Do you think Eberron will go the way of Ghostwalk?

[buzz]

D&D already is "pulp fantasy", which is Conan, as opposed to "pulp", which is apparently Eberron.

Is D&D "pulp fantasy"? I'd always been told that D&D is "High Fantasy", and sometimes "Epic."

Assuming the Action Point rules in Eberron are at all like the ones presented in UA, I'd think that the setting was adding a "pulpiness" that's been quite absent in core D&D.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

Well said Johnny.

The real world is diverse but not incoherent. It makes sense.

Does it? Really? Do we all know the reason why everything is the way it is?

No.

(And I'm not picking on you personally Belegbeth. I'm just quoting you to illustrate my point to everyone.)

One thing to keep in mind is that there is no way to explain EVERYTHING that appears in a campaign setting, more so one so diverse as Eberron. That said, who cares? Will your PCs ever need to know every little detail about all of the entire world's history? Is it so terrible to have to make up something that's not in the book?

Every campaign before Eberron shared one thing. It could be described as "It's like D&D, but take away XXX". You are always forced to remove something, and that something might have been very interesting.

Eberron is different because it has a place for everything and a great deal of effort is being put into finding a logical place for those things. At least, as much as a fantasy setting can be logical. Suspension of disbelief and offering a place to explore are the primary goals and I have no doubt the designers will pull that off.

Diversity is a good thing. A very good thing. But you can't expect a setting to come prepackaged with a back story that will fill in every single little detail regarding how the setting became so diverse. The very idea is ludicrous. It couldn't be done in 5000 pages.

So, you take this very diverse setting and you set the PCs down where you want to start them out. You use the information you've been given to provide the framework for your stories. The DM fills in the missing details as needed and everyone has fun.

 

[sluggo the sleazebag]

Frankly, little about Eberron seems coherent or well-developed. Maybe that will change once we have the book, but until then, I have to say that it looks little more than a hodge-podge of previously released settings.

 

[reiella]

Every campaign before Eberron shared one thing. It could be described as "It's like D&D, but take away XXX". You are always forced to remove something, and that something might have been very interesting.

Not that I necessarily disagree with your post, but this part here intrigues me.

What does Forgotten Realms take away? What does Greyhawk take away? And what did Planescape take away?

From what I can tell, Eberron is more "adding" to the core assumptions (or more accurately, extrapolating the effects of magic on a society) than 'not reomving them'.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

What does Forgotten Realms take away? What does Greyhawk take away? And what did Planescape take away?

Lets not count Greyhawk because Greyhawk IS D&D. Everything goes there, but their isn't much consideration for logic. I'll give that one to you since I never meant to imply otherwise.

Forgotten Realms - "It's like D&D, but take away the chance of your character really being important."
Instead of the characters being the heroes of the story, you have to contend with one of dozens of more powerful individuels or groups who would have logicly done a better job than the PCs. A DM can contrive reasons for the PCs to be heroes, in fact he is almost forced to, but it becomes a pain. That said, I'll give you FR too. It's concept is similar to Eberron, but the "D&Disms" were forced into FR while Eberron is being built around these things from the start.

Planescape - "It's like D&D, but take away a great many traditional fantasy conventions."
While Planescape is perhaps the most diverse setting ever created, in being so, it seperates itself from a more "typical" D&D playing style. It has a certain flavor that overwrites the flavor of a typical D&D game.

I'm not saying that the settings aren't great, they are. But, you still loose something there. In FR, it mainly comes from the proliferation of high level NPCs and the fact that many D&D concepts are "shoe-horned" in. You could ignore the high level NPCs and such, but then your campaign starts to deviate from the "canon" FR setting significantly. In Planescape, it is a change of style and stability. Not a bad thing, but certainly different.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

From what I can tell, Eberron is more "adding" to the core assumptions (or more accurately, extrapolating the effects of magic on a society) than 'not reomving them'.

Indeed it is. I personally like this and the best part is the fact that the additions are ,in many cases, pretty easy to ignore for DMs who don't care for them.

I'm looking forward to a setting that adds new concepts and options. That's not to say that I don't like a setting that imposes limitations. My favorite setting is Midnight after all, and it could read "Midnight is like D&D, but take away everything that promotes happiness and security."

 

[am181d]

...and no contemporary concepts or anachronisms at all, like calling people "dame"? Or being a detective? That sort of thing?

It sounds like you're basing some of your opinion on quotes from Baker's original setting document. Everywhere I've seen that reprinted, I've also seen it stated pretty clearly that those kinds of anachronisms do NOT play a part in the finished setting.

It's one thing to not like a setting based on what what you've read. It's another thing to not like a setting based on what you absent-mindedly skimmed...

 

[RichGreen]

Hi,

I think Eberron looks rather good. I don't really need another campaign setting, but the pulp-noir thing sounds like an interesting twist on standard D&D.

I also like Ghostwalk and am toying with the idea of having PCs that die in my new campaign come back as ghosts. Has anyone else tried using the ghost rules without using the whole setting?

Cheers


Richard

 

[rounser]

Is D&D "pulp fantasy"? I'd always been told that D&D is "High Fantasy", and sometimes "Epic."

Look at the recommended reading list in the 1E DMG. D&D's main influences are arguably pulp fantasy....although arguably they're also epic fantasy (Tolkien), dark fantasy (Moorcock) and now, high fantasy (3E ruleset bumping up the magic level further). I will give you that D&D has gone down it's own paths since the early days. FR is arguably high fantasy, Dark Sun arguably dark future fantasy etc.

Assuming the Action Point rules in Eberron are at all like the ones presented in UA, I'd think that the setting was adding a "pulpiness" that's been quite absent in core D&D.

D&D is already highly pulp fantasy - you can fight all day like Conan, with no permanent mutilation, for instance, and it's chock full of pulp fantasy cliches, from the monsters to the classes. "Action Points", from what I gather, could be supportive of any kind of heroism, not just contemporary pulp.

I'd argue that if you're looking for pulp fantasy in the Conan sense rather than pulp in the Indiana Jones sense, Eberron is looking so far like the wrong place. Judges Guild looks like it has pulp fantasy sewn right up with the Wilderlands...Conan or the Scorpion King would feel right at home.

 

[Roman]

I am not at all a fan of the steampunk (or cyberpunk, or any other -punk) genre, so I am not going to buy the Eberron campaign setting. My interest in Eberron extends only as far as the impact of Eberron on other WotC past, current and potential campaign settings. I hope they will not be further marginalized. If you enjoy steampunk, though, then you will probably enjoy Eberron and more power to you.