WotC setting search winner - Eberron

rounser said:

Can't say I've noticed the "constant threads" that you're referring to, but I will comment on why I disagree with your assertion. It's because, at it's heart, D&D is trying to simulate a genre. Sometimes it fails (paladins and assassins casting spells etc.) or exposes nonsense parts of fantasy (why don't monsters destroy towns, why not use magical lighting everywhere etc.).

But I think it is a huge mistake to take that as a reason to put the cart in front of the horse, and say that because our simulation sucks in some ways or exposes nonsenses in S&S fantasy, we should make the setting reflect the nonsenses and failures of our genre and system in order to make it consistent. It leads to a crazy setting where D&D's idioms and sword & sorcery fantasy's idioms are magnified and dwelled on until the cat chases it's tail, and that which was supposed to be simulated becomes irrelevant as the simulation begins to define it instead. This leads to designs such as the 3.5 prestige classes that have names and no archetypes, and are there because of a failure in the rules, another example of the cart put in front of the horse.

It's more difficult to ignore these idioms as of 3E because they're spelt out in greater detail (X number of wizards per town, and explicit magic item creation), but they should be ignored if one can, IMO, not put up on a pedestal and have all they imply extended until it defines the setting more than what they were originally trying to simulate does.

(I hope that's intelligible; I'm having difficulty getting across the concept because it's a little convoluted, but hopefully you can make sense of it.)

So you are basically saying that any straying from genre would constitute a betrayal of some 'genre' reason unless they went into inane detail to explain why this and why that?

I have news for you; DND does not simulate fantasy, but merely evokes it. First and foremost it acts as a game with real mechanical rewards costs. But beyond that I would say this; most players and dms don't really give a damn about coherence and details beyond having set rules for aforementioned rewards and costs. The appeal in creating hybrid fantasy (as oppossed to sci-fi settings) is not to justify the coexistence of themes and conventions, but merely to see how they interact. The wierdness and irrational play on genres is what makes such settings popular and truly 'fantastic'. Creating literalist detail and obvious coherence destroys that, and robs readers/players/dms from making up their own minds about how things should be done. Its the inconsistencies of the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk which make them popular as settings and not merely modular material. This looks to do the same. As long as the setting can maintain this type of mystique while evoking SOMETHING, it will have more going for it than uninspired 'rational' settings like Kingdoms of Kalamar and its ilk.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Its the inconsistencies of the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk which make them popular as settings and not merely modular material.
Okay, this makes no sense to me in the context of what we're discussing. Variety within the bounds of a genre and blatantly breaking the assumptions of a genre are two different things. Stretching to gunpowder is one thing (and arguably genre-supportive because it gives pirates their canons, swashbucklers their pistols and tinkers something to blow up, so long as it's kept not too widespread); to trains is another.

Where do FR and GH veer from swords & sorcery fantasy in a widespread manner, jasamcarl? Neither of them have anything nearly as challenging as a train except in the cracks and certainly not widespread (Murlynd's six-shooters maybe, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks definitely...FR's tanks in one corner of the world that then got completely ignored another). The nearest widespread comparable use is in Dragonlance with it's Tinker Gnomes and their anachronistic inventions such as TV analogues, but such inventions are kept in check because they're largely impractical and expensive, almost never work, are played for laughs, and are largely considered a rather lame part of that setting.
 
Last edited:

King_Stannis said:
Dinosaurs and Industrial stuff. Two things that will never see the light of day in my campaign.

Congrats to the winner for earning the $120,000. Shame on WotC for picking such an odd (but probably well done) world.

Yeah shame on them! They really should have picked something seen all the time and not well done! ;)
 

Emiricol said:


Awe, man! I wasn't part of that study! That blows. Did the participants get t-shirts?

I will concede that you are justified in being awed by me.
Unfortunately the participants did not get t-shirts.
The nerf crossbows however were lovely.
 

BigFreekinGoblinoid said:
Industrial feel AND Dinosaurs? Doesn't seem to leave much room for Psionics as the speculation went...

very interesting...

Ah, the Psychokenetic Velociraptor Construction Worker Prestige Class. Sells the setting for me.:)
 

Damn that lame PR!

Emiricol said:


Too bad that damned article was such a lame duck, and as has been said many times before, too bad WotC has such an inept PR person/department/agency.

Yeah, to bad that that lame PR has only generated seven pages of comment in this thread, two in another, a lot of (offensive and aggressive, unfortunately) chatter on GamingReport and at least one four pager on RPG.net.

My mind reels at thought of the effect good PR would have! :D

Cheers!

M.
 

rounser said:
Where do FR and GH veer from swords & sorcery fantasy in a widespread manner, jasamcarl?
But why would they want to make another setting that's just like FR or GH? They already have those. Supporting two settings with only superficial differences makes no sense, because they will appeal to the same people and split up the customer base. Supporting two different settings makes more sense.
 


A Few Thoughts

"Any sufficienly advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."
---Alan Kellogg

My first thought on reading the precis was, "Keith Baker is a fan of mine. Cool.":) (Keith, I could use a new iMac, contact me via email so we can work out the details.:))

The Athenians of Pericles' time had railroads. They were getting so much silver ore out of their mines they needed a faster way to transport it to the smelter. So they put carts on wooden rails. Later they advanced to hand wrought iron rails. A small scale operation that grew into its final form over the course of centuries.

On the subject of why they don't use magic for tons of modern stuff. I recall a Bill Cosby bit (back from when he did stand-up) titled, "The Chicken Heart That Ate New York City". A parody of and salute to the horror shows on the radio of Bill's childhood. At the end, with the chicken heart headed his way, Bill smears Jello on the living room floor and sets the sofa on fire, just as mom and dad come home from a night out.

To keep this 'relatively' short, dad ends up sprawled on the floor with a broken arm. It comes out (after a bit of questioning) that there's a giant chicken heart on the radio coming. To which dad asks, "Then why don't you turn it off?"

[click]... ...'I never thought of that.

Folks, you're 21st century moderns (I least I think you are.), you have background and knowledge someone from a 16th century fantasy world wouldn't. Folks from such a world aint gonna think of the same sorts of things you would. People, when I was the age a number of you are, Darpa Net was a military secret and long distance phone calls were priced at dollars a minute. Much of what you take as background lore is still unexplored territory to me.

Unless magic is strictly limited, and in a way that cannot be overcome by advances in knowledge and learning, it will change a world in ways that cannot be predicted. Figure out how to make Levitate permanent and variable in strength through a set of controls, and you've got frieght lifts, elevators, transport pallets and what not. (Yes, they were using elevators back in the 16th century to lift heavy loads to the top of construction projects. A labor shortage, thanks to the Black death and other diseases.) A levitating cart would still be as hard to move as a the wheeled version (inertia, you know) but at least you wouldn't have to worry about the dang wheels or lifting the load into the cart in the first place.
(Onto the pallet, yes, but that's a shorter trip.:))

I end this with a comment to Emiricol.

It has trains. Good. I like trains. Trains are cool. Moved by ley lines or Iron Golems, fine by me. Dwarfs as Scottish engineers, elves as card sharks, and orcs as marauding injuns, I can get into that. I could get into a stone giant choo-choo with an apatosaurus catcher, and a cloud giant conductor. You don't like trains. Suffer.

Who said you have to like it? You've made your comment, now get on with your life. You don't need to comment on every comment made to refute yours. People disagree with you, get over it.

I expect you'll respond to this. Feel free. I don't expect it to be cogent, well reasoned, much less coherent. All I expect it will do is confirm my opinion of you. So I shall ignore it as being one of Emiricol's empty whines. The day you post a constructive, informed complaint on these boards is a day I shall be most pleasantly surprised. So kvetch and niggle over inconsequential details. I've seen it before, and from professionals; you would have to work at it to achieve the status of rank amateur.

Fellow Poster: What is the defining feature of the Pyramid Newsgroups?

Me: Ceaseless nitpicking over inconsequential details to the point the original poster is about ready to tear his hair out.
 

Emiricol said:
However, the fact is that even in our own Real World transporting by ship is the cheapest transit available, and usually most efficient. Just not the fastest. So most merchant activity would be via flying boats, not floating trains (or lighting whatevers).

You're presuming that the ratio of costs between real-world trains and real-world ships is the same or similar as the one between the lightning rail and the flying ship. What if it's more akin to trains vs airplanes? Then, the flying ship is faster but more expensive, and the heavy cargo is more likely to go by land.

J
 

Remove ads

Top