Eberron-as corny as I think?

[Jürgen Hubert]

Not corny. And restricting "fantasy" to "pseudo-medieval fantasy" seems rather limiting IMO.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Eh? It brags about how it turns magic into industry (like that's a good thing or something).

Well, why is it automatically supposed to be a bad thing, then?

 

[Maggan]

How did Eberron become a major D&D setting? It doesn't seem like fantasy at all. I mean, it has robots warforged and airplanes airships. It seems like somebody was trying to make "science fictasy"

Nah, Eberron is cool. And robots and airships has been part of D&D since the early days, so I fail to see why Eberron using warforged and flying ships would invalidate it as a D&D setting.

Hmmmm ... I remember playing Earthshaker, an adventure for the D&D Companion Set, which featured a steamdriven giant robot manned by gnomes ... And it was fun and fantasy to me.

/M

 

[Buttercup]

Well, I don't play it or "love it", but I certainly don't think it's "corny."

Corny isn't the word I'd use to describe it either. It isn't my taste at all, but clearly it resonates with lots of people, so WotC knew what they were doing.

 

[Numion]

Nah, Eberron is cool. And robots and airships has been part of D&D since the early days, so I fail to see why Eberron using warforged and flying ships would invalidate it as a D&D setting.

Hmmmm ... I remember playing Earthshaker, an adventure for the D&D Companion Set, which featured a steamdriven giant robot manned by gnomes ... And it was fun and fantasy to me.

AC11: Wondrous Inventions was released in 1987, almost 20 years ago. It had magic as appliances, submarines, whatever. So you're absolutely right, these 'ills' weere never a product of 3E.

 

[rounser]

Well, why is it automatically supposed to be a bad thing, then?

Got into an ongoing argument about this very topic, recently, here:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=166229&page=6

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Got into an ongoing argument about this very topic, recently, here:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=166229&page=6

And I'm not buying your argument there:

Exploring the logical consequences of magic on society is like exploring the consequences of physics on a dragon; the fantasy comes crashing to the ground, and the magic loses it's magic. Geeks love to analyse systems, but exploring the "logical consequences" of fantasy is like overanalysing romance; by analysing it and tying up it's loose threads, you kill it stone dead.

It boggles my mind that you think pinning down fantasy as a quantifiable cause-and-effect thing (i.e. a science) is going to improve sensawunda, instead of inevitably grinding it to dust.

If a setting is a fantasy setting, then that only means that it has supernatural elements which don't work or exist on Earth. No definition of "fantasy" I am aware of states that fantasy must not be internally self-consistent.

In fact, giving some thought to why things are the way the are - whether you are using a classical pseudo-medieval world or a pseudo-industrial one - can go a long way towards making suspension of disbelief easier. This is especially important when you deal with players, who are a crafty and devious lot and will quickly spot any inconsistencies and either (a) suspect some huge conspiracy where there is none or (b) come up with their own "get rich quick" scheme that exploits these inconsistencies.

 

[rounser]

No definition of "fantasy" I am aware of states that fantasy must not be internally self-consistent.

Which isn't what I'm arguing, so I'm quite in agreement with you there.

This is especially important when you deal with players, who are a crafty and devious lot and will quickly spot any inconsistencies and either (a) suspect some huge conspiracy where there is none or

There is a huge conspiracy built into the rules - the DM challenges the party with encounters that they can handle at that level. There's probably half a dozen more that relate back to D&D being a game, as well.

(b) come up with their own "get rich quick" scheme that exploits these inconsistencies.

When the PCs are level 18, they're in an excellent position to hang a good deal of the NPC world out to dry, if they wanted to. Explain to me why most parties don't do that - I suspect it's an unspoken agreement with the DM not to ruin the game....there's only so far alignment can guarantee good behaviour (e.g. a neutral good merchant might still rip you off).

The reason why most PCs don't write down the cost of goods from one town to the next and suddenly give up dungeoneering for selling fruit ("Ha! Apples cost 1cp in the last village, and 2cp here! I can make 100% profit!") is because this is D&D, not Sim Fantasy Merchant. You could expand the game to explore that, but most D&D players would rather adventure, I'd imagine.

 

[Glyfair]

I disagree - one of the constraints from the initial search was that the setting needed to be playable using the core rules, which means there had to be elves and dwarves and orcs, fire-and-forget magic, divine magic and its dedicated practitioners, paladins and monks, and so on.

Well, if that's your definition, I'll give you that. I don't see anything wrong with a D&D setting being designed to play with the D&D rules, but Eberron fits that profile. Of course, so has every single D&D setting (or metasetting) ever published.

 

[jdrakeh]

I take it you're not terribly familiar with the 'pulp' literature of the early 1900s?

Or the rather large body of distinctly non-medieval, non-European, fantasy (e.g., The Dying Earth, Blue World, Perdidio Street Station, Grimm's World, et al).