Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
Moving somewhat tangentially from the previous 3,804 threads on Greyhawk (numbers are approximate), I thought I'd go more deeply into a discussion about why there is a limit to analogies regarding campaign settings and genre. While this topic originally came up regarding Greyhawk and "Swords and Sorcery" (S&S), I thought I'd first look at why this is necessarily a limited discussion by examining a slightly different campaign setting .... Eberron.
1. Eberron as a Noir Setting.
Brief primer- Eberron is a campaign setting designed by Keith Baker. When people discuss Eberron, one of the main descriptions they use is "noir." We see multiple people refer to it as such here:
@The Mirrorball Man "Eberron is a noir and pulp fantasy campaign setting in which magic has been harnessed to fuel an industrial revolution."
@doctorbadwolf "My players are about to get their first real taste of that in a while in my Eberron game, which is normally more grounded and noir/pulp inspired."
The reason why these statements are so universal is because they are accurate, and because that's how Keith Baker describes the setting.
"Eberron is designed with two story poles in mind: pulp adventure and noir intrigue."
Source: (no title)
So there is almost universal agreement that Eberron was designed with "noir" in mind and is a "noir" setting. But what exactly does "noir" mean? Now we get to the confusing part. We can look to Keith Baker's own brief definition: "[N]oir intrigue thrives on shades of gray, uncertainty, and on questions that don’t have simple answers." "One of the basic principles of noir is that the system is unreliable—either corrupt, blind, or toothless." Okay! But what does "noir" really mean? Where did "noir" come from?
2. Noir as a Genre in Film.
A film noir (black, or dark film) was a descriptive term to describe a particular set of films that emerged from Hollywood during and immediately after World War 2.
The biggest problem with defining film noir as a coherent body of film is that there are certain aspects that define it (noir-esque) but none that are exclusive to the genre. While most people, in common parlance, might think of such signifiers as "Detective" or "Femme Fatale" or "Urban" or "Amorality" as markers of the genre, none of these are required.
For that matter, while many would look to visual signifiers as well (use of black & white film, chiaroscuro lighting, use of blinds and other elements to create shadows and/or obscure elements on screen including characters' faces), this also isn't universal.
Finally, there is the assumed given that film noir has a pessimistic outlook. As Keith Baker put it above- the system is corrupt, blind, or toothless. Nevertheless, most of the classic film noirs reject moral ambiguity in whole or in part because they were filmed under a production code that required the triumph of virtue. If you think about a canonical film noir, like Double Indemnity, it is dark; and yet, at the end, the system isn't corrupt, blind, or toothless, and amorality (and immorality) is punished.
But here's the thing- despite the amorphousness of the concept, it is still possible to have intelligent conversations about "film noir." It is perfectly possible to discuss both The Third Man and Double Indemnity as great film noirs, despite differences between them; one can easily see how Chinatown is a noir (or neo-noir) even though it is in color and has other modernist flourishes; it is certainly possible to see Brick as playing with the genre conventions of the noir even though it is a thoroughly modern movie set in a high school. For those keeping up with current television, the reboot of Perry Mason borrows heavily from noir elements.
3. Noir as a Literary Genre.
Noir, in terms of literature, was largely "borrowed back" from the film term. So you had a film genre, some of the films being based on detective novels from the likes of Raymond Chandler (the creator of Phillip Marlowe, memorably played by Humphrey Bogart) and Dashiell Hammett (creator of Sam Spade, memorably played by ... Humphrey Bogart) that was called noir, and then that term was later used to describe a certain type of literature- but not the "hardboiled" detective literature that had been adapted for film noir. When you exclude the hardboiled from literary noir, you are left with something more akin to Baker's description- systemic corruption, lose-lose scenarios, incredibly flawed heroes (verging on "anti-heroes"), and extremely dark subject matter.
Noir is no right or wrong, just shades of gray. As James Ellroy, probably the most prominent practitioner of noir fiction, put it, noir "indicts the other subgenres of the hard-boiled school as sissified, and canonizes the inherent human urge toward self-destruction.”
But here, too, we see the inherent problems with the genre label. It's a feel, not a rote recitation of factors. The Postman Always Rings Twice, No Country for Old Men, The Tell-Tale Heart ... they are all "noir" by many definitions. Then again, so is Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.
4. Genre is Hard to Define.
A conversation...
Achilles: What is the difference between a comedy and a drama?
Tortoise: A comedy has jokes, a drama does not.
Achilles: Ah, I see. Who is your favorite character in the new show, Raised by Wolves?
Tortoise: Father. I like that he tells jokes in a semblance of humanity.
Achilles: So, Raised by Wolves is a comedy.
Tortoise: ...this is going to be a long conversation.
Genres are necessarily hard to define, both because any list of concepts that define a genre cannot be exclusive and exhaustive, and because there will be countless examples of works that are on the outermost edges of the genre, or play against the genre types. Does a work that specifically subverts its genre (Scream, Unforgiven) also belong to the genre it subverts? At what point does a work that lies between two genres become a genre to itself (dramedy, romantic comedy)? What about genres that necessarily overlap (film noir, drama, melodrama)?
I say these things not because I have answers, but because the questions themselves should show the difficulty! Looking back at some of these threads, we know that "Swords & Sorcery" was a term coined by a specific author (Fritz Leiber) to describe the stories of REH's Conan (to show how everything is related, Leiber used the term to rebut Moorcock who said that Conan was "epic fantasy") and later, his own Lankhmar stories. Of course, given the vagaries of time, popularity, and Arnold's biceps, the term is now most closely associated with REH's Conan. I always thought that this attempt at going through the differences (that we have all had our own issues with) to be most helpful:
io9.gizmodo.com
The point is, genres (and subgenres) are difficult to define. And the more works you try to put in there, the more elusive it becomes; just take Conan, please. (heh). Conan has 17 published stories by REH, an additional 4 "complete" and more unfinished- before getting into issues of rewriting and other who wrote within the world of Conan (the Hyborian Age). Of course there are difference between some of these stories, such that some universal maxims (stakes are small ... stakes are large) could not apply. And that's before getting into numerous other stories that traditionally make up the S&S canon.
It's the same with almost any genre. If I have a friend who likes comedies such as Airplane and Anchorman, and they ask me for a recommendation for a great comedy, and I tell that friend that one of my favorite recent comedies is The Lobster ... they will probably end up confused and/or upset ... at the very least, questioning my judgment ("How can that be a comedy? I didn't laugh one time!"). But absurdist dark comedies are still comedies- just very different. This is why discussions of genre among people generally familiar with the topic can be enlightening and helpful, but when the discussion lacks salient information, it can be less helpful. Imagine the two of us attempting to describe comedies to each other in order to define what a comedy "is", if his only frame of reference was Airplane and mine was The Lobster; hardly a productive conversation.
5. Why this Matters for Campaign Settings.
At a sufficiently high level, all basic D&D campaign settings are the same genre- they are all fantasy. The primary difference between a campaign setting in a TTRPG like D&D, and a text (such as a film or a book) is that the text is written; it cannot be changed. It was conceived as being something (a plot) and that plot was carried through. There was not uncertainty, or die rolls.* Elmore Leonard does not set out to write a great noir book, and then at the end realizes he has somehow written a screwball comedy.
On the other hand, while "meta plots" and adventure paths are common in D&D today, it is still the case that the PCs can go off the best-laid rails. It might not be zero-to-hero, it might be zero-to-dies by an unfortunate series of events at second level. And while the "world" might be constructed in noir, or S&S, or steampunk, or some other fashion, it will always be the case that players and their PCs will be able to find some part of the world in which to have an adventure that doesn't belong to it. Perhaps they are hard-boiled, amoral adventurers on Toril. Or maybe they are swept up in defeating Iuz on Greyhawk. Perhaps they are just do some regular hobomurder play in Eberron.
In that way, I don't think it's helpful to think of a campaign setting as dictating play. Instead, I view it as follows:
A. The creator is influenced by genre. An individual (Baker, Gygax) is influenced by genres (Noir, S&S). The campaign setting will reflect some of that influence. For more ... corporate settings (Theros) we can ascribe it as well (Heroic, Greek).
B. The campaign setting is conducive to certain styles of play. This is a more nebulous concept, but if the setting reflects certain influences, then it means that it contains the material to reflect those tropes in play, if the DM and the players choose to engage with it.
* I am excluding certain experimental forms, such as William S. Burroughs' use of cut ups.
Conclusion
While I think discussion of genre can be helpful, the fuzziness of the definitions of genres (and especially sub-genres) and the lack of applicability in certain situations with regard to TTRPGs can lead to more heat and less light.
1. Eberron as a Noir Setting.
Brief primer- Eberron is a campaign setting designed by Keith Baker. When people discuss Eberron, one of the main descriptions they use is "noir." We see multiple people refer to it as such here:
@The Mirrorball Man "Eberron is a noir and pulp fantasy campaign setting in which magic has been harnessed to fuel an industrial revolution."
@doctorbadwolf "My players are about to get their first real taste of that in a while in my Eberron game, which is normally more grounded and noir/pulp inspired."
The reason why these statements are so universal is because they are accurate, and because that's how Keith Baker describes the setting.
"Eberron is designed with two story poles in mind: pulp adventure and noir intrigue."
Source: (no title)
So there is almost universal agreement that Eberron was designed with "noir" in mind and is a "noir" setting. But what exactly does "noir" mean? Now we get to the confusing part. We can look to Keith Baker's own brief definition: "[N]oir intrigue thrives on shades of gray, uncertainty, and on questions that don’t have simple answers." "One of the basic principles of noir is that the system is unreliable—either corrupt, blind, or toothless." Okay! But what does "noir" really mean? Where did "noir" come from?
2. Noir as a Genre in Film.
A film noir (black, or dark film) was a descriptive term to describe a particular set of films that emerged from Hollywood during and immediately after World War 2.
The biggest problem with defining film noir as a coherent body of film is that there are certain aspects that define it (noir-esque) but none that are exclusive to the genre. While most people, in common parlance, might think of such signifiers as "Detective" or "Femme Fatale" or "Urban" or "Amorality" as markers of the genre, none of these are required.
For that matter, while many would look to visual signifiers as well (use of black & white film, chiaroscuro lighting, use of blinds and other elements to create shadows and/or obscure elements on screen including characters' faces), this also isn't universal.
Finally, there is the assumed given that film noir has a pessimistic outlook. As Keith Baker put it above- the system is corrupt, blind, or toothless. Nevertheless, most of the classic film noirs reject moral ambiguity in whole or in part because they were filmed under a production code that required the triumph of virtue. If you think about a canonical film noir, like Double Indemnity, it is dark; and yet, at the end, the system isn't corrupt, blind, or toothless, and amorality (and immorality) is punished.
The entire story is framed around a confession; despite the so-called "perfect crime," the investigator eventually uncovers the truth and the people involved, while not brought to justice, die. The system was not corrupt- while the film is certainly dark, the "system" prevailed.
But here's the thing- despite the amorphousness of the concept, it is still possible to have intelligent conversations about "film noir." It is perfectly possible to discuss both The Third Man and Double Indemnity as great film noirs, despite differences between them; one can easily see how Chinatown is a noir (or neo-noir) even though it is in color and has other modernist flourishes; it is certainly possible to see Brick as playing with the genre conventions of the noir even though it is a thoroughly modern movie set in a high school. For those keeping up with current television, the reboot of Perry Mason borrows heavily from noir elements.
3. Noir as a Literary Genre.
Noir, in terms of literature, was largely "borrowed back" from the film term. So you had a film genre, some of the films being based on detective novels from the likes of Raymond Chandler (the creator of Phillip Marlowe, memorably played by Humphrey Bogart) and Dashiell Hammett (creator of Sam Spade, memorably played by ... Humphrey Bogart) that was called noir, and then that term was later used to describe a certain type of literature- but not the "hardboiled" detective literature that had been adapted for film noir. When you exclude the hardboiled from literary noir, you are left with something more akin to Baker's description- systemic corruption, lose-lose scenarios, incredibly flawed heroes (verging on "anti-heroes"), and extremely dark subject matter.
Noir is no right or wrong, just shades of gray. As James Ellroy, probably the most prominent practitioner of noir fiction, put it, noir "indicts the other subgenres of the hard-boiled school as sissified, and canonizes the inherent human urge toward self-destruction.”
But here, too, we see the inherent problems with the genre label. It's a feel, not a rote recitation of factors. The Postman Always Rings Twice, No Country for Old Men, The Tell-Tale Heart ... they are all "noir" by many definitions. Then again, so is Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.
4. Genre is Hard to Define.
A conversation...
Achilles: What is the difference between a comedy and a drama?
Tortoise: A comedy has jokes, a drama does not.
Achilles: Ah, I see. Who is your favorite character in the new show, Raised by Wolves?
Tortoise: Father. I like that he tells jokes in a semblance of humanity.
Achilles: So, Raised by Wolves is a comedy.
Tortoise: ...this is going to be a long conversation.
Genres are necessarily hard to define, both because any list of concepts that define a genre cannot be exclusive and exhaustive, and because there will be countless examples of works that are on the outermost edges of the genre, or play against the genre types. Does a work that specifically subverts its genre (Scream, Unforgiven) also belong to the genre it subverts? At what point does a work that lies between two genres become a genre to itself (dramedy, romantic comedy)? What about genres that necessarily overlap (film noir, drama, melodrama)?
I say these things not because I have answers, but because the questions themselves should show the difficulty! Looking back at some of these threads, we know that "Swords & Sorcery" was a term coined by a specific author (Fritz Leiber) to describe the stories of REH's Conan (to show how everything is related, Leiber used the term to rebut Moorcock who said that Conan was "epic fantasy") and later, his own Lankhmar stories. Of course, given the vagaries of time, popularity, and Arnold's biceps, the term is now most closely associated with REH's Conan. I always thought that this attempt at going through the differences (that we have all had our own issues with) to be most helpful:
What's The Difference Between Epic Fantasy And Sword-And-Sorcery?
As an editor at Pyr Books, Lou Anders has published tons of fantasy novels of all stripes. But now he's crafted his own fantasy novel, Frostborn, in the sword-and-sorcery tradition that goes back to Conan. But what's the difference between "epic fantasy" and "sword and sorcery"? Anders explains.
io9.gizmodo.com
The point is, genres (and subgenres) are difficult to define. And the more works you try to put in there, the more elusive it becomes; just take Conan, please. (heh). Conan has 17 published stories by REH, an additional 4 "complete" and more unfinished- before getting into issues of rewriting and other who wrote within the world of Conan (the Hyborian Age). Of course there are difference between some of these stories, such that some universal maxims (stakes are small ... stakes are large) could not apply. And that's before getting into numerous other stories that traditionally make up the S&S canon.
It's the same with almost any genre. If I have a friend who likes comedies such as Airplane and Anchorman, and they ask me for a recommendation for a great comedy, and I tell that friend that one of my favorite recent comedies is The Lobster ... they will probably end up confused and/or upset ... at the very least, questioning my judgment ("How can that be a comedy? I didn't laugh one time!"). But absurdist dark comedies are still comedies- just very different. This is why discussions of genre among people generally familiar with the topic can be enlightening and helpful, but when the discussion lacks salient information, it can be less helpful. Imagine the two of us attempting to describe comedies to each other in order to define what a comedy "is", if his only frame of reference was Airplane and mine was The Lobster; hardly a productive conversation.
5. Why this Matters for Campaign Settings.
At a sufficiently high level, all basic D&D campaign settings are the same genre- they are all fantasy. The primary difference between a campaign setting in a TTRPG like D&D, and a text (such as a film or a book) is that the text is written; it cannot be changed. It was conceived as being something (a plot) and that plot was carried through. There was not uncertainty, or die rolls.* Elmore Leonard does not set out to write a great noir book, and then at the end realizes he has somehow written a screwball comedy.
On the other hand, while "meta plots" and adventure paths are common in D&D today, it is still the case that the PCs can go off the best-laid rails. It might not be zero-to-hero, it might be zero-to-dies by an unfortunate series of events at second level. And while the "world" might be constructed in noir, or S&S, or steampunk, or some other fashion, it will always be the case that players and their PCs will be able to find some part of the world in which to have an adventure that doesn't belong to it. Perhaps they are hard-boiled, amoral adventurers on Toril. Or maybe they are swept up in defeating Iuz on Greyhawk. Perhaps they are just do some regular hobomurder play in Eberron.
In that way, I don't think it's helpful to think of a campaign setting as dictating play. Instead, I view it as follows:
A. The creator is influenced by genre. An individual (Baker, Gygax) is influenced by genres (Noir, S&S). The campaign setting will reflect some of that influence. For more ... corporate settings (Theros) we can ascribe it as well (Heroic, Greek).
B. The campaign setting is conducive to certain styles of play. This is a more nebulous concept, but if the setting reflects certain influences, then it means that it contains the material to reflect those tropes in play, if the DM and the players choose to engage with it.
* I am excluding certain experimental forms, such as William S. Burroughs' use of cut ups.
Conclusion
While I think discussion of genre can be helpful, the fuzziness of the definitions of genres (and especially sub-genres) and the lack of applicability in certain situations with regard to TTRPGs can lead to more heat and less light.
Last edited:
