What makes a setting dull?

[Mournblade94]

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.

I know nothing of Eberron, but I cannot say that anything is wrong with it anymore than there is anything wrong with Narnia. I am not into the modern fantasy, I would rather just play sci fi, but I would never begrudge people to have it as an option.

My problem is when it is set to default. Again that is all a matter of preference, but I liked how 3rd edition left the non traditional races as an option.

 

[Mournblade94]

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.

Fair Enough... BUT

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.

This passage (both paragraphs) read as if you were eluding to the 4e philosophy, which is why I responded as above.

No worries though!

 

[johnnype]

The most dull settings are those that are all inclusive. If all races, classes and rulebooks are allowed it's not a setting, it's a hodge podge. Most egregious offenders include Eberron and the Pathfinder Campaign Setting. The kitchen sink approach is not a good model to follow.

The best settings are those that allow their limitations to define and flavor the world they describe. Examples include Midnight and the Iron Kingdoms.

I've always thought less to be more. This is especially true of D&D settings.

YMMV. IMO. Etc, etc...

 

[Herschel]

Although I agree with the sentiment, it does lead to the conclusion that published settings are superfluous, since they will not drive engagement and fun. In short, all published settings are equally gripping, and thus there is no need of any of them.

That can't be quite right, because I would have never thought of, say, Dark Sun or the particulars of Ravenloft on my own. Thus, there must be some difference between setting that make some more interesting than others, and by extension, some more dull than others.

I don't find published settings pointless, but I generally doctor them at least some either by design or when winging it. I think all settings have good things to offer or be yoinked whether the overall setting is "good" or not.

For example: I was not a proponent of 3E, but there were a number of things I did nab for my 1E/2E hybrid game like blur/conceal and attacks of opportunity. I was also not a Dragonlance guy, but the Evil Wizard or whatever creating Draconians sure works in other settings.

 

[Umbran]

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

Ah, yes, insulting snark, equating a difference from your personal preference with a lack of mental acuity. How... disappointingly unoriginal.

Folks, we don't need any repeat performances of this caliber. Please don't bring the quality of your offerings down to such levels.

 

[doctorhook]

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).

t's D&D; it's supposed to be about whatever the people playing it want it to be about. That said, to summarize what Eberron is "about" in one sentence or less, it's a setting that's about pervasive magic, grand conspiracies, and discarding assumptions that come with D&D. I assume it's that last part that offends you so much.

It tries to be all things to all people.

Eberron is egalitarian. It certainly tries to be fair to all people, but it definitely does NOT try to be all things to all people; it's poorly suited for "traditional" fantasy, for example.

After reading your posts here, it's obvious to me what your beef is: it bothers you that people enjoy a D&D game that doesn't resemble yours. Does it bug you that some players would like to play as something exotic, like a dragon-man or a living construct? Do you resent the idea that the monster who has abducted the princess might be a tentacled horror which looks more at home in a sci-fi movie than in LotR? Are you offended by the notion of a world where magic is ubiquitous, visible, and accessible to the common folk?

Maybe you should just say, "Look guys, I don't like chocolate in my peanut butter; I prefer old-school fantasy. Please enjoy your game, and leave me alone."