Which Campaign Setting has the best fluff? Why?

[NewJeffCTHome]

Well, I don't have a least favorite setting, per se. Everything I own has some redeeming qualities to it, I've found. Granted, I own very few settings - FR, Greyhawk, Midnight, Kalamar & DragonLance.

Most non WotC stuff I've found requires too much change & too much to learn, so I don't bother getting in depth if I see something with a zillion new races & classes and 500 new prestige classes. I prefer something that is basically "plug & play"

Midnight requires some work, but at least the main races are elves, dwarves, humans & orcs.

 

[Nisarg]

So you're applying the assumptions of whichever historiography you're trained in to Eberron, and then saying there's a problem with Eberron because it doesn't correspond with those assumptions? It might be helpful, then, to know what these assumptions of yours are. Jean Hyppolite's idea of history is not the same as Foucault's, which is not the same as Deleuze's (I choose these examples because you have lived in France and studied European history; there are of course countless others). Based just on your statement above, you are at least partially committed to a Marxist historiography, but beyond that it isn't very clear.

I don't think it would be "helpful" at all for you and me to trade name-droppings to show off how much we know, especially since that would leave other people in the dark.
In general I think that the only academics who are bigger wankers than historiographers are people who spend time arguing about historiographers, and I don't think that there is a single dominant theory of historiography that has yet been able to construct an effective model by which to explain the WHOLE of history.

Historiography and those who obsess over it, for those who don't know, is sort of like the Forge of the history world. Mostly people with way too much time on their hands and lacking the balls to do real history, so they prefer to just talk about it. Occasionally they produce something interesting, but they largely fail due to their obsessive need to apply their pet theory to the whole of history, when it usually barely applies to the specific area of history they are trained in.

That said, I would not describe myself as a marxist historian, though I do acknowledge some of their basic concepts. I do believe that certain developments in a society have to be precluded by a foundation of other discoveries or resources, and will naturally lead to certain predictable consequences.

But with that said, my favourite historiographer would have to be Arnold Toynbee. I agree with some of the points of his historical descendent, Sam Huntington, but not with the entirety of his thesis and the conclusions he draws from them. I think Oswald Spengler is under-appreciated, largely because his work is marred by his own doing, but that his basic theory is worth examining.

As for the guys you mentioned, Hyppolite is largely forgettable; Michel Foucault was a slimy little worm, a regrettable pervert who is responsible for the massive decadence in modern academia that will contribute to the collapse of western civilization, and Deleuze has some philosophically very interesting ideas that really belong more in a buddhist discussion group than in the actual work of history.

Please note that the last three paragraphs are SOLELY included so that Wayside, who was clearly challenging me, couldn't accuse me of not knowing my historiography; I loathed having to include them in this forum, and no, Wayside, I will not continue to argue with you as to what you think of my choice in historians or philosophers. I get paid to do that, and last time I checked you aren't paying me.

Nisarg

 

[hong]

As for the guys you mentioned, Hyppolite is largely forgettable in bed;

Michel Foucault was a slimy little worm in bed,

a regrettable pervert who is responsible for the massive decadence in modern academia that will contribute to the collapse of western civilization in bed,

and Deleuze has some philosophically very interesting ideas in bed

Hmmm.

 

[Nisarg]

Quote:
Michel Foucault was a slimy little worm in bed,




Quote:
a regrettable pervert who is responsible for the massive decadence in modern academia that will contribute to the collapse of western civilization in bed,


hmmm.

Sadly, these are truer than you might have guessed.

Nisarg

 

[Akrasia]

... Jean Hyppolite's idea of history is not the same as Foucault's, which is not the same as Deleuze's (I choose these examples because you have lived in France and studied European history; there are of course countless others). Based just on your statement above, you are at least partially committed to a Marxist historiography, but beyond that it isn't very clear.
....

Good grief. Do your brain a favour -- just stay away from this rubbish.

Philosophy ends at the English Channel. Stop at Dover. All else is pseudo-intellectual claptrap that will only make you look foolish.

 

[Akrasia]

As for the guys you mentioned, Hyppolite is largely forgettable; Michel Foucault was a slimy little worm, a regrettable pervert who is responsible for the massive decadence in modern academia that will contribute to the collapse of western civilization, and Deleuze has some philosophically very interesting ideas that really belong more in a buddhist discussion group than in the actual work of history.

... I will not continue to argue with you as to what you think of my choice in historians or philosophers. ...

Also, none of the people you mentioned even remotely qualifies as a 'philosopher'!

And ... as for real philosophers, John Rawls liked the Forgotten Realms, which is too bad, because I like Rawls but not the FR. Nelson Goodman has always been partial to Tekumel. IIRC, Quine could not stop ranting about Glorantha. Interestingly, Robert Nozick dug Midnight, which is strange, because I disagree with Nozick, yet I quite like Midnight (and I would have guessed that Midnight would be more up David Gauthier's alley). And we all know about Martha Nussbaum's obsession with Greyhawk.

Of course Isaiah Berlin is on record for having dug Mystara. And Hyboria. Yeah!

 

[Nisarg]

Also, none of the people you mentioned even remotely qualifies as a 'philosopher'!
[/B]

Well we are talking historiography here, which is really the philosophy of history, not philosophy in general, which is something like being a historian but not actually doing any work.

"real" philosophy is A.K.A. a "bachelors of unemployment"

Nisarg

 

[Nightfall]

tets,

Most appreciated.

Now for the expected posting: SCARRED LANDS!!!

Thanks for your patience and time, again.

 

[Wayside]

I don't think it would be "helpful" at all for you and me to trade name-droppings to show off how much we know, especially since that would leave other people in the dark.

First, as I said in my post, I mentioned a few people I expected you to be familiar with, based on your stated area of study; and the point, which I think you would have gotten if you had had a less emotional or threatened reaction, was simply that of the three names I listed, there was a teacher-student relationship and a peer relationship, and yet none of them could agree on one historical model (meaning: what you take for granted as the method of historical inquiry isn't universally acknowledged). It's a shame that automatically amounts to "name-dropping" or "calling you out," but academics do challenge each others' ideas, and if you go on, or have gone on, as you say this is how you make your living, to do graduate work, publish, or attend conferences, it's not something that should surprise you.

If it wasn't clear, I was only actually asking for you to do one thing: situate your ideas, possibly within the field of historiography you claim to have studied, in such a way that your critique of Eberron would make sense. You made a judgment about Eberron based on a host of assumptions not contained within your post; I simply thought it might be helpful to know those assumptions, in order to better understand your judgment. (I am not a fan of Eberron either).

In general I think that the only academics who are bigger wankers than historiographers are people who spend time arguing about historiographers, and I don't think that there is a single dominant theory of historiography that has yet been able to construct an effective model by which to explain the WHOLE of history.

Much like there is no single model able to explain the WHOLE of physics. I guess physicists and people who talk about physics are wankers, too. Nevertheless, in the many years I've been visiting this site some of the most interesting posts, to my mind, have been from people like bolen. The fact that I have no expertise in physics never bothered me.

Mostly people with way too much time on their hands and lacking the balls to do real history, so they prefer to just talk about it. Occasionally they produce something interesting, but they largely fail due to their obsessive need to apply their pet theory to the whole of history, when it usually barely applies to the specific area of history they are trained in.

I would say that people who play D&D are the ones with way too much time on their hands, but since it's our time I suppose we are free to spend it how we choose. This unprovoked (and fairly tantrum-like) reaction to just the topic of historicism is a little disturbing. This thread is about settings with good fluff; your criticism of Eberron should, then, be grounded in its flavor, which certainly seems to have been the case. Because your criticism--or the criticism of yours I quoted, which was just one--was that Eberron doesn't fit into the historical model of reality (in which case it is helpful to know which model is the model), it doesn't feel so outrageous to me, as it apparently does to you, to inquire about that historical model.

That said, I would not describe myself as a marxist historian, though I do acknowledge some of their basic concepts. I do believe that certain developments in a society have to be precluded by a foundation of other discoveries or resources, and will naturally lead to certain predictable consequences.

This is the only sort of response I was looking for, but this much was also clear from your statement that "These factors in combination are pretty well impossible for anything other than a society on the verge of a massive revolution."

But with that said, my favourite historiographer would have to be Arnold Toynbee. I agree with some of the points of his historical descendent, Sam Huntington, but not with the entirety of his thesis and the conclusions he draws from them. I think Oswald Spengler is under-appreciated, largely because his work is marred by his own doing, but that his basic theory is worth examining.

Good Will Hunting flashback. At any rate, Toynbee explains a lot. Thanks for responding; I'll try and remember not to engage you in this way in future.

As for the guys you mentioned

Thanks, but that's not what I was looking for.

Good grief. Do your brain a favour -- just stay away from this rubbish.

Philosophy ends at the English Channel. Stop at Dover. All else is pseudo-intellectual claptrap that will only make you look foolish.

I read and enjoy philosophy of all kinds. Why this discussion has to devolve into me telling you this, or why it matters, I have no idea. I'm sorry that seems pseudo-intellectual to you. It seems that "pseudo-intellectual" is the insult par excellence to level against those positions you disagree with or can't wrap your head around. The WoD and especially Mage are pseudo-intellectual! Eberron is pseudo-intellectual! Anybody who challenges my position is clearly pseudo-intellectual! Calling things pseudo-intellectual is definitely pseudo-intellectual! Oh no, a paradox in the space-time continuum.. reality is imploding. *POOF*

 

[Malic]

I think I can see where Nisarg is coming from - thwarted expectations.

IIRC though the quote "combines traditional medieval fantasy with pulp action and dark adventure" was pretty much how this was tagged ever since the shortlisting. I think I remember Dragon talking about inspirational movies like 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'. Why would anyone have expected this to produce a serious sociological simulation of the beginnings of industrialisation?

(Leaving aside questions like whether widespread education does necessarily contradict a serf driven agrarian economy, let alone in a fantasy setting.)

Why would you expect the lighting rail to "be there ... so we can question what the consequences of the lightning rail would be on society"?

If a game was published that intended to look hard at these kinds of social and historical issues, I would be excited and buy it. I just don't understand why anyone would have expected Eberron to be that game.

WRT the original topic of the thread - I would vote for Midnight. I also like all of Green Ronin's settings that I have read, and Nyambe is great too. Not that I have played in them, unfortunately.

Iron Kingdoms' "full metal fantasy" tag didn't grab me at all, but there is such a buzz about it I may have to check it out, so thanks to this thread there.