D&D General Greyhawk, Eberron, and Genre in Campaign Settings

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Supporter
Moving somewhat tangentially from the wonderful news about Greyhawk (#GREYHAWKCONFIRMED!), I thought I'd go more deeply into a discussion about why there is a limit to analogies regarding campaign settings and genre. While I normally discuss this topic in terms of 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:
"Eberron is a noir and pulp fantasy campaign setting in which magic has been harnessed to fuel an industrial revolution."
"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."

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 not 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 Succession?

Tortoise: Connor. I find his eulogy of Mo to be incredibly funny.

Achilles: So, Succession 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! 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.

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 differences 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 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 the "high fantasy" of defeating Iuz on Greyhawk. Perhaps they are just do some regular murderhobo 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 some genre 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. So, going back to Greyhawk, it is fundamentally a Sword & Sorcery setting, but that doesn't mean that you are required to play it that way. The influences are there, but whether you engage with them or not is your choice.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I've had people look at me with a straight face while telling me Alien (1979) isn't a science fiction movie. As pointed out by our learned Professor @Snarf Zagyg, Ph.D (Piled Higher and Deeper), genre can be difficult to define at times. As an undergrandute I took an anthropology course called Gender & Science Fiction, and on the first day the professor told us we'd be using a broad definition of science fiction. For my project, I analysed Tarnsman of Gor (1966), which is typically classified in the science fiction sub genere of sword & planet.

I find it's usually not too useful to be too strict about genre. You end up just trying to decide what genre the story belongs to without getting around to talking about the story.
 

Settings don't dictate play, because TTRPGs are fundamentally open in the way they require completion by the players. But I think the best settings are narrow and specific in terms of their scope and general aesthetic, and the ones that are less interesting to me are the kitchen sink settings that try to accommodate any kind of story. Doskvol is a brilliant setting for example, specifically because it works so well for the type of stories you might want to tell with Blades in the Dark.
 

I find it's usually not too useful to be too strict about genre. You end up just trying to decide what genre the story belongs to without getting around to talking about the story.

Oh, I know! Just try defining what is (or isn't) science fiction.....
 

Settings don't dictate play, because TTRPGs are fundamentally open in the way they require completion by the players. But I think the best settings are narrow and specific in terms of their scope and general aesthetic, and the ones that are less interesting to me are the kitchen sink settings that try to accommodate any kind of story. Doskvol is a brilliant setting for example, specifically because it works so well for the type of stories you might want to tell with Blades in the Dark.

I tend to agree- because of the issues with second order design, the setting cannot dictate the play.

But ... a tight setting with a distinct point of view can certainly ensure that more players are likely to engage with it.

(Yes, Doskvol is a great setting.)
 


Slightly off topic here, but has anyone used Eberron to run a noir-style game?

My Eberron experience have been flamboyantly pulpy with over-competent characters succeeding against all odds, which is as opposite to noir as I can conceive. Whereas Blade Runner can be seen as a (neo) noir film, my games were closer to The Fifth Element.
 

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. So, going back to Greyhawk, it is fundamentally a Sword & Sorcery setting, but that doesn't mean that you are required to play it that way. The influences are there, but whether you engage with them or not is your choice.
Agreed.

I find discussions like these interesting useful despite the fact that I rarely set out to deliberately work in genre. When writing campaigns and adventures, I find it helpful on occasion to pause the creative process and ask the text in progress how it best fits the criteria of a genre. Knowing what tradition I’m working in—even if it's only approxamate—helps me recognize tropes and devices of the genre that I have not yet deployed but might wish to. And, if I want to subvert the genre in which I’ve found myself working (which, knowing me, I probably do), it helps to know the genre’s anatomy.

On the flip side, I have found that actively working in a genre presents the risk of limiting creativity. The more specific the genre, the more precise its parameters, the more difficult it becomes to bring in foreign elements from other genres due to the expectations we ourselves and our players have about them. I don't think there's a thing wrong with using a genre as a formal blueprint for an adventure, but I also don't think that it's wrong for DMs to fuse genres for our own purposes—nefarious and otherwise.
 

Is Eberron dungeonpunk? What is the difference between pulp and noir?

We may agree Greyhawk is relalively low fantasy in the sense the characters need more muscle and brain than magic or superpowers.

What happens with Greyhawk? Practically it the "opera prima", the first setting. With this the hobby was born but now after decades of experience we may realises things can be done in another way. Greyhawk was awesome for its age, but now it is not very ready for all the changes about crunch and lore. There are lots of new PC species and "subclasses". Greyhawk was the default setting in 3rd Ed but the lore or metaplot was practically frozen. There are unexplored zones, even complete continents, in the planet. What is the social and cultural impact of visitors from Spelljammer or Planescape?
 

Remove ads

Top