D&D General Disentangling D&D from D&D Fantasy

[amethal]

I know very little about Ebberon, but I've seen a couple of people raising facts and direct quotes from the books that seem to support the position that humans are the dominant species.

Your counter argument amounts to ad hominems ("This is starting to sound like desperation to be right.") and cries of "Nonsense!" If you're right, you're certainly not making a case for your position.

Humans are dominant on Khorvaire, which is where a lot of the focus of the setting tends to be (but it doesn't have to be - it's easy enough to run a game somewhere else if you want to, and PCs are expected to move around a lot).

Humans appear to be dominant on Sarlona, but their society is actually controlled by Outsiders.

Dragons are dominant on Argonessen.

No one is dominant on Xen'drick.

Elves are dominant on Aerenal (which is a lot smaller than the 4 continents above).

Pretty much nobody lives on the Frostfell or Everice.

The Oceans have a strong sahuagin presence but it's not clear to me whether they dominate.

Khyber (the Underdark) is arguably not part of Eberron itself (it's more like a separate plane) and is full of monsters.

Whether Humans are the dominant species on Eberron as a whole is a matter of opinion.

 

[SableWyvern]

Humans are dominant on Khorvaire, which is where a lot of the focus of the setting tends to be (but it doesn't have to be - it's easy enough to run a game somewhere else if you want to, and PCs are expected to move around a lot).

Humans appear to be dominant on Sarlona, but their society is actually controlled by Outsiders.

Dragons are dominant on Argonessen.

No one is dominant on Xen'drick.

Elves are dominant on Aerenal (which is a lot smaller than the 4 continents above).

Pretty much nobody lives on the Frostfell or Everice.

The Oceans have a strong sahuagin presence but it's not clear to me whether they dominate.

Khyber (the Underdark) is arguably not part of Eberron itself (it's more like a separate plane) and is full of monsters.

Whether Humans are the dominant species on Eberron as a whole is a matter of opinion.

That's certainly a much more compelling argument for considering a different perspective.

 

[TwoSix]

@Staffan isn’t wrong though. The focus of the setting is Khorvaire, and the major power in Khorvaire was Galifar, a human-run kingdom with subjects of other nations and species, but mostly human. Then there was the Last War, which opposed human-led nations, even if they had mixed societies. Then non-human nations got involved or declared independence, but they were mostly peripherical both in importance and in geography.

Even after the war, when the power of humans is mostly broken, they remain majoritarian in population and influence in the highest number of nations and dragonmark houses.

What Eberron does have is a high number of peripherical nations that have few humans and little human influence/power/leadership, moreso than any other official settings. So while Eberron is less humano-centric than other settings, humans are still dominant in the regions Eberron focuses on, both in population and in power.

Yea, I agree with this. Humans aren't dominant on Khorvaire, but they hold an overall plurality of the power structure on the continent, especially within the Five Nations that were part of Galifar.

Khorvaire isn't the whole of Eberron, but it is the core of where the focus is. And the Five Nations aren't the whole of Khorvaire, but they're also the core of where the focus is.

 

[Laurefindel]

I think this response is nonsense and is based more on a preconceived notion than what we actually see in the setting guide. It makes the mistake of starting with "humans are important" and therefore interprets the setting from that paradigm, as opposed to actually looking at what is proposed in the setting.

Well, yes; what we know and use of the setting is heavily influenced by the information found in the setting guide. It’s normal that a setting’s paradigm is dictated by the setting’s guide book.

In that regard, we can differentiate Eberron (the planet) from Eberron (the campaign setting). I’m not claiming that humans are dominant on the whole planet, but I’m not sure even Keith Baker is claiming that the Eberron campaign setting is meant to be covering the whole planet evenly.

The focus is clearly on Khorvaire and the Dragonmark houses, and with outside regions that have relations with the inhabitants of Khorvaire (the remnants of Galifar more specifically) and the machinations of the dragonmark houses in one way or another. Even Xen’drik is mostly experienced from the explorers of Khorvaire.

 

[BoldItalic]

I don't understand the problem.

If you took the fantasy out of D&D it would become a dice game. If you took out the crunch it would become improvised story telling. Either can be fun but if you keep both it is (or at least should be) double the fun.

It's quite possible to replace the D&D crunch with different mechanics but if you want to retain the fantasy element you still need rules for combat, spellcasting, character progression and so on.

It's equally possible to retain the crunch and replace the medieval fantasy with something else, perhaps sci-fi (which is just fantasy about the future instead of the past).

Or you can do both and still have fun.

But for it to be a game at all, players need to be able to do things of which the outcome is partly, but not entirely, predictable and which, if successfull, lead to the gaining of rewards (real or imaginary) that make the player happy.

 

[Reynard]

I don't understand the problem.

If you took the fantasy out of D&D it would become a dice game. If you took out the crunch it would become improvised story telling. Either can be fun but if you keep both it is (or at least should be) double the fun.

It's quite possible to replace the D&D crunch with different mechanics but if you want to retain the fantasy element you still need rules for combat, spellcasting, character progression and so on.

It's equally possible to retain the crunch and replace the medieval fantasy with something else, perhaps sci-fi (which is just fantasy about the future instead of the past).

Or you can do both and still have fun.

But for it to be a game at all, players need to be able to do things of which the outcome is partly, but not entirely, predictable and which, if successfull, lead to the gaining of rewards (real or imaginary) that make the player happy.

None of this relates to the thread subject.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don't understand the problem.

If you took the fantasy out of D&D it would become a dice game.

i think the thread's point is not so much removing any and all fantasy story flavour from DnD, but the specific niche flavour of fantasy that DnD has carved out for itself, that specific pseudo-medieval, swords and sorcery vibe.

 

[SothFan]

the specific niche flavour of fantasy that DnD has carved out for itself, that specific pseudo-medieval, swords and sorcery vibe

Doesn't this then go back to what makes it different? The culmination of it origins. The Appendix N discussion.

 

[Reynard]

Doesn't this then go back to what makes it different? The culmination of it origins. The Appendix N discussion.

D&D Fantasy may have begun with Appendix N, but it has morphed into an ourorobos of itself, video games, paperback fantasy and itself again. D&D is its own genre of fantasy. The thread question is: can D&D do different kinds of fantasy, and still be D&D?

 

[SothFan]

D&D Fantasy may have begun with Appendix N, but it has morphed into an ourorobos of itself, video games, paperback fantasy and itself again. D&D is its own genre of fantasy. The thread question is: can D&D do different kinds of fantasy, and still be D&D?

Yes I know, but D&D fantasy is built upon those things from Appendix N originally. So is a current version not so closely tied to it still D&D, or has it already become something else?

Would you be able to set up tables playing 70s version, 80s version, 90s version, etc, Pathfinder, Daggerheart, Draw Steel (this is the Colville one or is that Cosmere?); and walk past each and without seeing the books know which was D&D and which was not? How would you tell if not by the "Appendix N" that drives them?