What makes a setting dull?

[Desdichado]

Which is completely bass-ackward. The simulation defining what is simulated.

D&D isn't a simulation. In any case, the D&D rules have never simulated any fantasy setting that I'm aware of anyway, so I don't know what point you're trying to make with that. In my opinion, there's a big mismatch between Greyhawk as a setting and the rules that one is supposed to use to play in Greyhawk.

Thank you for making my case for me, because IMO this design goal is an exhibit A in not understanding D&D or what makes it's fantastic side tick. It's how to make magic unmagical, and speaks volumes of just who's in charge of the game now and how they think. This goal, far from being quintessential to D&D, is anathema to it (except perhaps 4E, which is based on similar ideologies).

OK. Or, it could be "finally, designers that understand both fantasy and D&D and developed a setting that maximizes their potential rather than pissing it away in nonsensical whimsy." This does indeed speak volumes of who's in charge of the game and how they think, and what it says is that they're geniuses.

The idea of 4e being based on this ideology doesn't make any sense to me, though, since 4e is a new mechanical ruleset, not a setting, therefore you can't design 4e as a setting that matches the rules. In fact, I can't for the life of me even figure out what you could be trying to say there.

 

[Desdichado]

Not impressed. Nothing interesting here yet. And nostalgia aside, Eberron is aesthetically unappealing to me, from the art direction to the anachronisms to the "attitude" to the wannabe-another-genreisms to the kitchen sinking to the wahoo PC races to the dragon-everything to the thematic incoherence.

Aesthetically unappealing is fine. I'm curious what settings you do like. So we can all point out how incoherent they are relative to Eberron, of course. Eberron is the least incoherent setting D&D has ever officially generated.

Doesn't matter how powerful or not. Magic shouldn't be an everyday thing, integrated into society, if you want it to stay magical. It's completely missing the point, unless you want some weird flying carpet postal service setting.

Balderdash. By that same reasoning, magic shouldn't be mechanically defined and available to the PCs every day in order to stay magical.

That's just completely inane. Magic doesn't become less magical just because Sharn has everburning torches acting like fantasy streetlights, or whatever. If anything, it becomes moreso. In order for something to evoke the "magical" feeling, it has to be demonstrated, after all, not hidden away.

(Maybe another reason I find eberron deeply uninteresting is that some of it reminds me of a homebrew I did i high school, complete with "scourgelands" [sort of nuclear fallout-esque dark magic regions that are the aftermath of a war, can't sustain life, and keep growing] and even warforged analogs, although mine were magically genetically engineered mongol clones originally used as an army, but since "programmed" by their culture and tradition to hide and protect the fell artifacts that were used to create the scourgelands. Nothing new under the sun.)

Ah, yes. Eberron is just rehashing your old high school ideas. Indeed.

 

[rounser]

D&D isn't a simulation. In any case, the D&D rules have never simulated any fantasy setting that I'm aware of anyway, so I don't know what point you're trying to make with that.

It had a stab at representing a mish mash of swords and sorcery worlds and tropes originally.

D&D always had D&Disms in the PC races and classes (eg. clerics), but these D&Disms should IMO be reduced to make it more relevant to other fantasy, not increasing them to make it more irrelevant to anyone but the hardcore initiated.

4e is a new mechanical ruleset, not a setting

4E has an implied setting. It implies that dragonborn exist in 4E worlds, for instance.

This does indeed speak volumes of who's in charge of the game and how they think, and what it says is that they're geniuses.

Maybe I'm just not seeing the genius, here. But I'd agree that if they found a way to keep everyone happy, then they'd be geniuses.

 

[rounser]

Eberron is the least incoherent setting D&D has ever officially generated.

It can't even be summarised in a paragraph as to what it's about (some designer's observation as to what was wrong with it compared to other settings). It tries to be all things to all people.

Ah, yes. Eberron is just rehashing your old high school ideas. Indeed.

Concurrent invention happens all the time, so quit with the sarcasm - I'm not implying they stole the idea. A whole bunch of people thought up flying island settings and thought they were being original too, apparently.

Magic doesn't become less magical just because Sharn has everburning torches acting like fantasy streetlights, or whatever. If anything, it becomes moreso. In order for something to evoke the "magical" feeling, it has to be demonstrated, after all, not hidden away.

LOL, you've got it completely backward, but then you like Eberron.

 

[Desdichado]

It had a stab at representing a mish mash of swords and sorcery worlds and tropes originally.

It had a stab at represeting a mish mash of swords and sorcery worlds and tropes with a thick layering of high fantasy tropes and a ton of bizarre science fiction and Lovecraftian tropes thrown in as iconic elements at the same time. Plus, monsters based on toys. How you can possibly complain about incoherence in the one setting that actually tried to put a lot of that junk into a sensible framework rather than just toss it in willy-nilly has my mind boggling over here. Boggling. For real.

D&D always had D&Disms in the PC races and classes (eg. clerics), but these D&Disms should IMO be reduced to make it more relevant to other fantasy, not increasing them to make it more irrelevant to anyone but the hardcore initiated.

More relative to what fantasy? Howard and Leiber? Vance? Besides, are dragonborn or tieflings now a D&Dism? I can see what point you're trying to make here, but I think the evidence is completely against it. It just doesn't match the picture on the ground of what D&D has ever actually resembled.

4E has an implied setting. It implies that dragonborn exist in 4E worlds, for instance.

ZOMG! The incoherence!

So?

It can't even be summarised in a paragraph as to what it's about (some designer's observation as to what was wrong with it compared to other settings). It tries to be all things to all people.

No, it really doesn't. In fact, that's a really bizarre claim to make; it's clearly a fairly polarizing setting, not one that tries to be all things to all people. Forgotten Realms is the setting that tries to be all things to all people. Eberron tries to be something unique.

LOL, you've got it completely backward, but then you like Eberron.

No, I've got it completely forward. But, meh.

 

[avin]

ZOMG! The incoherence!

So?

Not taking parts on discussion (I seldom use premade settings) per se but you said 4E is a ruleset but Rounser has a point, 4E has an implied setting so it's fair to consider it kinda setting too.

 

[Desdichado]

Not taking parts on discussion (I seldom use premade settings) per se but you said 4E is a ruleset but Rounser has a point, 4E has an implied setting so it's fair to consider it kinda setting too.

Yes, but that hint of an implied setting doesn't exhibit the same kind of setting design methodology that Eberron does. For that matter, it doesn't exist in a complete enough framework to really evaluate much anyway.

So, sure, I don't disagree. But I still say, "So?"

 

[Mournblade94]

I love the icon. Not sure what it illustrates, but it is cool.

OK. Or, it could be "finally, designers that understand both fantasy and D&D and developed a setting that maximizes their potential rather than pissing it away in nonsensical whimsy." This does indeed speak volumes of who's in charge of the game and how they think, and what it says is that they're geniuses.

I think they made it a more cinematic game, I am not sure it maximizes the fantasy element anymore than does 3rd edition. What about 4e makes you arrive at that conclusion? I am not a fan of "non traditional fantasy" so much but I think it was just as easy to portray this in 3rd edition as it is in 4e. Third edition had all the race splat books. I equally disliked those as I do Dragonborn. Actually there was alot of 3rd edition I did not like at all, but most of those were from the expansions books.

I think 4e catered more to a powergaming mindset, than maximizing fantasty. People disagree, but Character optimization seems to be one of the strongpoints of 4e design.

 

[Desdichado]

I keep getting the assumption from folks that I'm saying something about 4e. I'm not. I don't know much about 4e. I don't have it. I don't play it. I'm not interested in it.

I'm talking about Eberron.

 

[Mercurius]

A setting is interesting when I find myself asking questions: Who is Elminster? What is the Horned Society? How do they interact with the Shield Lands? What is Drachenward? I'd like to go there.

Once these questions have been answered, whether in the initial book or later on through other splat books, novels, etc., then I find the setting to be dull. An interesting setting asks questions; a dull one answers them.

This is key for me, and I would expand it further: there has to be a sense that there are always uncovered secrets, unknown history, forgotten civilizations. Once all of that is "known" the setting dies. (Actually this applies to our own world view, that that's a different discussion).

As for me I've got to go with Kalamar as the Dullest Published Setting Ever.

Eberron? A mixed bag for me. On one hand it has some interesting elements, on the other it seems a bit gimicky.