So what I gather from the responses so far is that the large majority of people who "use" Eberron material convert it to their own settings or just take bits and pieces?
In that case, wouldn't these adventures benefit the average reader more if they were generic, thus eliminating the need to convert and increasing the possibility that the reader will find the whole adventure useful instead of just bits and pieces?
In other words, even if people are technically "using" Eberron content, does that still justify that content being Eberron-focused if they're not using it without extensive modification? Why should they have to bother with that when it could have been more generic content in the first place?
Shouldn't the idea be to serve the average reader first and foremost? How does having 1-2 full issues of adventures in a single year that the average reader can't use without extensive, time-consuming modification or can only use bits and pieces of good for the magazine?
So what I gather from the responses so far is that the large majority of people who "use" Eberron material convert it to their own settings or just take bits and pieces?
I do the same thing for Greyhawk, FR, an "generic" adventures. I'm a DM. . . I don't expect the magazine to hold my hand and walk me across the street.
What I really want is as wide a variety of adventures as possible. I wants plots, stories, characters, conflict, excitement, exotic dungeons/locations, and all of that.
Actually, since we're on the subject, what does "adapting" mean anyway?
Actually, since we're on the subject, what does "adapting" mean anyway?
I suspect the definition of adapting varies widely depending on who the DM is. Some DMs may choose to only use the maps from an adventure, and consider that adapting... others may steal NPCs from the adventure, and others may just convert the setting and use the NPCs, maps, etc. as they appear.
Yamo - don't take the small sample of people who are motivated and use these message boards as the holy grail of how Dungeon is being used. We know that the message boards don't always represent the majority of readers... the Failed Wil Save? thread is an example of that.
As for adapting - I find it easier to remove setting specific elements than to find ways to integrate them into an existing plotline.
- Ashavan
|
Yes - I look for eberron staff and use it and thank you Paizo for this content
My sentimets exactly. I've DMed every Eberron adventure published (in Dungeon and out). Eberron is a fantastic setting. I'm glad to see the setting get support in Dungeon, and the Shards of Eberron campaign arc looks good. The first installment, Crypt of Crimson Stars is a great start.
I think the Dungeon staff is doing a teriffic job on the magazine. There is a great balance of material, adventure locales, art and maps. I'll continue to subscribe.
Don Kenneth Brown
Salt Lake City, Utah
My vote is No.
Eberron is a interesting Jack-of-All-Trades type of campaign world and they do have a few good ideas but not enough to invest the money in picking up the supplements and source books. Maybe in a few years it could develop into something more "Grand" but for now it is only one campaign setting among many.
"I do the same thing for Greyhawk..."
And I'll bet you have a much easier time of it, as Greyhawk adventures typically don't include any class, race, monster, spell or magic item that isn't in the core rulebook. You'd be hard-pressed to find an Eberron adventure that doesn't include all of the above.
"I don't expect the magazine to hold my hand and walk me across the street."
I do expect most of the adventures in it to be immediately useful to players who own only the core rulebooks. Exceptions to that rule should be exceedingly rare. One or two a year at most, but ideally none.
"Actually, since we're on the subject, what does 'adapting' mean anyway?"
In the broadest sense here, making the adventure fully-intelligable to a reader with neither knowledge of or access to the Eberron campaign setting book in order that it might be used in a standard D&D campaign based on the core rulebooks only.
Well, this is my first posting ever and I'm chiming in to say "NO" I don't use Eberron content.
For my part it's an effort to get back to basics. I've been playing D&D for over 20 years now and I'm just getting tired of seeing another new race or another new monster being used in an effort to reinivigorate a game or a setting. Wherever possible I encourage my Players to be human and I run games based on human centered story lines with strong plot elements. Some examples of this include Issue #114's "The Mad God's Key"; or #121's "Fiend's Embrace". Even #121's "The Styes" (which is ripe with monsters) provides a good example of how to use a single monstous adversary effectively if you play the game as a Cthuluesque style horror adventure in a predominantly human campaign.
I'm finding the use of so many races and monsters to be similar to the current stream of movies coming out of Hollywood that use special effects to cover-up the obvious deficit in writing talent (Lord of the Rings excepted).
If you want some great story telling that uses magic, races and monsters with finesse (as opposed to a bludgeon) pick up something by Guy Gavriel Kay (I recommend Tiganna as a prime example).
Anyway, I'm sure there's much to recommend the setting for those with a taste for "too much spice" in thier gaming. My preference is for playing a "less is more" style campaign and Ebberon just dosn't fit the bill.
"Wherever possible I encourage my Players to be human and I run games based on human centered story lines with strong plot elements."
What I liked about classic D&D (or "real D&D", as I call it when I'm feeling less diplomatic) is that Gygax came right out and said in the DMG that D&D is supposed to be humanocentric. I think the main mistake in the newer incarnations of the game is the removal of strict class and level limits for demihumans meant to force them into the supporting role they were intended for. Heck, even the term "demihuman", indicating the proper place of these characters as mere satallites in orbit around the "sun" of humanity, was dropped.
It's an important aspect of D&D design philosophy that I feel the game would benefit from the return of. Humans are supposed to be the Luke Skywalkers and Han Solos, nonhumans are supposed to be Chewbaccas at best (although the lowly halflings are more Jar Jar calibur...). :)
"Wherever possible I encourage my Players to be human and I run games based on human centered story lines with strong plot elements."
What I liked about classic D&D (or "real D&D", as I call it when I'm feeling less diplomatic) is that Gygax came right out and said in the DMG that D&D is supposed to be humanocentric.
It's an important aspect of D&D design philosophy that I feel the game would benefit from the return of. Humans are supposed to be the Luke Skywalkers and Han Solos, nonhumans are supposed to be Chewbaccas at best (although the lowly halflings are more Jar Jar calibur...). :)
Yamo -
The fact that this was Gygax's intention doesn't mean it is automatically the BEST way for the game to be played. Don't get me wrong... I have played many human characters, but I also like playing demihuman and even monstrous characters, and I always have. Halflings are my eternal favorite (I was a Bilbo Baggins fan, and I like playing halfling druids). I play the game the way *I* enjoy playing it, following the golden rule: keep the rules that work for you and discard the rest.
Your Star Wars example can easily be countered by a lord of the rings example.... the fellowship was essentially four halflings, a dwarf, an elf, two humans, and a celestial (ok, so many people would consider Gandalf human, but even counting him, that's 1/3 human to 2/3 demihuman).
Gygax went out of his way to provide a diversity among the human races of Greyhawk that served the setting well. In fact, in a Greyhawk setting, I am likely to play a human character for exactly that reason. But in other settings, I see nothing wrong with a different established dynamic. I like changelings, and warforged, but, to be honest, in Eberron I would likely play a gnome from Zilargo over the newer races. As a DM, however, I like the new races. I like the construction of the world, and I will not dismiss the setting simply because it is different in style, tone and content than Greyhawk is.
"Gary Gygax said so" is not a good enough reason for me to tell someone that their player should be a supporting role rather than a primary player.
- Ashavan
"The fact that this was Gygax's intention doesn't mean it is automatically the BEST way for the game to be played."
Well, yeah, but given that I've already indicated that I agree, this is kind of like telling a Jew "Moses may have said it, but who the heck is he, anyway?" :)
When it comes to how the game is played, that's every individual group's decision. When it comes to how it should be designed and presented, I'll side with Gary every time.
So what I gather from the responses so far is that the large majority of people who "use" Eberron material convert it to their own settings or just take bits and pieces?
Looking at the tallies for this pole, I'm not sure how you can state that "a large majority" adapt the Eberron material. Perhaps this is the same math you used to arrive at the conclusion that less than 5% of the readership plays in Eberron.
At the time of your post, 77% of voters indicated that they use the Eberron material or don't mind its prescence. Of that 77%, half indicated they use the material directly, less than half adapt, and a few just read it or don't begrudge its existence. Eventually I'll get around to quantifying those last two more precisely; it means going through all the posts again.
Well, yeah, but given that I've already indicated that I agree, this is kind of like telling a Jew "Moses may have said it, but who the heck is he, anyway?" :)
How? This statement is based on a supposition that I think gaming style equates to religion. For the record... if it does for you, you might want to seek therapy - as I'm quite sure that's unhealthy. I'm passionate about gaming, but religious belief, faith, and spirituality are something different. Religious belief, at its core, is irrational. It is a willingness to take something for granted based on faith alone - ignoring even logic and reason that tells you it may be (or certainly is) wrong. Basically your statment is the equivalent of saying that you are a fervent and irrational follower of Gary Gygax's beliefs and theories of gaming and that only those theories of game design are valid. If that's the case, you are missing out, and I'm sorry.
When it comes to how the game is played, that's every individual group's decision. When it comes to how it should be designed and presented, I'll side with Gary every time.
So just because Ford designed and built the first car, he is the best person to determine how modern cars are designed and presented? Same logic, and it doesn't work any better than your statement does.
- Ashavan
"How? This statement is based on a supposition that I think gaming style equates to religion."
You know, you can lead a horse to water, and use smileys, but you can't make it drink.
"So just because Ford designed and built the first car, he is the best person to determine how modern cars are designed and presented?"
I will say that if Henry Ford were somehow still alive, he should be able to dictate how Ford cars are made.
Gary is still alive, and I think it's a mistake (and disrespectful) to take his game in directions he doesn't approve of.
That's my two cents, anyway.
|
I will say that if Henry Ford were somehow still alive, he should be able to dictate how Ford cars are made.
Assuming someone left a cell phone or 2-way radio in his casket...
Gary is still alive, and I think it's a mistake (and disrespectful) to take his game in directions he doesn't approve of.
This implies that Gary disapproves of Eberron. I don't know that I've heard anything either way, but this may just be coming from my ignorance. Do you have a souce that he doesn't approve, or are you just basing that statement on Eberron being a different 'flavor' than Greyhawk? If it's the latter, would he approve of Dark Sun or Dragonlance, or even FR. Personally, I avoid talking for the creators of my favorite hobby unless I see some definite quotes.
"This implies that Gary disapproves of Eberron."
That I have no idea about, although I might ask him next time I visit the EN World forums. Koldoon and I had digressed from Eberron to discuss another issue entirely.
|
|
"YES", I have used and will continue to use Eberron specific material that appears in Dungeon. I haven't found it difficult to adapt material between Eberron and Generic/GH, and my group is currently enjoying the Shackled City AP in Eberron. Cauldron is set in the Graywall Mountains on the border between Breland and Droaam.
Tam
Reorganizing the categories a bit, here are the latest results:
Do you use the Eberron material in Dungeon?
Yes, I play it in Eberron: 35%
Yes, I adapt it to another world: 22%
No, but I like it or don't mind it: 27%
Nope; don't use it, don't like it: 17%
In summary, 57% use the Eberron content in some way, and 83% want to see the same level or more of Eberron in Dungeon.
I vote yes! I love Eberron, and while i recognize that a warforged adventure is little tough to convert to a standard greyhawk game, it's not impossible. And I really can't imagine anything more difficult than that. Most of the Eberron stuff is translated as easily as Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk. The only problems arise when you introduce races or character classes that don't exist in your standard world.... or should I say, that your players haven't encountered yet.
Do you use the Eberron content in Dungeon (or plan/want to use it in the future)? Sound off with a "yes," "no," or "other" and feel free to explain your choice.
My vote: yes.
Eberron is exciting, it's interesting. Not because it's new, but because it's genuinely well-designed and innovative. It's exotic, and yet distinctly and unmistakably D&D. It has it's flaws, like any setting, but on the whole it's very good.
Greyhawk is bland. It's dull. It tastes like chicken. This works as an advantage in one sense, in that a Greyhawk adventure can be seasoned and cooked and modified to fit into whatever world you like. But to convert a bland Greyhawk module into a distinctly Eberron one can often take a lot of work, with some complete re-writing necessary (I'm sure anyone trying to convert Shackled City knows this). Sometimes it's almost as easy to start from scratch. This is why Eberron adventures are needed.
i buy each issue seperately and, for the most part, i only buy the ones with Eberron content.
|
While my uses of Eberron material were confined to my Eberron campaign, I have found that many (sans Steel Shadows) work wonderfully well in any setting. Fallen Angel requires a larger city (Floating Towers can be subbed for mage schoools, etc.), Queen of the Burning Eyes requires catacombs and monstrous entities (Daelkyr statues are easily removed), and the Crypt of Stars fits into any world were you're willing to use halflings and dinosaurs.
So yes, I do use it, and I feel I can sue it in non-Eberron games as well (again, sans the warforged heavy material... but that's b/c I enjoy the race and feel it fits best in its original setting... like kalashtar)
"Do you use Eberron content in Dungeon?"
Not really; it's hard to use when all you get to do for gaming is read the magazine and books. (Deployment does that to a person.)
I have read the Eberron novels, and they're okay in their own right, but nothing outstanding. I have also read the Eberron "Ring of Storms" article and can see myself using that as an adventure area when I return from deployment. Did the article make me rethink the Eberron setting overall, no.
Will Eberron content make me cancel my subscription, no. It won't make me too happy, but I'm not going to complain needlessly about it.
Will I use the adventures and articles? As best I can, same as I'd do with anything Forgotten Realms.
-Alex...
I must vote a "No" on this one.
I'll adapt Eberron adventures if I must, but I'd rather get traditional adventures and I'd prefer a reduction of Eberron material.
(I don't feel any setting should dropped from the magazine if a good number of people are using it, but the "farther removed" the setting is from traditonal D&D the less often the setting should appear in the magazine -- for instance, the Forgotten Realms setting is a fairly minor variation and is easier to adapt, whereas Dark Sun, Planescape, or Eberron vary more from traditional settings.)
yes i use the Eberron content. Glad to see its there but it is easy enough to convert the other adventures.
Of course they could just make Eberron annuals. That is skip the content completely in the reguler magazine but put out one or two magazines a year focused just on the content for Eberron.
I'd be interested in something along these lines but instead of being Eberron instead have it be an eclectic mix of varous other settings.
Note here that I'm not advocating that Dungeon make 2 issues a year worthless for everyone that does not play Ebberon. Instead they keep with something akin to their reguler Dungeon offering but offer speacial edition magazines on top of this every so often.
In summary, 57% use the Eberron content in some way, and 83% want to see the same level or more of Eberron in Dungeon.
I believe your conclusions of the results are incorrect. The 27% should not be counted as a positive in your survey as it's a neutral answer. All you have is aproximately a 60-40 cut so far which would seem to me to be a realistic outcome.
Yes-- I use the content in Dungeon to the fullest. I just got Steel Shadows, and frankly, that Warforged Juggernaut is going to become an awesome monster in my capaign. The warforged can be a monster race just like anything else, same with the shifters and such, they are even in Monster Manual III. If you don't like the adventure, pull out the stat blocks or magical items, names, maps, whatever you think might be useful. I don't often use the dungeons as are anyway, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. For me Dungeon is a place for a good couple storylines, some inspiration, some fun, some stat blocks and items, and most importantly, some laughs and memories.
Love the setting, use the content. (Or at least will once I have time to run a game.)
I've been buying Dungeon for a while now since I know I'll usually find at least something I'll enjoy reading (If only the same could be said for Dragon) or will find useful. Though the promise of Eberron stuff in an issue is always pretty exciting.
I believe your conclusions of the results are incorrect. The 27% should not be counted as a positive in your survey as it's a neutral answer. All you have is aproximately a 60-40 cut so far which would seem to me to be a realistic outcome.
I'm not counting the 27% as positive; the 83% figure is a combination of positive and neutral responses. I'm saying that 83% of respondants don't want to tear the Eberron pages out of their magazines and then rip said pages into tiny bits.
This pole was meant to address a theory that a huge majority of the readership wants less Eberron in Dungeon -- the results show that 83% don't want less. They might not want any more, but not less either.
Count me in as a "no". I am planning on using some of the Eberron material, but only cause I feel I have to. I would be perfectly happy without it (but I guess I don't find it completely useless). Right now, I think the amount of it is probably fair, though after this campaign arc there better be a long break. Halflings on dinosaurs and golems with feelings just don't do it for me. Some things are ok, the ring o storms backdrop for instance might fit into some distant land in my campaign, but the adventures so far have been disappointing to me. Really to me (and I stress "to ME") the only thing I don't like about dungeon is the some Eberron content. But if that's the only flaw I guess I will live it. So in conclusion: Eberroff.
No I do not. I don't even bother trying to convert it to my Greyhawk campaign.
I had stopped buying Dungeon a long time ago but I was brought back by two things the AP and issue 112. The four-part poster map of Greyhawk kept my interest and I have bought a lot of back issues. Even if the magazine content isn't directly useable by me I can convert the material or use bits and pieces of it. Not so with the Eberron (or is it Eberon in Dungeon?) content. It is just waste for me. I can take a few useless items, I'm not greedy, but only up to a point.
For me, it is also Eberroff!
Eberron is great. I always look forward to new info.
I don't use the Eberron content and consider it an annoyance at best. As another poster has said, it's not adaptable to the average campaign without removing everything that makes it Eberron-ish. The concept of the warforged and dragonshards do not fit in my campaigns (and certainly not my concept of D&D), and they feature heavily in the published adventures. If the Eberron content goes up any more, my interest in and satisfaction with the magazine will decrease accordingly. I already grimace when I see that the new issue will feature Eberron (though this is more of a problem in Dragon).
If it's so easy to substitute X for them, why not print the adventures with an "Adapting for Eberron" sidebar? That would make the content usable for the majority of the people.
"If it's so easy to substitute X for them, why not print the adventures with an 'Adapting for Eberron' sidebar? That would make the content usable for the majority of the people."
Bravo! Why not indeed, "it's so easy to adapt" crowd? Shouldn't the minority have to do the conversion work?
Somewhat relevant to this thread, I finally got around to reading the current issue's Eberron adventure. It's the first adventure I would bother adapting to my campaign that is Eberron specific, although I found it kinda short.
Dungeon for me has always been campaign filler, the more difficult that filler is to use wholesale the less likely I am to use it at all.
Which means 90% of Eberron stuff won't be used in my game.
GVDammerung,
Great post. I agree 100%, including about Sharn being an awesome book. The CD that came with it was kinda cheesy, but you can never have too many Mountain Dew costers to curb those unsightly rings on the gaming table. :)
The problem with the Sharn adventure was that it made, IMO, poor use of the city of Sharn where it was allegedly set. All of the unique features of Sharn were just so much background to an otherwise pedestrian adventure. . . This is the problem with all Eberron adventures to date, IMO; they are Eberron in name only, with the exception of those that focus heavily on the Warforged. That, however, is another problem - the Warforged are not all there is to Eberron but too many Eberron adventures in Dungeon strike me as declaring themselves Eberron only because a) they throw in a Warforged and b) the name of the background area is taken from the Eberron setting.
Excellent Point! I agree that the Eberron stuff I have seen does not take advangtage of many of the opportunities Eberron has to offer.
I think that the hooks should be about land disputes, cultural disagreements, airship/lightning rail disasters, newspaper defamations, merchants cornering markets, trade wars, fashion debacles, moral use of power/nature/magic, increadible feats of craftsmanship, and so on. . . not another static dungeon rotting itself to pieces beneath all the REAL action.
AND as far as your other point goes, GVD:
Warforged - These guys are neat, sort of. I posted somewhere else (can't remember where) that this race is EXTREMELY LIMITED in terms of background and history. Saying that you are a "Halfling," an "Elf" or a "Shifter" doesn't automatically limit your gaming possibilites. Saying "Warforged" comes prepackaged with a heap of the same old flavor text.
Warforged are new, and I think once everyone realizes their limited potential, adventures focusing on them will start to fade away. At least I hope so.
|
|
Yes, I use the Eberron material. In fact, I look forward to it with baited breath.
The same is true of Greyhawk material. These are two of my favorite settings.
I wish there was more Mystara material, but alas there isn't.
I don't really have a concept of what D&D is or isn't, Dark Sun and Spelljammer killed that idea (both of those are cool by the way).
I have been a Dungeon subscriber for over five years now, and a purchaser for much longer, and I have seen things I like come and go. I very much miss the mini-games, but I am one of I guess five people who liked that feature and so it is gone and I have to use the Horizon line for my fix.
I read every issue of Dungeon, I only use about 10% of the material total (if that). But I do enjoy it all and find Dungeon to be of the highest quality. Even when I can't "adapt" an adventure because it contains races or features I don't use, I find that the adventures are mini-lessons in good adventure design. That I find enormously useful.
Currently I am using all the Eberron material. As a working DM, I need the prefab adventures. The writing has been excellent. Though I have to say that the Races of Eberron book has now essentially written my campaign for me. I will use whatever Eberron material comes out in the future and I can't wait to open my next issue.
I'm not counting the 27% as positive; the 83% figure is a combination of positive and neutral responses. I'm saying that 83% of respondants don't want to tear the Eberron pages out of their magazines and then rip said pages into tiny bits.
This pole was meant to address a theory that a huge majority of the readership wants less Eberron in Dungeon -- the results show that 83% don't want less. They might not want any more, but not less either.
Good -- Neutal -- Evil The three levels of the Eberron Poll
In your first post you said.....
Do you use the Eberron content in Dungeon (or plan/want to use it in the future)? Sound off with a "yes," "no," or "other" and feel free to explain your choice.
You're showing a bias by placing the "other" category into the "yes" category. The ones who are in the "other" category are neither for nor against and should be counted separately from both the "yes" and the "no." categories.
You need to keep three levels here in order to be accurate in your poll. Don't draw the conclusions that you wish to see. You're trying to say that 80%+ of the Dungeon readers want to keep the Eberron content. I just don't see that in the results. I see a slight majority for it with a smaller group that is neutral (e.g., I take things but don't use the modules) and another smaller group of against (Eberron! Ick!). Basicly, I guess it would be somewhere around a 60-30-10 breakdown.
--Ray.
I'm not counting the 27% as positive; the 83% figure is a combination of positive and neutral responses. I'm saying that 83% of respondants don't want to tear the Eberron pages out of their magazines and then rip said pages into tiny bits.
This pole was meant to address a theory that a huge majority of the readership wants less Eberron in Dungeon -- the results show that 83% don't want less. They might not want any more, but not less either.
Good -- Neutal -- Evil The three levels of the Eberron Poll
Okay, going with this alignment analogy, all I'm saying is that 83% of the responses were non-evil. Good + neutral = 83%. That's not putting a spin on anything, it's a statement of fact.
In your first post you said.....
I've altered the categories since then to be more specific.
You're showing a bias by placing the "other" category into the "yes" category. The ones who are in the "other" category are neither for nor against and should be counted separately from both the "yes" and the "no." categories.
I'm not counting neutral votes as "yes," I simply added "yes" and "other" just to illustrate how many are *not* saying "no." I'm not sure how to put this any more clearly....
You're trying to say that 80%+ of the Dungeon readers want to keep the Eberron content. I just don't see that in the results.
So then you think that the "neutral" voters want the Eberron content out/reduced? By definition, they don't mind/care about it -- they're satisfied with the amount that's in the magazine now. I put all the dissatisfied voters in the "Blech" column.
Basicly, I guess it would be somewhere around a 60-30-10 breakdown.
Which is also how I broke it down. Then I added 60+30 to note how many were "non-negative." That doesn't mean "positive," it's entirely different. If you don't see the difference between postive and non-negative by now, I can't explain it any more clearly.
Note: I could also say that 44% of respondants don't actually use the Eberron material and have no plans to -- that's also a fact. That would be the "non-good" vote. It's just different ways of looking at the numbers
I dont' play Eberron and I don't plan to either. I grew up playing in Greyhawk and that is the campaign I prefer. I don't use the Eberron content in Dungeon and at times it seems that there is just TOO much of it.
The problem with the Sharn adventure was that it made, IMO, poor use of the city of Sharn where it was allegedly set.
Actually, I think there's been three Sharn adventures. But your point is reasonable. Could you be more specific about how the adventures could have captured the flavor of Sharn for you? On the off-chance that I end up writing more adventures in the future, I'd certainly appreciate the feedback.
Just to let you know what *I* was trying to do, and how I felt that the adventures tied to Eberron:
Steel Shadows wasn't simply supposed to be an adventure that "threw in a warforged." The goal of the adventure was to get people to think about the role of the warforged in a post-war world: to introduce players to the warforged community of Khyber's Gate, and to the tension between its warforged and human inhabitants - the prejudices that are a result of war. I wanted to present a number of different warforged personalities, to show how the paths they might take - the humanist Dandy, LoB followers, laborers who want to be left alone. A further goal was to involve some aspects of mystery as opposed to being a straight dungeon crawl. Originally, I had wanted to do more with the House Cannith connection - sort of a Chinatown element, reflecting the power and potential corruption of the Sharn enclave - but in the end there just wasn't space. Word count is an ogre, and it often limits what you can fit into a story. In retrospect it might have been good to discuss the ir'Tain family in more detail, highlighting the long-term consequences of the manner in which the PCs deal with the foundry; but again, this is an issue of how much fluff one can fit into the allowed amount of space while still providing the core adventure.
With Fallen Angel, the goal was to explore the ways that a dungeon can exist in a city. I think Fallen is one of the more interesting districts in Sharn, and my main regret with the adventure was that there wasn't more room to explore the Raver cultures. But the purpose of the adventure is to draw players into this district, bringing them into contact with this postapocalyptic environment, and to introduce some of the important NPCs, like Faela. It also provides a hook for the Radiant Idols, something that a DM could follow through with in the future. With Fallen itself, the goal is to drag the PCs through misery that exists under their noses. This isn't some ancient ruin of some long-forgotten civilization - this is right in your town, dealing with people driven mad by one of the worst disasters to hit the city. In my mind, these were issues tied directly to Eberron - a look at the glass tower, an examination of one of the Raver tribes, an introduction to Faela and the Radiant Idols.
As for the Ring of Storms, I'm sorry to hear that you didn't care for it; in retrospect, I do feel that there somehow isn't as much to it as I would like. However, for me, the chance to explore a little more of the history of Xen'drik - the last days of the giants, the roots of the Blood of Vol in the Qabalrin - was an interesting opportunity. Perhaps I didn't accomplish as much with it as I could have, and I certainly accept responsibility for that.
But, I would like to hear how you feel Fallen Angel and Steel Shadows could have been tied more strongly to Sharn or Eberron; hopefully that feedback can lead to better adventures in the future.
Of course, with that said, you've put your finger on the problem. You say "an adventure... that might have been set with minimal disruption in Waterdeep, the City of Greyhawk..." Obviously, it's in Dungeon's interests to present an adventure that CAN be adapted to Waterdeep or Greyhawk, because then there is the potential that all readers can get some use out of it. If the adventure is completely tied to a unique element that just can't be pried away from Eberron, then you have compeltely ruled it out for anyone who doesn't use the setting - whether because they don't like it, or simply because they already have an ongoing campaign in another setting.
First of all, Keith great job on Eberron. A good friend of mine is a world hater. He hates all worlds created like forgotten realms and dragonlance. He would always spit on Eberron when i kept telling him how much i loved the depth of the world. That is until he actually looked at the world. He is now dming us through Eberron with gusto. He has finally seen the light.
About the adventures, I think they were good (ok Ring might need a bit of work). They show an aspect of Eberron, and Sharn that we didnt see in ECS. If there is something that a dm dosent like or dosent feel portrays the city properly then he can easily change it. He is DM!!!!
About how hard it is to place the adventures in another world then Eberron well with a bit of imagination and work it can be done. The adventures containing warforged can be changed into another race that was enslaved or just constructs created by a wizard.
GVDammerung -
Thanks for the feedback! I'll certainly bear it in mind in the future. I am sorry to hear that Steel Shadows didn't work for you. It is very important to me that the warforged NOT be seen as "metal humans" or, for that matter as robots. The replicants of Blade Runner are one example, but for me, even more so, it comes to the question of what it is like to have your existence shaped by a purpose - along with the following question of what you do when that purpose is no longer called for. A human fighter and a warforged fighter are entirely different, because the warforged sees the entire world through the lens of battle - while the human grew up like everyone else and then chose the path of war.
Unfortunately, both in this and your suggestion that adventures take place spread across Sharn, space is really the biggest obstacle. If you're dealing with a 32-page module, you've got around 24K words to work with; that's enough space to travel from district to district, to present in-depth details on NPCs, and so on. Like I said, in Steel Shadows (and spoilers to follow if you haven't read it) I wanted to go into more detail about House Cannith: their interactions with the warforged community and knowledge of Copper's activities, and develop an ongoing NPC villain who would provide the more noir aspect. Copper was always intended to be more of a pulp villain - a mad scientist, even if he had a noble goal. Cannith was there to provide the noir aspect. The true villain, even though they never face the PCs in battle - who were aware of what was going on and chose to allow it to continue in hopes of personal financial benefit, a power the PCs would be aware of at the end but couldn't touch. But there simply wasn't room for that plot in the space available. The same goes for Fallen Angel and the ravers; dealing with multiple raver tribes would have been more interesting, but to make it interesting you need to devote the space to discussing the tribes, their personalities, structure, etc - something that could really be an entire backdrop without even squeezing in an adventure.
That's not to say these things can't be done; perhaps I need to learn to do more with less. But that's the difficulty one labors under: whatever ideas you may have, at the end of the day you have to be able to squeeze it into the alotted word count.
One thing I will note (and I realize that I'm drawing the thread way off topic, so I'll leave it alone after this) is that while Eberron is described as "pulp noir", that doesn't mean that every adventure is expected to draw on both sources of inspiration, but rather that both are present in the world. Really, it's a matter of what style of play the DM prefers. Just looking to the villains in Eberron, they're even designed to be of more use to these different styles of play. The Order of the Emerald Claw are the pulp villains: when you find them, you know they are bad. Whatever they are up to, you can feel good about stopping it. A group like the Chamber, on the other hand, is mysterious and completely unpredictable. Even if they've done good in the past, you can never truly know what their motives are, and actions you take in their service may cause as much harm as good. But fundamentally, a dungeon crawl in Xen'drik may be entirely pulp-driven; by contrast, an adventure dealing with the conflict between Daask and the Boromar Clan could be pure noir, with little action and a great deal of moral uncertainty.
So far, the adventures that have come out for Eberron have leaned in the pulp direction. I don't consider this to be a failing, because it's always been a part of the setting: "pulp noir" is a spectrum, and it's up to the DM to place an adventure along that spectrum. With that said, it is a shame that the noir aspects of the world have been more or less undeveloped in published work, and hopefully that will change in time. If I do have the opportunity to write another Eberron adventure, I'll see if I can bring that to the fore.
I use the information, adventures, hooks, wizards/dnd/eberron, published adventures, etc for an Eberron Sharn based campaign.
I really enjoyed completely starting anew, giving this new set of works a chance. Not because it was new, but because it had complete support of WoTC, Paizo and many many contributors.
It is exactly this full effort that draws me to a setting that gives me so many hooks, maps, materials, backdrops and more, that allow me to live a full working life and make adaptations/rewrites to fit my own version of an Eberron Sharn campaign.
It is such a nice platform that another friend of mine that runs a game has set aside his 20 year home brew campaign to run an Eberron game out of Q'barra. We use our ideas and essentially what happens in one world exists in the others.
Keep up the good work and I thank the entire effort thus far.
Play it: 40%
Adapt it: 18%
Don't use it, don't mind it: 22%
Don't use it, don't like it: 21%
and counting...