><div><br /></div>

Tue May 29, 2007 6:32 pm Re: The Greyhawk Wars

Wed May 30, 2007 1:02 pm

I am not advocating per say ignoring FtA or another war, FtA is done and trying to reinvent the wheel is too messy at this point.

Also the idea that wars are major shifts fought to the bitter end; truly began with the Napoleonic doctrine forward; most medievial wars were "raids" for wealth and glory most ending with the defeated paying tribute, some land and in the extreme cases the conquerors replacing the former aristocracy.

Wed May 30, 2007 4:36 pm gh wars

Have any of you guys ever used the Ivid the undying source matieral that was published online and if so how was it

Wed May 30, 2007 5:23 pm

Excellent

Ivid the Undying is IMHO the best of the Gazeteer supplements.

Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:09 pm