Notwithstanding an occasional noteworthy idea, I think Ebberon is basically worthless. If sales dictate what WoTC produces, then folks: let's not purchase Ebberon products, and with any luck, WoTC will curtail the amount they produce in favor of what we loyal supporters of the game really want. You want Greyhawk, don't buy Ebberon. If a few designers at WoTC get sacked when sales slump, too bad. It's a good bet they weren't developing Greyhawk products anyway.
Fantastic. I was waiting to see when this thread would turn into "$setting sucks"!
|
Fantastic. I was waiting to see when this thread would turn into "$setting sucks"!
I have to agree w/ Evilturnip. I enjoy Eberron. Do I think it's perfect - no. Have I tweeked the backstory and history a little in my own version - sure. But basically I enjoy the novelty of the setting and would swipe ideas from it even if I weren't using it as a setting. I find the discussion of people's views on it's strengths and weaknesses interesting (as opposed to pointless bashing); I love the idea of the non-functioning warforged! But calls for mass firings and boycotts seem silly. I will happily continue buying Eberron books for as long as they continue to give me new ideas.
|
What kinda trips me out is I notice some of the people who are into Eberron don't like warforged or shifters, and those are two of the things I like for "parting the car out."
I think an island of wild-arst Lord of the Flies mentality shifter kids would be a lark.
With a warforged guy, in a bunker. Who has to hit a button on an apparatus. Every 137 minutes.
Or something awful will happen.
|
|
I'm just kinda mesmerized by this thread.
I mean, I believe that any minute it's might turn into a massive flame war. But it just kinda smolders on like a hot log, ready for a mild wind to make it spit and spark and blaze into a fiery brand.
I kinda like prodding it with a stick, and scraping off chunks of red-hot bark now and again.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm just kinda mesmerized by this thread.
I mean, I believe that any minute it's might turn into a massive flame war. But it just kinda smolders on like a hot log, ready for a mild wind to make it spit and spark and blaze into a fiery brand.
I kinda like prodding it with a stick, and scraping off chunks of red-hot bark now and again.
It's perfect for marshmallows. Hmmm...S'mores.
Director of Game Development
|
As far as this whole Eberron vs. the rest of the worlds thing goes , simply, I like it. But however I only think of D&D in terms of GH and FR. Sorry. Always have and always will. I started out playing homebrews with my cousin and friends almost 20 years ago to get the hang of the game and only 12 or so years ago really started following all the political/social drama of the worlds.
Eberron to me will be just like all the other worlds created throughout the years by TSR/WoTC. They need to pump new material into the game and sometimes the only way to do that is to focus on the many niches in the game. Horror and gothic adventure? Try Ravenloft. Swashbuckling space pirates? Spelljammer. Apocolyptic desert psionists? Dark Sun. Ninjas and samaurai? Kara-Tur. High magic, high fantasy? Mystara. Genies and sultans? Al Quadim. Dragon emphasized fantasy? Dragonlance. Terry Gilliam plane romping? Planescape. Pulp-noir, tech-magic adventures? Eberron.
Use what you can and don't get so worked up over it. One of the things that Eberron has done to deviate from the 'norm' more so than other worlds have is the cosmology. It's one of the ones that is off the Great Wheel. Which sets it apart for better of for worse. The salvageable things are almost purely numerical, because the details all rely too much on a separate cosmolgy - which determines what will fit and what will not into a 'generic' fantasy roleplaying setting. It will always just be another crystal sphere to me.
One of the longest campaigns I had ever been through was 2nd Ed as it was in that weird morph from Player's Option stuff into 3.0 and our group didn't have the funds to switch over. In it we played in Greyhawk that had some overt Ravenloft tones to it in about 30% of the adventures. As we reached higher levels we entered into Planescape and eventually Spelljammer for a short stint to achieve a certain goal. Eventually for the climax we made it home to save the day.
But then again, I'm just one of those 30 somethings blabbing on a message board. Also one who spends around $500 on gaming a year. (thanks finance software) I agree, selfishly, with some of the posters above that a 3.5 Greyhawk sourcebook would seriously help the new players to the game. The world was put together piece-meal thoroughout the years, and many of us 'oldies' don't know heaps of information about every region and culture. Two pages in the players handbook about the deities and a couple of backgound books that have about as much useful information as three hours on Cannonfire doesn't really support the baseline fantasy roleplaying experience in the core books. If WoTC had planned on releasing heaps of FR 3rd Ed stuff why not list those deities in the PH instead of GH deities?
Horror and gothic adventure? Try Karrnath.
Swashbuckling space pirates? Siberys.
Apocolyptic desert psionists? Sarlona.
Ninjas and samaurai? Shadow Marches.
High magic, high fantasy? Khyber.
Genies and sultans? Thelanis.
Dragon emphasized fantasy? Argonnessen.
Terry Gilliam plane romping? Manifest zones.
Pulp-noir, tech-magic adventures? Any of the above.
THAT'S why I like Eberron. You can do all of these things and few would say "well that's not what the setting's about".
Num num num....Crown'n'coke and smores.
I'm a mudslide girl myself. Though you could do a layered drink - creme de cacao, maybe a cinnamon/butterscotch schnapps with a dollop of marshmallow creme on top. Tasty!
Things I like in Eberron-
The Gods are Distant thing. The ability to have use "good" clerics as the bad guys is awesome.
The moral ambiguity. We are so used to using alignment as a reason to kill it has been fun trying to not get the Paladin player to not smite everyone evil person in town. ("No Keygun is not evil. He just did an evil act.")
I especially like Eberron because it is a new world to explore.
Things I don't like
To many damn mysteries. They say they leave the big questions open so you can explore them in your own campaign. Then they make a source book with, at least some, revelations. Now you have to retcon your campaign or ignore official canon and hope for the best (really not much of a prob, just a nuisance).
I think the planes need more development myself. I would like to know where everything belongs.
I dont like that Eric has problems with it. It makes me second guess my sense of whats cool.
I really dont like that I started SCAP in Eberron. Its been to much work converting some of the characters and Greyhawk, which I also love, is a much better fit for the AP. Now I feel like I have to put all the AP's in Eberron. I guess I could go, "Ok guys you arnt in Eberron anymore, no more Q'barra and no more dragonmarked houses, Silver flame is gone fellas. Your here (points to huge grayhawk map). That cool for you guys?"
Both are styles of running adventures. Eberron provides a world where both styles are possible. It also provides backdrops for more traditional epic stories.How are either of these not accomplished with ANY campaign setting? Magic and feats make just about anything possible.NOOOOOO!!!!!!!
Turn back now. The path which you have charted is littered with the broken bodies of logical arguments and coherent thoughts. There are no answers, only questions and questionable assertions.
Let me summarize the response:
EBERRON RULEZ!1!!!!1!1!
Please, I beg of you, delete your response before it is too late.
(Bursts out laughing) Oh, thank you. Dear Jesus, that was funny!
What's so bad about dragons? The game is called "Dungeons and Dragons" after all, and I've never seen anyone complain that dungeons are everywhere.
Personally all that dragon stuff just makes it all the more interesting.
And what's so bad about Warforged? Constructs have been around for ages and warforged are just sentient, low-power constructs. Not saying that sentient constructs haven't been around since Savage Species and it's "Awaken Construct" spell and template.
It stands to reason that any society with a prevalence of low-level spellcasters who are interested in making a living rather than adventuring are inevitably going to come up with stuff like Lightning Rails. It's logical and explains some things that have aparently always bugged certain people.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
What's so bad about dragons? The game is called "Dungeons and Dragons" after all, and I've never seen anyone complain that dungeons are everywhere.
Yeah, the name is a bit of a legacy though. Truthfully, 3e should be called Dungeons & Dragons & Half-Dragons & Dragon Equipment & Ultimate Dragons & Some Other Stuff that is Not Dragons but Could be if You applied one of the 10 Dragon Related Templates we Have Published.
Don't get me wrong, dragons are cool in moderation. And I went through a period in 00-02 after 3e came out having fun slapping a half-dragon template on every NPC in my campaign and having dragons tie into 50% of my plots, but it's gotten old. The term dragon-marked houses makes me want to lose my lunch. If I were to ever run an Eberron game, I'd strip out that term along with the dragonshards and the dragonesque creation myth.
Your mileage may most certainly vary.
How about "prophecy-marked" or "inbred, imbued, and tattooed" for less spew-worthy names?
I just don't get the hatred for the ligthning rail, though.
So many people harp on it. I don't see it as any more out of place in a traditional fantasy setting than Monks (the kick-butt character class, rather than the "Brother Maynard" type), for example.
Monks have always irked me a little in D&D, but I don't mind them so much in Eberron, where I use them strictly as Kalashtar or Goblin traditional fighting orders.
The term dragon-marked houses makes me want to lose my lunch. If I were to ever run an Eberron game, I'd strip out that term along with the dragonshards and the dragonesque creation myth.Your mileage may most certainly vary.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I just don't get the hatred for the ligthning rail, though.
So many people harp on it. I don't see it as any more out of place in a traditional fantasy setting than Monks (the kick-butt character class, rather than the "Brother Maynard" type), for example.
I don't necessarily mind the concept, I mind the name and the flavor. I'd rather have a steam driven railway than an electricity driven railway. The name lightning rail sounds like a generic and uncreative way to describe a modern electricity run device. I assume that the lightning rail is not such a device and that it is magical in nature, so the name strikes me as particularly jarring. Lighting rail sounds like a term a fifth grader would use when writing a story about D&D characters traveling to the modern world and seeing a subway.
Besides, it's not like we call cars "internal combustion wagons" or even railroads "steam rails."
...So to make it short...
Brilliant! Thanks for sharing that. Even though I don't like Eberron, I like some of your ideas. I'll steal them for my game! Thanks!
Thanks and Peace,
tfad
Besides, it's not like we call cars "internal combustion wagons" or even railroads "steam rails."
Actually, we called them exactly that when we first invented them, they just went through a few slurrings, shortenings and language revisions.
How long are the lightning rails supposed to have been around for? If it's less than about two-hundred or so years then it is a little rediculous. But you have to bear in mind that the presence of the longer lived races is going to slow down the degrdation of names.
And the dragons thing, that's the flavour of the world. Would it irk you less if the origin was Slaad based and they were called "Slaad-Marks"? because then you'd have too many slaad. The reason there are so many dragon things is because dragons are pretty important to the setting (what with the creation myth and all). And there are only two dragon templates (three if you count the dragonborn race), that's the same as celestials and fiends.
|
|
...So to make it short...(...)
Ups! I intended to be short, but remembered this other thread during writing the post and forgot about that line :) Anyway, it's funny. And I am glad you like some of those ideas.
- - -
One thing I never understood about the Lightning Rail is, if there are two rows of conductor stones, so that the Rails can go in both directions any time. If not, there will be only one Rail between any two stations and travel times would increase.
I browsed the ECS for an info on that topic but couldn't find it. But maybe I have to take a look again...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Besides, it's not like we call cars "internal combustion wagons" or even railroads "steam rails."Actually, we called them exactly that when we first invented them, they just went through a few slurrings, shortenings and language revisions.
Got a source on that? I've never heard cars called "internal combustion wagons." The original marketing name was "horseless carriage."
|
It stands to reason that any society with a prevalence of low-level spellcasters who are interested in making a living rather than adventuring are inevitably going to come up with stuff like Lightning Rails. It's logical and explains some things that have aparently always bugged certain people.
This is the main reason I like Eberron - it makes sense if you assume the magic rules in 3E are true. I'm sure I've said something similar on another thread, but basically in a world where low-level magic is fairly prevalent, these sort of "technologies" will appear. Beats being a sorcerer in a lonely tower.
The term dragon-marked houses makes me want to lose my lunch.
Actually, in my Eberron games they were more commonly referred to by most people as "marked houses". After centuries of fame, I figure people would be able to abbreviate it.
Got a source on that? I've never heard cars called "internal combustion wagons." The original marketing name was "horseless carriage."
Nope, just vague recollections of history classes long past about what the inventors called them, I don't think they were ever called horseless carriges, described yes but not actually called that. And incidentaly, how is "Horseless Carrige" any less of a term that, and I quote, "a fifth grader would use when writing a story about D&D characters traveling to the modern world and seeing a subway." I've seen several tales of that exact type using that exact term. ^_^ (I need to stop proofreading my little sisters homework)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Nope, just vague recollections of history classes long past about what the inventors called them, I don't think they were ever called horseless carriges, described yes but not actually called that. And incidentaly, how is "Horseless Carrige" any less of a term that, and I quote, "a fifth grader would use when writing a story about D&D characters traveling to the modern world and seeing a subway." I've seen several tales of that exact type using that exact term. ^_^ (I need to stop proofreading my little sisters homework)
Got a source on that? I've never heard cars called "internal combustion wagons." The original marketing name was "horseless carriage."
They most certainly were called horseless carriages. Do a google for both "horseless carriage" and "internal combustion wagon" and see what you get for each.
Like I said, I find the name to be pretty pathetic, but your mileage may vary.
They most certainly were called horseless carriages. Do a google for both "horseless carriage" and "internal combustion wagon" and see what you get for each.Like I said, I find the name to be pretty pathetic, but your mileage may vary.
Heh, guess you're right. But I maintain that the exact name makes little difference, "Horseless Carriges" still sounds like, as you said, "a term a fifth grader would use when writing a story about D&D characters traveling to the modern world and seeing a subway". Which is the point, when we invented cars we didn't call them cars, we called them something simple and descriptive. For example, if we'd invented monorails back then we'd... oh, wait, we do use a simple descriptive name for them don't we? ^_^ bad example.
Oh well, I hope you get the idea, and I guess we'll just have to disagree on this ^_^. No hard feelings?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Oh well, I hope you get the idea, and I guess we'll just have to disagree on this ^_^. No hard feelings?
No hard feelings. Just don't go pulling weird factual assertions out of thin air on me, okay. ;-)
It's entirely a subjective discussion though. If you like lightning rails, keep em. It's not enough to ruin the setting for me, just something I'm not particularly fond of.
And I think horseless carriages sounds cool. A 5th grader would come up with horseless wagons or something using slightly less archaic words.
Of course, I haven't surveyed any 5th graders to know for sure.
I dunno, and maybe this is just me, but my main beef with Eberron is that it's so not D&D. Remember those two things? DUNGEONS and DRAGONS. For heavens sake, it seems like a good old fashioned dungeon crawl with the dragon and the hoard of gold at the end is just too plain for some people. It's always something like "Oh, well, that dragons only CR 16.....so we can take him easy" or "Who needs a hoard of treasure? We all have +5 weapons and more gold than we could drown ourselves with." To me, a dragons a dragon: I don't need a "pulp-noir warforged dragonshard lightning rail" world to make anything cooler. As R.A. Salvator puts it so beautifully in all of his Drizzt books, adventuring is about walking that windy trail with your greatest friends. To me, Eberron seems like a steroid-packed booster shot for everyone who has gotten bored with normal D&D. Which is almost impossible, because hm, let's see, D&D has pirates, tropical islands, the Underdark, the moonsea, all the classic heroes (for me, Drizzt) and a whole variety of other things.
Oh, and the other thing that really makes me mad about Eberron is the drow thing. The drows legacy is a tale of hatred and murder, all ending with their exile to the Underdark. Not no stinkin jungle, no matter how dark it is. The ultimate foes: drow vs. surface elves. Now it's just "surface elves vs....evil surface elves". The Ebberon setting doesn't even have a very cool explanation for the drow. At least with the evil humans, the Vasharan, it's explained that they were the first try (and failed try) of the gods at humanity. That's cool. Drow were made to be in the Underdark; simple as that. And that's not boring; they have an iron fist over most of the Underdark anyways.....okay sorry now i'm just ranting. Alright, well, I gave my bit.
1 vote for Eberron is bad.
peace out
nam
I think virtually every campaign setting out their has its good points and bad points. If you don't want to run an Eberron campaign then don't. The same goes if you don't want to run a FR campaign or GR campaign.
There are a couple of things I would like to address about the Eberron setting (both good and bad) based on other peoples opinions.
1. Races. Warforged are slightly overpowered only if you play a warforged barbarian. Otherwise, their limitations make up for the good things they have going for them (try healing a warforged in a party without repair spells). The other races also have their good points and bad points and don't always gel with other sourcebooks (its hideously easy to be certain prestige classes as a warforged, changeling, or shifter).
2. Pulp/noir feel. I think that Eberron needs to evolve beyond this rather simplistic view if its going to be taken seriously as a core setting. You can run entire pulp/noir campaigns with ease, but it's not everyone's cup of tea. Some people prefer dungeon crawls, or horrific campaigns. I think Eberron actually provides for every style of play as its up to individual DMs and players to determine the style of their campaigns. In part I'm saying this because I may very well have an Eberron adventure printed in Dungeon this year which does not have a pulp/noir feel to it (not like the brilliant Chimes of Midnight anyway).
3. Gods. Having played in Eberron for a while now I must say that certain gamers have a hard time with evil clerics of good gods (and vice versa). I have no problems with it, but other people have issues. I simply point out that the gods in Eberron are better described as philosophical ideals that people follow, and that in many ways the churches of Eberron are like the churches on Earth (this is a very loose similarity). Of course, some gamers like the gods being actively involved in the world, and more power to them. Either is fine by me.
4. Mass production of magic, magic technology, and name-calling. If you take a look at the names of a lot of things on Earth then you come to realize that lightning rail isn't that bad. Its no worse than highway or microwave or typewriter. Sure its not incredibly imaginative, but the name was probably made up by a couple of artificer gnomes on a whim. I think Eberron has a bit of a problem staying with the low-powered high-magic setting unless it uses magic like technology. Of course, the problem with that is that it can be abused and mishandled with ease by inexperienced DMs and inventive players.
5. NPC power levels. I have to agree that the low-powered NPC thing doesn't work that well in practice and we can already see things beginning to unravel on that front with some of the higher-level Eberron adventures. Eric Mona does have a point, though. The presence of high level NPCs does not make the actions of the PCs less meaninful or heroic (if they are heroes). High level NPCs have high level matters to deal with. That's why the whole Eberron thing about levels is moot. it all about control. If the DM is in control of the situation the power levels of NPCs and PCs shouldn't be a problem.
That's my rant.
Quadruple meh. This is one of my least favorite "innovations" related to this campaign setting.
Needless to say, I'm sorry to hear that, as I'm certainly among the many who respect your editorials and opinions on D&D, and admire what you've done with Paizo. To me, the key point is that Eberron isn't the baseline D&D experience. Forgotten Realms is still going strong with no signs (that I know of) of slowing down, and the active role of deities in the world is a critical part of Forgotten Realms. In my mind, it's not a question of better or worse; it's providing a different experience if you want to have it. I personally love the "Trojan War" style of play that you can explore with Forgotten Realms, and if I'm running an FR game, I'm going to focus on that. But I also enjoy having Eberron as a world where divinity is a mystery, where we have fewer religions but a lot of room for internal conflict within the faiths... in large part because there is no deity to act as final arbiter of these things.
The same really holds true of the limited-NPC approach. It's not better; it's different. Having high-level NPCs lets you have figures like Mordenkainen or Elminster that PCs can aspire to match. It's one reason that I don't expect Eberron to replace FR or Greyhawk. But I don't want it to replace them. Because each setting has its own strengths, and each offers me a very different experience as DM or player. In Eberron, you don't expect to find a 12th-level wizard in every city. In FR, you do. No right, no wrong... but a choice and a chance to explore a different tone. If Eberron kept the Great Wheel, had either the same gods or just similar ones with new names, and so on... why bother having it at all? I realize so people may respond to this with "Exactly! Why DID they bother creating it at all?" but to me the differences are the point. It's not the baseline D&D experience. But I hope it's an interesting one.
And, of course, the lack of true gods is one of the main reasons I created the equivalently-divine-rank-7 Overlords in "Eternal Evil"... so PCs could still have the thrill of going up against a being of godlike power.
"Solving" for this problem by making a world where no one is capable of casting important spells like resurrection seems like a massive overreaction to a largely imagined problem.
There's actually an entirely different issue here... and resurrection is at the heart of it. Others have said that Eberron is a world that's wide-magic as opposed to high-magic, and that's certainly my view of things. Personally, I want resurrection to be rare in my campaign, because I'm usually focusing on mystery and intrigue instead of on dungeon crawls. My problem is that a world in which resurrection is easily available is going to be a very different world than the one we live in. How can you have political assassinations when the King obviously has enough money to be resurrected? Why wouldn't he be brought back the instant he died? And how would this cascade across history, if every wealthy person can essentially have a magical life insurance policy? Meanwhile, I want that noir tone where death does matter, where if your partner dies you can't just toss a bag of gold down on the nearest altar and bring him back... or in a murder mystery, you don't just say "Heck, we've got 5,000 gp, let's just bring the victim back to life." It's a question of play style, and it is in this case me trying to enforce what I like on the world, in a manner that may be inappropriate. I know it's something even people who like Eberron often complain about. It's ideal for the noir scenarios, where death is rare but very significant when it occurs; it's not so good for epic slugfests, where the maximized DB Fireball from the balor wipes out half of the party. And again, this is one more reason why I think Eberron isn't "the baseline D&D experience". The point is, the "few high-level NPCs" is NOT just about making low-level characters feel heroic; it's about the impact the common presence of high-level NPCs (especially high-level spellcasters, wielding spells like teleport, resurrection, and wish) should have on the course of civilization. In FR, you can get a resurrection at any major temple. In Eberron, a temple may not even have a spellcaster; go to House Jorasco for your healing-for-gold. Personally, what I like is the fact that the settings ARE different, and that I get a very different experience when I play Greyhawk, FR, Eberron, or Dragonlance.
But that's just MY take. ;)
And just to answer my own question before someone else does, yes, you can counter resurrection with things like soul bind and for that matter the Keeper's fang quality, which I wanted in Eberron for just that reason. Again, it's all about the flavor you want. If you're playing a high-action game in which PCs die on a regular basis, resurrection is absolutely vital. I prefer to focus more on intrigue than battle, and to have death be a major event... and I will often bend the rolls to avoid what I consider a "trivial" death. I generally say "If I was writing this as a story, would a character die here?" If not, there's always other ways to handicap the PCs for their failure.
This also ties to the fact that I prefer mid-level action. My favorite time is when characters are between 6-10th level... powerful, but not earthshaking. I often slow down experience gain during this period to draw it out. So yes, I'm the first to admit it... there are things about Eberron that are ideally suited to what *I* like about playing D&D, but which I realize are not part of the "baseline D&D experience". That's why I'd be surprised if Eberron was ever considered "core D&D". I'm proud of what's been done with the setting, and I hope it will stick around; but I don't expect it to supplant all other settings, especially those with a strong grounding in traditional high fantasy.
I will add one other note on the NPC issue. What I advocate in Chapter Nine and take very seriously in my campaign is having both major and minor NPCs that advance in level as the PCs do. At 12th level, the Lord of Blades just isn't that scary. But the goal there is to let you face him when you're only, say, 8th level, and have a chance to beat him. then when you're 12th level, he comes back at 16... and so on. If you foil Erandis d'Vol's plan but she gets away with the Book of the Qabalrin, I want her to come back with an extra level next time - so the story evolves, and the PCs feel that they aren't the only ones tearing up through the power levels. I want characters like Bellaq... er, Halas Martain... who are always just tough enough to pose a challenge without being overwhelming. But again, that plays better with my style of campaign; if PCs are going to make absolutely certain that no NPC escapes alive, this sort of advancement is difficult. And regardless, it's certainly more work for the DM. So as the PCs become the mightiest heroes of the age, I want new villains to arise to match them. And of course, there are other epic-level villains waiting in the woodwork, from Lords of Dust and their Overlords to the mightiest of the Daelkyr and the Kalaraq Inspired.
Anyhow, bla bla bla goes the game designer. (Strangely, this sound was left off of the Playskool toy...)
Now it's just "surface elves vs....evil surface elves".
Actually, it's just "Surface elves." The drow of Eberron aren't inherently evil, and there's no more hostility between the drow and the Aereni than there is between the drow and any other surface race. On top of which, in Eberron, "drow" alone doesn't tell you much; there's a big difference between the Umbragen (who are the Underdark dwellers), the Children of Vulkoor (the jungle savages), the Sulatar (elemental binders), and whatever cultures you may choose to add yourself. Secrets of Xen'drik will go into the history and nature of these cultures in more detail... not that I'm expecting you to check it out. ;)
The point to me is that at least to my knowledge, no one is going to force you to play Eberron. I don't believe Eberron is going to replace Forgotten Realms. Which means traditional high fantasy will always be there. Eberron is intentionally different, because if you want evil-drow-in-the-Underdark, you've already got two excellent settings that provide them. Do you need a third? You may not want or like Eberron, but it does offer an alternative for someone who wants a change.
QUOTE="Jonathan Drain"]I don't really "get" this pulp/noir thing. I googled it; looks like it's old adventure fiction and black-and-white crime detective movies. Those came and went before I was even born, how am I even meant to work out how to combine the two? Give me old-fashioned wizards and elves any day.
As one more aside (how many posts can I make on the thread?) I'll point out that when *I* call Eberron "Pulp/Noir", I mean it in the sense of "Pulp and/or noir". It's a spectrum, not a forced merging. I originally described Eberron as "Lord of the Rings meets Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Maltese Falcon." By that, I didn't mean to cram them all together; I meant that the world should encompass all three. Xen'drik, the Order of the Emerald Claw, Khyber, Dhakaani ruins, Action Points... all of these things lean towards "pulp". Groups like the Aurum, the Chamber, the power balance between the failing monarchies and the rising houses, uncertain divinity, the malaise and anger following the Mourning - these things lean towards noir. Adventures may incorporate both aspects, but it's not a requirement; it's a matter of drawing out the elements that best fit the tone you're looking for.
|
|
I fail to see what the hostility to Eberron is really based on. It's an alternative setting - there are lots of those. OK, GH isn't really supported by anyone except Paizo (in a sort of unofficial capacity), but that isn't Mr Baker's fault nor is it actually a problem of Eberron.
I'm playing Eberron at the moment with my group. At first, at least one of them was troubled by the "flying ships and sh!t" elements to it (though what about Halruaa?). But we played, he's a hobgoblin prince out to oust his brother in Darguun, and he's loving it. We are maybe more at the "pulp" rather than "noir" end of things, but Eberron changes nothing of the core experience of D&D (ultimately, killing mosters and taking their stuff, though that is obviously a gross simplification) but what it does do is change the milieau and allow for different possible plots. You could do it within any setting, probably, but I like the novelty and, to me, the world makes more sense as a world in which D&D is "true" - that's a personal preference, but I'm entitled.
The changes made are, frankly, interesting and likewise intuitive to me. As Keith says, how can you have assassination plots against the wealthy and powerful in a world with ready resurrection magic? How can you have corruption in a religious movement if, when you move more than one notch away in alignment, you lose all powers? Why should gods be divided up along racial lines? Who actually really needs gods butting into their games as active participants anyway? If people can fly and cast fireballs, isn't it reasonable to assume that magic could create flying ships, mass transport systems (which are, by the way, expensive and not that available to the masses - and actually a godsend in plot terms, since I managed to get my group several thousand miles to Darguun in a couple of days and save myself a load of random encounters along the way!), advanced magical golem warriors and so on? Why isn't it reasonable? OK, maybe that isn't the flavour you want, but I see nothing inherently "incorrect" about it.
Ultimately, it's all about the sort of games you want to play. I don't have the time or the inclination to create a load of gameworlds - I've got stuff like work to do most of the time. Eberron gives me a world I find very attractive to set my adventures in. My next campaign? Probably FR, as that gives me something else. But I can choose because I have the choice.
You may not want or like Eberron, but it does offer an alternative for someone who wants a change.
Choices is what it's all about and that one sentence above sums up this entire thread. I believe (my opinion only) most of the anger directed towards Eberron by its detractors stem from the fact that they see how much support Wizards has given Eberron that "could have" been given to "their" setting...a jealousy thing if you will. I don't share that feeling anymore after having read Sharn and most of the ECS book. I still think Wizards wouldn't hurt Eberron or FR sales by putting out just one GH hardcover to throw to the ravenous GH crowd.
|
|
I have bought everyting for Eberron but I have only ever really skim read it (which I doubt is fair to Keith or his work). As such I am not in a position to fully compare it to FR or GH (for which I own everything and HAVE read it), not at a rules and background level, or "crunch and fluff" as the kids say. I can say what I have perceived though.
What I like about Eberron: It is getting new blood into the hobby. It looks slick, the books and art seem beautiful, and they are probably much better physical quality than what I got to start with. I assume it is true about new blood and it is selling otherwise WotC will have been told by Hasbro to drop it, like Chainmail, for "not being profitable enough".
What I dislike about Eberron: It seems to be creating an entire generation of players who think Eberron is D&D, and everything else isn't, or shouldn't be. It isn't D&D, it is a D&D setting, and a setting which deviates quite strongly from traditional core fantasy. The situation now is what would once have been fringe is fast becoming core (and whoe advocates seem to alienating a lot of long time players). In my less thoughtful moments my gut tells me it is being weird for weirdness sakes*, like Darksun seemed to me (and I was younger then), but I doubt I am being fair.
Bit of hypocrisy there of course with all these settings, there have been so many. To many of us one of these settings IS D&D, as that is what we played in first, and for the longest, and probably still are.
I suppose the only one that can claim to be D&D is Greyahwk because that was the setting Gygax ran and developed the game in. He created D&D, along with Rob. How long does that hold true for though? Ed Greenwood created FR before he started playing D&D and adapted D&D/FR to mesh. However to many FR is D&D as well. Or Driz'zt is :)
That of course may be the main difference between old and new. Gygax created a setting he loved to play a game in he clearly loved. For a long time GH was synonymous with D&D.
Ed Greenwood created stories in a world he loved and let D&D into it, and then as far as I can see he gave it away for others to share (no $100,000 for Ed and FR has made a damn sight more cash the Eberron has, and probably still will before another setting competition is launched for 4th edition).
Now, Eberron was commisioned (although not directly) and when sold made Keith $100,000 and gave WotC a new product line to sell. It may be the crass materialism and profiteering that Eberron appears to be associated with that is getting some of us oldies wound up (many where the same over 3.5 revised books), but I think Keith was probably just stoked to get credits, get a year or two's salary (if that) and also get to write more material. On the flip side I think we all know what most Corporations want :)
The problem with ranking or rating a setting is that an individual will tend to compare it to what they know, and if the don't play or are familiar with Eberron then that will tend to mean they will compare it to what they do know. This tends to be another setting, which then leads to...well, I think we have seen where it ends up :) Point is if you play Ebby you probably would put loads of points about what it does better, and if you don't you probably put loads of why it is worse. I honestly think it is going to be difficult for the majority of us to be objective about this and it will polarise the community. Let the trolling and flame wars commence :)
*I have my own suit chainmail that I forged, I play with toy soldiers and roll dice as a source of probability determination for pretend actions. Weird is obviously a relative statement.
|
|
I fail to see what the hostility to Eberron is really based on. It's an alternative setting - there are lots of those. OK, GH isn't really supported by anyone except Paizo (in a sort of unofficial capacity), but that isn't Mr Baker's fault nor is it actually a problem of Eberron.
Something else occurred, although somewhat off topic and inspired by Aubrey, but related to the hostility some old timers level at Eberron (particularly here). It is probably jealously, but not because it is more successful or "better" compared against GH for example (that comparison would be unfair, WotC would have to actually put effort into GH to make that a fair comparison).
These are Paizo boards, NOT WotC D&D boards. Although Paizo has a special relationship with WotC, it is not WotC. The edditors, although they hide it well, are somewhat partial to GH as a setting :) Now, Eberron and FR get new books, WotC supports them, and in the case of Eberron still produces actual adventures for the setting (mostly just source books for FR). GH gets nowt (or nothing for those who aren't northern British). Is it so unreasonable to resent Eberron getting so much exposure? To be..well jealous I guess. Would it really hurt WotC and Eberron if they where the sole sources of campaign support and Piazo did adventures in Dungeon for GH and FR (or anything that was not Eberron), as WotC won't? If it did what does that actually mean? There is still a GH market that is being deliberately ignored?
Personally I think the hobby and community should be inclusive, not exclusive, but I can empathise (something we should all do in general) with those that see Eberron as "stealing" pages that should be on their favourite setting which they CANNOT get anywhere else. However, more settings means more players and more people that will learn that you can game without a mouse :) Regardless of the setting.
Now, WotC has licensed DL, and RL, and Darksun. Their communities get new content. I guess there is some frustration for GH fans, in that why WotC won't sell it so someone can develop it as a product line (the why could, and has, lead to essays). It may be time for some people to be able to buy what they want (if there are enough numbers to justify an economical market base) and to stop trying to sell people what you want them to have (levelled at WotC of course not Paizo). Just a thought :)
I still think Wizards wouldn't hurt Eberron or FR sales by putting out just one GH hardcover to throw to the ravenous GH crowd.
As 'bout as ravenous as starving wolverines that are high on angel dust. :D
I try to find something good and useful out of every D&D book that I've read. Sometimes that was hard, especially in the glut of d20 when it was first released. Things have tapered off a lot as far as the amount of d20 products released, but I think the quality has improved overall. Thank goodness.
That being said, there is a lot to like in the Eberron setting, but it's not anything that you couldn't do in any other campaign setting without a little forethought and planning. Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk are the same way - certain elements make it feel "Greyhawk" or feel "Forgotten Realms," but it's not anything you couldn't do in another campaign setting. For example, the idea that the goblinoids had an empire in Eberron is not anything that I've seen expanded upon in Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms. (If it has been, forgive - my beard is not as grey as some. Which is good, 'cause the idea of me with a beard is...um, disgusting. Grey hair, yeah, my hair isn't as grey as some!) I liked this idea - the idea of a race that is looked down upon by the vast majority was once a mighty empire. So, I adapted it for use in the Forgotten Realms. Change "goblinoid" to "orc" and add in the fact that they once knew the secrets of Incarnum magic and voila - something that's not covered in canon in either setting, but not beyond the realm of possibility with a little thought.
I think the point I'm trying to make here is every single supplement, core book, rule book, campaign setting, adventure module or super-secret-custom-limited-edition plushie/mini that anyone may come out with is a tool. It is not the end-all, be-all of The Game. The Game is defined by the DM and the Players. The Game is flexible, infinite, and should never be confined in a box because EbeRealmHawk "doesn't do it that way."
Anyway, my ramblings on the topic at hand...
I've found Eberron to be a very entertaining setting to use for many of the reasons previously stated. I can do things in Eberron that don't translate well in Greyhawk-that pulp/noir thing again. I love Greyhawk too, don't get me wrong. I play Living Greyhawk on a regular basis, heck I've even co-authored a module (and writing another one now). That being said, I find it quite easy to find room in my gaming heart for both. The only setting I've never had a buring desire to play is FR. I've enjoyed reading about a dozen FR novels, I just don't feel the need to play it. I'm a strong subscriber to the "to each his/her own" philosophy. D&D is about choices (as has been aptly stated before)and Eberron provides me more choices I (and my players) enjoy.
Things I like about Eberron-
-The whole magic-as-technology feel. I like Warforged, Lightning rails and the like. Warforged are and easy class to munchkin and just roll some dice with, but they don't HAVE to be that way. They can be just as complex and interesting as any other race, I've seen it.
-The new races. They've been very well recieved with my group and I think they are (for the most part) interesting and well written.
-History and backstory. The creation story, the different epochs, a Goblinoid empire-very well done in my book.
-Abstraced deities and fuzzy alignment. Much more in line with how I design adventures than what is common or accepted in Greyhawk. A big plus in my book.
-Drow as jungle savages. Very refreshing. I can use standard Lolth-ian drow in Greyhawk.
I could go on, but it would be a waste of time. I understand that the very things I like may make someone else retch, that's ok too. As long as we discuss it like civilized people, some good may actually come out of it.
- I don't really "get" this pulp/noir thing. I googled it; looks like it's old adventure fiction and black-and-white crime detective movies. Those came and went before I was even born, how am I even meant to work out how to combine the two? Give me old-fashioned wizards and elves any day.
As a couple more modern examples of the same, you might check out the Garrett PI series of fantasy novels by author Glenn Cook. A modern film example would be, of course, Sin City.
And I think horseless carriages sounds cool. A 5th grader would come up with horseless wagons or something using slightly less archaic words.
No basis for this theory, but was "carriage" particularly archaic in the late 19th and early 20th centuries?
Eberron how I hate thee, its no fun the PCs get to much power (I'm a Darksun fan) so I like campaigns where you die from thirst. Eberron is just too lush and rich (in minerals) even after a brutal and destructive war there are these grand cities filled with magic and wealth. And the other land masses are barely mentioned (in my opinion the core book should cover a bit more) it feels like the campaign was set up in such away that in order to run a full campaign you had to buy expensive supplements. (To get around this I built my own continent and ran my only Eberron game there. I feel the setting is to easy (I like my games very hard) with to many broken rules (item creation) and strange and pointless races (warforged, Shifter, Doppelganger men, and the Kalishtar). I like that Wizards look to the audience for an idea, but the creativity that should have been found was lost because profits not good campaigns were the main focus (I did not submit a campaign idea).
I suppose the only one that can claim to be D&D is Greyahwk because that was the setting Gygax ran and developed the game in.
This is the misconception of many. Why must one setting be "D&D" and all others "not D&D"? D&D is a game system, not a world.
Keith, you say there should be alternatives and I agree with you. However, there are many others who disagree and I fear the staff at Paizo are in that boat. I know this sounds insulting, so please bear with me as I try to explain.
There are many people who enjoy D&D but have very little time (or the right people) to play. I play in Living Greyhawk on gamedays and conventions, I run an Age of Worms (soon to be Savage Tide) Eberron campaign and one of my players will be running Shackled City in Forgotten Realms in a few months. I may be wrong, but I think I'm in the minority. Most groups probably only have one choice to make.
The writing style of Dungeon and Dragon magazine makes it sound like there is a choice for everyone: "Core D&D". If an Eberron or Forgotten Realms adventure is introduced, there are conversion sidebars and big warnings that are trying to say "This is not Core D&D". It's assumed that "Core D&D" is for everyone, as if it exists outside of a setting. It doesn't. In some cases it's generic and portable (as is the material from FR and Eberron sometimes) but in some cases they make fundamental assumptions that run counter to how many "D&D" worlds are designed (and IMO homebrew settings count as D&D and they are the majority of campaigns out there).
(As an aside, even if a table decides to make a homebrew (or a homebrew version of a setting like Eberron), the table has to decide what books it will include in the group. Will the table allow material from Secrets of Xen'drik? Or Magic of Incarnum? Or the Player's Guide to Faerun? They then have to decide what flavor the crunch is going to have in their new world.)
I have nothing wrong with this, but I don't like the attitude that this is the "baseline", as if everyone is doing this. I also don't like how this "baseline" was created. It's a "setting" of ideas that were not designed with cohesiveness in mind. Just because one module from the eighties mentions a plot hook or throwaway reference for the context of that module doesn't mean it needs to be incorporated as absolute canon in all future editions of "Core D&D" (whatever that is). This is one of the things I like about Eberron; it takes the rules of the game into account for the setting and builds a world from scratch, independent of previous baggage or modules.
Take the Dungeon Crawl Classics as an example. I know that many of these modules were developed as standalone, generic modules with very little thought of developing a setting from these. Goodman Games is going to publish a setting sourcebook that creates a world from these adventures. This is good if you want to run these adventures with a little more cohesion, but from a setting design perspective it seems clunky IMO. This is, IMO, how Greyhawk (and to a lesser extent FR) was designed. It takes a lot of disjointed facts from various modules that were not designed with each other in mind and tries to force them together without losing the original context.
As far as testing the flavor vs Paizo's "baseline" setting of Greyhawk, I honestly don't see anything extremely different about Eberron, from a game rules perspective or a technological perspective. You can play epic adventures in Eberron. There are a few minor things as mentioned in this thread, but at its heart it's still D&D and not a radical departure from tradition. There are some (and the editors have posted their feelings on this) who believe Eberron is just a quirky setting like Dark Sun, Spelljammer, etc and will not stand the test of time as Greyhawk and FR have. I do not see Eberron as being as quirky or non-traditional as many of the dead settings.
I think Paizo's biggest hangup is with the planes, at least this is what Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Mona have indicated. They are fanatics when it comes to the history of the Great Wheel and demons and whatnot. They almost treat it like a religion, as though it's real instead of what it really is: just another setting. Like Greyhawk, it's another flimsy amalgamation of disjointed ideas, including the myths and legends of disparate ideologies of the Greeks, Bablyonians, Christians, Norse, etc. I know D&D is a mix of all of these things, but it should be taken in stride, not as a serious take on how all of these things MUST be combined. It's almost treated like a pseudo-science, as if it's some way of describing how all life on all conceivable "material planes" (campaign settings) are created. Again, it's just another setting, and it is NOT IMO what "defines" D&D.
And to answer one of the previous posters, Greyhawk is supported by the RPGA. If you are a Greyhawk fan and you are not ordering adventure modules from the RPGA you are doing yourself a great disservice.
I still think Wizards wouldn't hurt Eberron or FR sales by putting out just one GH hardcover to throw to the ravenous GH crowd.
I'd buy it. One of my favorite D&D experiences was running Living Greyhawk in Australia, and of course, I'm an old-timer too... I picked up my white box back in 1979, and I grabbed everything I could from that point forward. I'm as excited about the Demonomicon of Iggwilv as anyone.
But that's the point. I love Greyhawk. I'm glad to see Paizo continuing to support it, and if a new sourcebook came out, I'd buy it. But I also love Planescape, and I'm glad TSR took a chance and offered something new and different. And that's how I feel about Eberron. It is different, because that's the point of producing something new. Whether it's religion, magic level, the fact that orcs may be the good guys as often as they're the bad guys... it's a different experience. It's not for everyone, but just as I loved Planescape, it may be just the experience someone else is looking for. I would like to see more done with the settings of the past. @#%$, I'd like to see more Planescape. But I don't want to see that at the expense of continuing to explore new ideas and new possibilities.
I don't expect everyone to like Eberron, because it is a twist from classic fantasy. I don't know if it will still be around in ten years. But I don't expect anyone to be forced to play it, either. Earlier on this thread, someone said "Let's fight with our dollars! Don't buy Eberron stuff!" Uh... isn't that just basic logic? If you hate the setting, why would you ever buy Eberron stuff? I don't think WotC is coming around twisting people's arms. If enough people like it, it will continue to exist for those people. If it doesn't catch on, it will die, and that's OK - because if no one likes it, it SHOULD pass on to make way for another new idea. I don't expect it to ever be the sole setting for D&D. And no matter how successful it is, I hope that the powers that be will always be open to exploring new ideas, so some gamer in the future can enjoy something as new and exciting to them as Planescape was to me.
Uh... isn't that just basic logic? If you hate the setting, why would you ever buy Eberron stuff?
I think the majority of people who play D&D don't use Greyhawk, or FR, or Eberron, or Planescape, or whatever. The majority of people make their own homebrew world.
Eberron books have a lot of material that's inspiring. It's useful even outside of the context of the greater world. The races, the classes, the maps, the concept of Houses, dragonshards, artificiers, the use of action points (like the Dragon Prophecy stuff), manifest zones, the undying, the daelkyr, the Inspired, native outsiders, the Chamber of Dragons, the umbragen, surface drow, gnome conspirators...all of these things are great ideas that can be incorporated into many homebrews that are just as "D&D" and are not as offbase as some consider "Eberron" to be. Anyone who says "I don't like Eberron" and refuses to look at it is just throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There is a lot of good stuff in there; don't encourage people to pass it up just because lightning rails turned them off.
I could be running the world of Takaseeze and yoink a few things from Mysteries of the Moonseas, or Magic of Eberron, or even the Campaign Classics issue of Dragon. It's like the old ads for Dungeon; you don't have to run modules as is to get a lot of use out of the magazine. You don't have to call your campaign "Eberron" to get a lot of use out of Eberron books (or FR or d20 or whatever).
Earlier on this thread, someone said "Let's fight with our dollars! Don't buy Eberron stuff!" Uh... isn't that just basic logic? If you hate the setting, why would you ever buy Eberron stuff?
While I probably won't run an Eberron game in the future, it was all the criticism the setting got on these boards that made me want to take a look at it for myself. I leafed through the book at Barnes & Noble and said to myself "nah, not for me." However, then certain people (Dryder, Ashavan, others) convinced me that it had a lot of interesting things in it and could be used as a sourcebook for ideas (which I'm addicted to--ideas). What finally made me buy it was the Lords of Dust article earlier this year (or was it late last year?) in Dragon. Those rakshasa overlords were just very cool. Sharn is very interesting and will find a (heavily modified) place in my homebrew campaign world, which I'm finally taking a more active interest in and will possibly use for my campaign beyond AP3.
Earlier it was mentioned that role-playing and D&D as a community should be inclusive and not develop armed camps of us vs. them. I totally agree--not buying Eberron stuff is fine, but actively campaigning against it hoping that this will bring about support for your favorite campaign setting doesn't help anyone, certainly not the hobby we all love. I feel it's just counterproductive and destructive.....(but I still want a GH 3.5 updated hardcover...)