Is LG canon for the WOG campaign? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Is LG canon for the WOG campaign? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
gravenhurst
02-11-08, 01:24 PM I have always had to defer to Living Greyhawk (LG) for updates on The World of Greyhawk (WOG) campaign when looking for ideas on fleshed out subjects. In print mode for commercial products, has the material played and written for/by Living Greyhawk become canon for said printed material? Even WOTC has used WOG as the default setting for 3.0E & 3.5E. Did the writers create their own path or defer to LG for advice?

Is 4E using Greyhawk as default setting still? I see Eberon and Forgotten Realms be the only promoted campaign being advertised.

Who has the rights to WOG? Not even Paizo is using WOG, I guess do to licensing being severed by WOTC.
smerwin29
02-11-08, 03:57 PM What happens in Living Greyhawk is only "canon" for Living Greyhawk. No one else who uses the World of Greyhawk as a setting in their home campaign is beholden to anything that happens in Living Greyhawk--nor should they be.

From everything I have read, there is no "named world" as a default setting for 4e: not Greyhawk, not Eberron, and not Forgotten Realms.

The whole emphasis of "canon" to me has always been a little ****-eyed when you are dealing with a make-believe place. The concept of "canon," in more places than not, has been used to cause conflict in a hobby that is at least partially supposed to be about coming together and cooperating to tell a story.

LG has certain created a rich and plentiful well from which people creating their own stories can drink, but it shouldn't be the only watering hole in the desert.

I do not know the particulars on who exactly owns the rights and trademarks associated with the world of Greyhawk. I have a suspicion, though, that it is not quite as easy an answer as we might imagine, legally speaking.
Samwise
02-12-08, 01:36 AM Unless there is something dramatically peculiar that has happened, the answer is in fact quite easy:
Wizards of the Coast (Hasbro)

Completely and absolutely.
Looking at the original folio, the copyright notice is TSR Games, not Gary Gygax individually.
When he was forced out of TSR, all of the property of TSR remained property of TSR. That very much includes all of the Greyhawk IP. That is why they could publish From the Ashes. That is why WotC could publish Greyhawk '98 and the LGG and do the LG campaign.

I regularly hear suggestions that Garyhas some other rights or somesuch, but I have never heard him claim anything of the sort with one very limited exception:
He owns the Gord the Rogue character, and has license to use a variety of Greyhawk related proper names in any Gord books he writes. (Specifically the few that he used in the first two books that were published by TSR, and to use paraphrases of other locations and a general map.) He used this to finish the original Gord series. I have never heard any suggestion it extends beyond that.

As for canon and Living Greyhawk, due to a few pieces, that is no longer 100%.
For LG adventures, the vast majority of them can not be canon. WotC does not own the rights to them, which means any and all content not explicitly WotC IP reverts to the author.
WotC does however own the full rights to a number of articles published in the Living Greyhawk Journal, Dragon Magazine, and on this website. Even though they all originated within Living Greyhawk, since WotC purchased them completely, they can incorporate the material into any future Greyhawk product as they see fit.

As for the value of canon, I would have to go digging for an essay another person wrote on that. The short form is:
Canon exists for the owners of the IP to hand to their authors to help ensure the material they publish remains consistent with itself.
Material may be added to or subtracted from the canon at their sole discretion. There is a limit to how much should be removed though, as canon creates continuity within the material that is essential to fan involvement.
No player has to care about what is canon, but the company must, as the same NPC being alternately dead and alive in a series of adventures tends to turn customers off.
TetsujinOni
02-12-08, 11:44 AM No player has to care about what is canon, but the company must, as the same NPC being alternately dead and alive in a series of adventures tends to turn customers off.

QFT

Killing the same NPC in parts two, four, and five to see him show up as a trusted ally in part six?

Stupid extra planar npcs...
gravenhurst
02-12-08, 01:23 PM Unless there is something dramatically peculiar that has happened, the answer is in fact quite easy:
Wizards of the Coast (Hasbro)

Completely and absolutely.
Looking at the original folio, the copyright notice is TSR Games, not Gary Gygax individually.
When he was forced out of TSR, all of the property of TSR remained property of TSR. That very much includes all of the Greyhawk IP. That is why they could publish From the Ashes. That is why WotC could publish Greyhawk '98 and the LGG and do the LG campaign.

I regularly hear suggestions that Garyhas some other rights or somesuch, but I have never heard him claim anything of the sort with one very limited exception:
He owns the Gord the Rogue character, and has license to use a variety of Greyhawk related proper names in any Gord books he writes. (Specifically the few that he used in the first two books that were published by TSR, and to use paraphrases of other locations and a general map.) He used this to finish the original Gord series. I have never heard any suggestion it extends beyond that.

As for canon and Living Greyhawk, due to a few pieces, that is no longer 100%.
For LG adventures, the vast majority of them can not be canon. WotC does not own the rights to them, which means any and all content not explicitly WotC IP reverts to the author.
WotC does however own the full rights to a number of articles published in the Living Greyhawk Journal, Dragon Magazine, and on this website. Even though they all originated within Living Greyhawk, since WotC purchased them completely, they can incorporate the material into any future Greyhawk product as they see fit.

As for the value of canon, I would have to go digging for an essay another person wrote on that. The short form is:
Canon exists for the owners of the IP to hand to their authors to help ensure the material they publish remains consistent with itself.
Material may be added to or subtracted from the canon at their sole discretion. There is a limit to how much should be removed though, as canon creates continuity within the material that is essential to fan involvement.
No player has to care about what is canon, but the company must, as the same NPC being alternately dead and alive in a series of adventures tends to turn customers off.

Sorry, you confused me on LGG & LG. Also, IP? Thanks!:confused:
kenobi65
02-12-08, 01:32 PM Sorry, you confused me on LGG & LG. Also, IP? Thanks!:confused:

LG: Living Greyhawk (the RPGA campaign)
LGG: Living Greyhawk Gazetteer (the sourcebook for the campaign, published by WotC in 2000)
IP: Intellectual property
smerwin29
02-12-08, 07:38 PM I defer to Sam on all things Greyhawk.

And as he says, canon is useful when in the context of keeping an IP consistant for the owner of the IP.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
gravenhurst 02-11-08, 01:24 PM	I have always had to defer to Living Greyhawk (LG) for updates on The World of Greyhawk (WOG) campaign when looking for ideas on fleshed out subjects. In print mode for commercial products, has the material played and written for/by Living Greyhawk become canon for said printed material? Even WOTC has used WOG as the default setting for 3.0E & 3.5E. Did the writers create their own path or defer to LG for advice? Is 4E using Greyhawk as default setting still? I see Eberon and Forgotten Realms be the only promoted campaign being advertised. Who has the rights to WOG? Not even Paizo is using WOG, I guess do to licensing being severed by WOTC.
smerwin29 02-11-08, 03:57 PM	What happens in Living Greyhawk is only "canon" for Living Greyhawk. No one else who uses the World of Greyhawk as a setting in their home campaign is beholden to anything that happens in Living Greyhawk--nor should they be. From everything I have read, there is no "named world" as a default setting for 4e: not Greyhawk, not Eberron, and not Forgotten Realms. The whole emphasis of "canon" to me has always been a little ****-eyed when you are dealing with a make-believe place. The concept of "canon," in more places than not, has been used to cause conflict in a hobby that is at least partially supposed to be about coming together and cooperating to tell a story. LG has certain created a rich and plentiful well from which people creating their own stories can drink, but it shouldn't be the only watering hole in the desert. I do not know the particulars on who exactly owns the rights and trademarks associated with the world of Greyhawk. I have a suspicion, though, that it is not quite as easy an answer as we might imagine, legally speaking.
Samwise 02-12-08, 01:36 AM	Unless there is something dramatically peculiar that has happened, the answer is in fact quite easy: Wizards of the Coast (Hasbro) Completely and absolutely. Looking at the original folio, the copyright notice is TSR Games, not Gary Gygax individually. When he was forced out of TSR, all of the property of TSR remained property of TSR. That very much includes all of the Greyhawk IP. That is why they could publish From the Ashes. That is why WotC could publish Greyhawk '98 and the LGG and do the LG campaign. I regularly hear suggestions that Garyhas some other rights or somesuch, but I have never heard him claim anything of the sort with one very limited exception: He owns the Gord the Rogue character, and has license to use a variety of Greyhawk related proper names in any Gord books he writes. (Specifically the few that he used in the first two books that were published by TSR, and to use paraphrases of other locations and a general map.) He used this to finish the original Gord series. I have never heard any suggestion it extends beyond that. As for canon and Living Greyhawk, due to a few pieces, that is no longer 100%. For LG adventures, the vast majority of them can not be canon. WotC does not own the rights to them, which means any and all content not explicitly WotC IP reverts to the author. WotC does however own the full rights to a number of articles published in the Living Greyhawk Journal, Dragon Magazine, and on this website. Even though they all originated within Living Greyhawk, since WotC purchased them completely, they can incorporate the material into any future Greyhawk product as they see fit. As for the value of canon, I would have to go digging for an essay another person wrote on that. The short form is: Canon exists for the owners of the IP to hand to their authors to help ensure the material they publish remains consistent with itself. Material may be added to or subtracted from the canon at their sole discretion. There is a limit to how much should be removed though, as canon creates continuity within the material that is essential to fan involvement. No player has to care about what is canon, but the company must, as the same NPC being alternately dead and alive in a series of adventures tends to turn customers off.
TetsujinOni 02-12-08, 11:44 AM	No player has to care about what is canon, but the company must, as the same NPC being alternately dead and alive in a series of adventures tends to turn customers off. QFT Killing the same NPC in parts two, four, and five to see him show up as a trusted ally in part six? Stupid extra planar npcs...
gravenhurst 02-12-08, 01:23 PM	Unless there is something dramatically peculiar that has happened, the answer is in fact quite easy: Wizards of the Coast (Hasbro) Completely and absolutely. Looking at the original folio, the copyright notice is TSR Games, not Gary Gygax individually. When he was forced out of TSR, all of the property of TSR remained property of TSR. That very much includes all of the Greyhawk IP. That is why they could publish From the Ashes. That is why WotC could publish Greyhawk '98 and the LGG and do the LG campaign. I regularly hear suggestions that Garyhas some other rights or somesuch, but I have never heard him claim anything of the sort with one very limited exception: He owns the Gord the Rogue character, and has license to use a variety of Greyhawk related proper names in any Gord books he writes. (Specifically the few that he used in the first two books that were published by TSR, and to use paraphrases of other locations and a general map.) He used this to finish the original Gord series. I have never heard any suggestion it extends beyond that. As for canon and Living Greyhawk, due to a few pieces, that is no longer 100%. For LG adventures, the vast majority of them can not be canon. WotC does not own the rights to them, which means any and all content not explicitly WotC IP reverts to the author. WotC does however own the full rights to a number of articles published in the Living Greyhawk Journal, Dragon Magazine, and on this website. Even though they all originated within Living Greyhawk, since WotC purchased them completely, they can incorporate the material into any future Greyhawk product as they see fit. As for the value of canon, I would have to go digging for an essay another person wrote on that. The short form is: Canon exists for the owners of the IP to hand to their authors to help ensure the material they publish remains consistent with itself. Material may be added to or subtracted from the canon at their sole discretion. There is a limit to how much should be removed though, as canon creates continuity within the material that is essential to fan involvement. No player has to care about what is canon, but the company must, as the same NPC being alternately dead and alive in a series of adventures tends to turn customers off. Sorry, you confused me on LGG & LG. Also, IP? Thanks!:confused:
kenobi65 02-12-08, 01:32 PM	Sorry, you confused me on LGG & LG. Also, IP? Thanks!:confused: LG: Living Greyhawk (the RPGA campaign) LGG: Living Greyhawk Gazetteer (the sourcebook for the campaign, published by WotC in 2000) IP: Intellectual property
smerwin29 02-12-08, 07:38 PM	I defer to Sam on all things Greyhawk. And as he says, canon is useful when in the context of keeping an IP consistant for the owner of the IP.