|
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).
Man, how I heard people saying exactly this about 10 years ago about the FR...
And what about FR now?! There are still people out there who love it as well as hate it!The same's true for Eberron! I love Eberron, and despite that fact, I changed things which I would love to have in another way. I did the same with a more than 10 years running FR-Campaing.
The moment I heard one of my players say "That's cool!" to himslelf during play, when a huge fight had been in progress on a fast moving Lightning Rail I knew, that Eberron is something special. (Yeah, I plan to skip the Lightning Rail in order to make Eberron bigger again).
I read about 10 peoples opinons here on these boards about how they hate this or that about Eberron or the setting as a whole - but there are so many out there (not participating here) who love it!
Eberron is different (as Keith mentioned already) and Planescape was different as well. PS has a small, but dedicated fan community and I am sure Eberrons is at least as huge! The whole D&D game would lack much, if Eberron hadn't been released!
(...)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.
So what? FR and PS as well! (I don't know about GH here).
Some guys always talk bad about a setting because this suc*s or that pi**es him off. If you sit there waiting for someone to come up with a setting which 100% fits your needs or taste, don't get angry or rude if some guys (who try) come up with something which not quite fits your needs! There are people who like it and I appreciate stuff which is already made up for me. If you don't like Eberron because it's too HIGH-MAGIC, cut the magic down. There's only so much magic as the DM allows.
I stop here now, even if I could write on and on on this.
Eberron ROCKS! It's different and it's fantasy looked at from another point of view!
|
|
(...) 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). (...)
Yes!
Making your own D&D came is nothing but stealing ideas from whatever source fits. That's what DMing is all about. Mix your own ideas with others or get inspired by other's ideas!
What finally made me buy it was the Lords of Dust article earlier this year (or was it late last year?) in Dragon.
I'm glad you liked it. And even more than that, I'm grateful to Paizo for printing it. I really appreciate the fact that despite whatever personal preferences people have, Erik and the others have been willing to give Eberron material a chance, and to give me (and others) an opportunity to expand the world beyond what is otherwise possible with the limited sourcebook release schedule.
(...) 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). (...)Yes!
Making your own D&D came is nothing but stealing ideas from whatever source fits. That's what DMing is all about. Mix your own ideas with others or get inspired by other's ideas!
Copy that! Idea-addict myself. :D
|
|
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 personally don't have any problems with people doing what they want in their own home as long as it doesn't hurt anyone that doesn't want to be hurt...
The hostility/rancor/whatnot in my case stems from1)lectures on Eberronomics (i.e. WOTC publishes THIS and not THAT therefore GH is dead, stale, grey, etc...because we all know that WOTC's marketing division is nigh omniscient).
2)overly long and drawn out bouts of whining about "lack of Eberron support" in Paizo pub's due to Erik Mona's bleak cabal of Greyhawk Worshippers.
3)Admonitions that if you don't TRY Eberron, you're closeminded.
I don't think that not getting into Eberron is evidence of this. The whole d20 motif is just one long variation on a theme.
Plenty of people talk about their Eberron stuff all over these boards and I'm content not to jack with them. But when someone insults my intelligence with bullcrap and passive aggressive drivel, yeah, I tend to get cranky. I can't help it, I'm old and crotchety.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I personally don't have any problems with people doing what they want in their own home as long as it doesn't hurt anyone that doesn't want to be hurt...
The hostility/rancor/whatnot in my case stems from
1)lectures on Eberronomics (i.e. WOTC publishes THIS and not THAT therefore GH is dead, stale, grey, etc...because we all know that WOTC's marketing division is nigh omniscient).
2)overly long and drawn out bouts of whining about "lack of Eberron support" in Paizo pub's due to Erik Mona's bleak cabal of Greyhawk Worshippers.
3)Admonitions that if you don't TRY Eberron, you're closeminded.
I don't think that not getting into Eberron is evidence of this. The whole d20 motif is just one long variation on a theme.
Plenty of people talk about their Eberron stuff all over these boards and I'm content not to jack with them. But when someone insults my intelligence with bullcrap and passive aggressive drivel, yeah, I tend to get cranky. I can't help it, I'm old and crotchety.
Hmm...if only I could figure out who you're talking about.
I'm glad Keith posted. I wish he had taken the time to tell Takasi to quit ruining his setting for other people with obnoxious posts, but I suppose failing to respond to him demonstrates a certain level of non-support.
Of course, others may interpret Keith's silence as tacit approval of their whacked out paranoid conspiracies. This would be incorret - the fact that he posted on a thread I started shows that Keith agrees with everything I have said or will ever say!!!
Fear me! I am the avatar of Keith Baker! I wield his divine wrath and speak on his behalf. Mha ha ha!
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
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.
Hey, now, that's not quite fair. My dislike of Eberron's boutique cosmology has nothing to do with my respect for you personally or the campaign setting as a whole. Please don't take my comment as an indictment of the setting as a whole or of you personally.
To me, the key point is that Eberron isn't the baseline D&D experience.
As "something different," I agree that Eberron has a lot going for it. As _the_ D&D setting, I think there are some challenges. Doesn't mean I don't think the setting's cool. I really like all of the articles we've published on the setting and I like a lot of what I've read in the books themselves.
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.
In case I've been misunderstood, I want to make it clear that _as an alternative from the baseline_, I think this is all well and good. I am a 25-year veteran of the Great Wheel and an unapologetic fan of "classic" D&D, however, so my most powerful interests lie very close to the baseline.
D&D is at its best when it provides lots of options, and Eberron is certainly among the best of the "non-vanilla" flavors ever to be offered to D&D fans, no question about it.
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?
To be fair, I think that's a bit of a strawman. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Eberron would have been better if it used gods from other settings. Since so much of the Great Wheel is hard-wired into the rules of the game and has been a tradition for D&D going back to the very beginning, I think it's natural that a lot of players (myself included) would prefer that Eberron be treated more or less the same as every other Material Plane world in the history of D&D, which opens up villains like Orcus and Asmodeus and allows the use of decades of old product, much of which avid D&Ders already own.
The differences of Eberron are manifold, and any one of them is probably enough to convince a player to give the setting a try. Warforged, jungle drow, lightning rails, and all the rest would still work perfectly if Eberron used the Great Wheel cosmology, so the "reason" to play (or, for that matter, not to play) an Eberron campaign does not and should not hinge on this single factor.
It is, however, a barrier to entry for a lot of long-time players who are not interested in giving up what has been one of the major cornerstones of D&D development since the first edition Dungeon Master's Guide.
I just wrote "Fiendish Codex 1: Hordes of the Abyss," and you might be surprised by how many people have commented that they "can't" use it with their Eberron campaign, because Eberron does not include the Abyss. That means that a lot of people are passing on a book that is filled to the brim with material easily usable in an Eberron campaign because of this planar dichotomy. As the co-author of that book and as an editor who must try to please as many people as possible as often as I can, the Great Wheel/Eberron Planes dichotomy closes more doors than it opens.
--Erik
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I'm glad you liked it. And even more than that, I'm grateful to Paizo for printing it. I really appreciate the fact that despite whatever personal preferences people have, Erik and the others have been willing to give Eberron material a chance, and to give me (and others) an opportunity to expand the world beyond what is otherwise possible with the limited sourcebook release schedule.
Don't let Takasi's amateur psychoanalysis get you down, Keith. Eberron has many supporters here at the office, and as editor-in-chief I have done my level best to make sure that the setting is well represented in the magazine.
--Erik
I just wrote "Fiendish Codex 1: Hordes of the Abyss," and you might be surprised by how many people have commented that they "can't" use it with their Eberron campaign, because Eberron does not include the Abyss. That means that a lot of people are passing on a book that is filled to the brim with material easily usable in an Eberron campaign because of this planar dichotomy.
I'd have to say that there's a lack of creativity on the DM's part if they "can't" use something out of a sourcebook. The Abyss could be substituted with Khyber, or the Demon Wastes, or Daargun, or the Shadow Marches. "Can't" is a naughty, dirty, filthy, vile verb that should be burned, at least in this particular instance. I don't see how because a book is presented in one way, using a particular instance (The Abyss) to make it more cohesive, that it "can't" be used in another. That just seems very close-minded and uncreative to me. *rant rave rant*
What's to say the Demon Princes don't have their own territories in the Demon Wastes? Maybe they're looking for some elbow room? Maybe the Lords of Dust are their employers and the Demon Princes are the muscle? How does Orcus, Demon Prince of the Undead, not find a home in Karr'nath, with its history of the undead? Kaius is a freakin' vampire, by the Abyss! *rant rave rant*
People say "can't" - I say "why not?"
Besides, it's nothing that couldn't be "fixed" if someone (WotC) released a "conversion guide" for a campaign setting. Something that could be easily done by any DM. I wonder if people are getting their britches in a twist because it's not canon? That they are expecting a word from On High stating what they can and cannot do? As far as I'm concerned about the "Eberron can't use the Fiendish Codex I" issue, the rules determining that are presented clearly in the Eberron Campaign Setting. Planes can be coterminous with the Material Plane. Find a suitable home for them (and I'm not up on the Eberron planes, so forgive me) and make it coterminous. Whee! How hard was that??
Okay, rant over. Really. I probably should have put that in the rant thread, but I'm still convinced "can't" should be a naughty, dirty, filthy, vile verb that doesn't need to be in a DM's vocabulary when drawing material together for a campaign or adventure.
Since so much of the Great Wheel is hard-wired into the rules of the game and has been a tradition for D&D going back to the very beginning, I think it's natural that a lot of players (myself included) would prefer that Eberron be treated more or less the same as every other Material Plane world in the history of D&D...
I just wrote "Fiendish Codex 1: Hordes of the Abyss," and you might be surprised by how many people have commented that they "can't" use it with their Eberron campaign ...
No, it really doesn't surprise me at all; I think it's a very valid complaint. It's certainly one of the most challenging issues when dealing with things like Adventure Path conversions. And hey, between having my first edition books still up on my bookshelf and the "Planescape Fan" sign floating over my head, it's not as if I don't know the Great Wheel like the back of my hand myself.
It's a frustrating situation. On the one hand, I completely agree with you: It would be much easier for people to adapt existing material to the new setting if it was just one more world in the material plane. On the other hand, I like having the opportunity to explore an entirely new cosmology, providing room for the cycles of planar reincarnation of Dal Quor, for the shifting alliances of Shavarath, for arrogant and distant Syrania and subtle Thelanis. The greatest problem that I see is that so little material exists ON the planes of Eberron; as a player or DM, you basically only have a paragraph on each one. *I* have a vision of each plane, why I think it's interesting, how I would adapt existing material to fit to it, where I would put archfiends and others. You, on the other hand, are stuck with "Mabar is the realm of night. It's... um... very dark." And that's just not a lot of material to work with. Once more material becomes available on the Planes (which I assume one day it will), I think things will become easier... but I do agree, at the moment, this is a very difficult point of conversion, and makes it very hard for Eberron players to make use of existing planar material.
Of course, while *I* like the planes of Eberron (small surprise), following the whole "use what works in your game" theory, it's not like I'm going to rant and curse if I hear about people who actually replace the Thirteen with the Great Wheel in their Eberron campaigns. Again, I think that the Thirteen have a great deal to offer in the future, and as with all things in Eberron I appreciate the chance to explore new ideas. But the Great Wheel is tried and true, and compared to many things, it's a fairly easy substitution to make.
Keith, as a player who has been playing D & D since 1st edition, I can say that I have enjoyed Eberron immensely. Yes, there are ALWAYS going to be problems converting one sourcebook to be used in a setting that it was not totally meant for. However, I feel that most people over here are creative enough to at least attempt that conversion.
Also, Keith, remember this... It is because of Eberron that I go back into D & D after a 10 year hiatus. Now I admit, my pocketbook dislikes you for that, but do not let my wallet affect your thinking. I for one want to say that I appreciate your innovative setting! Keep up the good work!
I think my problem with eberron, and hence the reason I don't actually buy the material, is that Sharn is a really neet idea for a setting, and the rest of the world is a really neet setting idea. I just can't quite get the two of them to click together for me, though.
Keith was talking about how Eberron features both pulp and noir elements, and that those elements aren't really a fusion but a pick-and-choose kind of affair. I think that either/or dichotomy is felt most distinctly in Sharn - because it's a really nice setting idea on its own, and it does feel very noir - but the rest of the world (xenedrik especially) pretty much epitomizes the indiana jones pulp feel. as a DM, I wouldn't want to deal with trying to balance the dichotomy of those particular two eberrons.
on the other hand, there are some bits of eberron I really find fascinating, and would really love to see more of - the Inspired/Kalashtar dynamic is spectacularly cool, for instance.
|
People say "can't" - I say "why not?"
I have been hearing similar things about Dungeon magazine where they feel that an adventure is a waste if it is set in Eberron since they don't play there.
I thought that the Maure Castle issue was outstanding and I don't play in Greyhawk. I don't even plan on using the issue as written. There are still so many great ideas in that issue that it shouldn't matter and they could fit anywhere (I loved the illusionary cheering crowds -- can't wait to use that one). People should be able to use stat blocks (creature or NPC), plots, backgrounds, maps (buildings or area), encounters, or at the very least some of the pretty pictures as handouts.
Now if only someone could come up with a way to catalogue all the ideas to come to my mind as I read all the sourcebooks/articles/etc. for easy future reference...
As far as the Eberron planes issues --
Hey Keith and Erik -- I see potential for 13 articles in Dragon Magazine. How about it? (That is unless there is already a HC in the works.)
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I'd have to say that there's a lack of creativity on the DM's part if they "can't" use something out of a sourcebook.
I completely agree with you, but there you have it. You might be surprised how rigidly dogmatic D&D players can be. For a while we ran "for your campaign" sidebars suggesting the likes of "change 'Sembia' to 'Nyrond,'" because without that kind of simple hand-holding, people were writing off whole articles.
I'm not saying it's a great reflection on the creativity of DMs, but I am saying that it's definitely true.
--Erik
As far as the Eberron planes issues --
Hey Keith and Erik -- I see potential for 13 articles in Dragon Magazine. How about it? (That is unless there is already a HC in the works.)
I'd love to do something like this, but that's obviously a level of commitment to a specific aspect of a specific setting that may not be appropriate for Dragon... and it's possible WotC does already have plans (as a freelancer, I don't know everything that's in the works).
Of course, the big problem with a 13-article run of anything to do with Eberron is that you KNOW that last article will disappear in some sort of freak accident.
Stupid dragons. Stupid prophecy.
For a while we ran "for your campaign" sidebars suggesting the likes of "change 'Sembia' to 'Nyrond,'" because without that kind of simple hand-holding, people were writing off whole articles.
You still do this for Eberron articles, but not for Greyhawk. Specifically, you don't do this for articles like the ecologies that don't take into consideration the difficulty of adaption to other worlds. They read like absolute canon, and as you guys have said in the past, if it reads like it's from another world it's interesting but not as useful to the untrained eye.
For the record, I love sidebars. (As if I really had to say that.) All it takes are a few nods to Eberron and the Forgotten Realms to get the mind flowing. Has anyone seen the approach taken in the latest "Steal this Hook" on WotC's site? Campaign setting are big places and sidebars help place things.
Wile a few proper nouns may sound like they don't make much of a difference, as you can see many people will be put off if they see them. Like it or not, there are always going to be people who absolutely refuse to pick up something if it does or doesn't have setting specific material.
On the other hand, there are some bits of eberron I really find fascinating, and would really love to see more of - the Inspired/Kalashtar dynamic is spectacularly cool, for instance.
Well, I can neither confirm or deny the existence of any sourcebook WotC hasn't announced, but Amazon seems to think there's a book coming out that you'll want to see..
Of course, the big problem with a 13-article run of anything to do with Eberron is that you KNOW that last article will disappear in some sort of freak accident.
This is the prime reason why I don't like the "Core Beliefs" articles. This info is fundamental campaign stuff, and I like my material together in source books. The demonomicon isn't so bad, because you're probably only going to focus on one or two in a campaign anywhere, whereas gods come in pantheons.
As someone who loves Dungeons & Dragons for the game and not for any of the number of settings one can play in, I'm continually amazed by how many folks in our hobby feel that there is really only one way to play it.
I started in Forgotten Realms, did some Greyhawk in 2000 or so, have read a lot of the Eberron books, I'm even reading an advanced copy of Ptolus ... and you know what? I love ALL OF IT! Anything that makes that little geeky sixth grader in me jump up-and-down and just straight geek out is good in my book.
I don't give a lick where it came from, who wrote it, whether or not it's canon, how many gods there are, where the planes are located, none of it. I love Dungeons & Dragons in all forms and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Give me a sword and a kobold to slay and I don't care if I just killed that kobold in Undermountain, atop the highest tower in Sharn, or on the steppes of Hepmonaland. I'm an equal opportunity D&D nerd. We're all in this together; let's all be D&D nerds together.
This message was paid for by the People for the Preservation of D&D (P2D2).
There are still so many great ideas in that issue that it shouldn't matter and they could fit anywhere (I loved the illusionary cheering crowds -- can't wait to use that one). People should be able to use stat blocks (creature or NPC), plots, backgrounds, maps (buildings or area), encounters, or at the very least some of the pretty pictures as handouts.
Precisely. There should always be something usable. I've saved every mini-map that's come with Dungeon/Dragon and I don't even use miniatures, but they're great springboards.
Now if only someone could come up with a way to catalogue all the ideas to come to my mind as I read all the sourcebooks/articles/etc. for easy future reference.
I regularly go through my Dungeon/Dragon magazines with a steno notebook. As I go through, I jot down particular articles that catch my interest with a brief idea on how to potentially work it into the campaign ("Spiral of Manzessine - party on way to Unicorn Clan", "Ghost Elves, good counterpoint to Tebryn/Thayghen?", "alchemical items in Dragon #X", "brainstealer dragon", "Deadgate", "Beholder Cultists"). It's basically a notes list and since a steno book is divided equally down the page, I have the source on the left hand side and my brief, one-two sentence comment on it. It's a list I keep with me every gaming session in case my players take a right turn at Alberquerque during the session. My one-two sentence is generally enough to jog the memory and come up with details on the fly if I have to. It's also a list I refer back to if I'm coming up dry for adventure session ideas. I may never use the list, but there have been many a time where I'd have been dead in the water without it.
For the record, the Ghost Elves from Dragon #313 and "The Spiral of Manzessine" have created some of the most memorable moments in my campaign. "The Spiral," in particular, created some of these classic quotes:
"A buffed-out illithid? Illithids should NOT be buff! Not!"
"With a sinuous slithering, the tattoo slides off the corpse and crawls up your arm. Your skin burns as it settles deep into your flesh."
Tattooed Player: "Crap!"
Other Player: "I cut off his arm."
Tattooed Player: "What?!?!"
"They're talking about brain jerky. Make them stop!!"
Back to the thread topic, I think Eberron fans are overdue for a detailed book or articles on the cosmology of Eberron.
I'm an equal opportunity D&D nerd. We're all in this together; let's all be D&D nerds together.
Amen!
(Though the D&D nerd in me feels obliged to point out that by making a conciliatory statement in my threatened boardspace, you're provoking an argument of opportunity...)
I started in Forgotten Realms, did some Greyhawk in 2000 or so, have read a lot of the Eberron books, I'm even reading an advanced copy of Ptolus ... and you know what? I love ALL OF IT! Anything that makes that little geeky sixth grader in me jump up-and-down and just straight geek out is good in my book.
I'll be jumping up-and-down right next to you! (Of course, I was in fifth grade, but that would be nit-picking. ;) )
I don't give a lick where it came from, who wrote it, whether or not it's canon, how many gods there are, where the planes are located, none of it. I love Dungeons & Dragons in all forms and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Give me a sword and a kobold to slay and I don't care if I just killed that kobold in Undermountain, atop the highest tower in Sharn, or on the steppes of Hepmonaland. I'm an equal opportunity D&D nerd. We're all in this together; let's all be D&D nerds together.
I'm with you there, Josh - let's just play the GAME! D&D Nerds Unite! :D
And my comment on canon still holds true, methinks - "Sometimes canon needs to be shot out of a cannon."
|
|
... 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... ...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...
But then again, I'm just one of those 30 somethings...
Well said.
I don't know if this is the common way of playing worldwide, or if it was just specific to the UK, or just to my specific groups, but the only game in town for me and my friends during the '80s was homebrew.Oh, sure, we played the classic adventures, but these were plopped into the mix, with the place-names changed, along with magazine adventures and self-penned side-treks. We were aware of the existence of the official campaign settings, where all these had first been playtested, but they were seen simply as places to pick and choose elements for your own game.
We'd play for a few months, until the PCs died, the DM got burned out or bored, or someone else begged to run, then we'd do it all over again. Sometimes we'd roll up 1st level characters, and see where the game took us; other times we'd be told "I'm running module X", and we'd create characters specifically for that, knowing that once the adventure was over, they'd be mothballed for ever.
Part of the reason for this approach was that we were kids, we had schoolwork, we had exams, we had parents who'd move to another county, we had university, we had players who would try the game and get bored, or who couldn't commit to anything longer than a few months, because they might not qualify for next year's classes.
It wasn't until the '90s that I had any stability in my gaming group, and we could commit to a longer campaign, knowing that the same faces would be there every week. We started playing more involved games, where the PCs had lives outside the dungeon, and we could use some of that background flavour text in the setting books.
But the seed had been sown, and it was still seen as the mark of a True DM that he would create his own campaign, or at the very least, modify an official setting to his own taste; that using a pre-packaged setting 'as is' was 'cheating'. This appears to have rubbed off on even the new players round my way; among the members of my wargames club, and their satellite players, there have been maybe 20 campaigns started since D&D3.5, and of those, only 1 (1!) has been a published setting. This is a Shackled City campaign, set in Greyhawk (of which I am a player), and this is only because the DM has children, and would like to reduce his workload.
Some players/DMs have tried to push FR over the years, but most people I know won't touch it. They object to the railroading of the plotlines to fit the next novel, the deus ex machina NPCs, and the incessant interference by the gods.
A couple of people have expressed an interest in buying/running Eberron, but many are wary, despite the setting containing appealing elements, since they expect WOTC will not be able to resist messing with the setting and changing it out of recognition. So the verdict is - wait & see.
Greyhawk appears to be the only official setting that most players near me would consider using or adapting, and I'm not talking about crusty old codgers here. Many of my immediate and satellite circle are in their twenties, many are still mid-teens. These people weren't even born when 2E came out, and were still in short pants when GH was dropped. The fact that the setting is unsupported is a plus to them, since it allows them to take it and run with it, without worrying about contradictory future products or needing to know a complicated backstory. All they ask is that they can buy an atlas/gazeteer which shows the situation at "Day One", and be free to branch off in their own direction from there. That's not to say they wouldn't welcome extra GH product, just that it should cover the vast, unexplored parts of the map to the south-east.
The fanaticism with which some posters have been defending their chosen pre-packaged world is nothing short of extraordinary, as is the fanaticism with which they attack other's world of choice.
If I had to choose, I would choose GH, for the same reason as my GM; that I'm reducing my work using a product I and my players are familiar with. I respect the work that went into it, as well as its contribution to the game to date.
I respect the volume of work carried out for FR, even if there's little chance of me playing there.
And I respect the work of Keith Baker and others on Eberron, and the fact they were willing to look outside the box, and not lazily churn out a GH/FR clone.
But then again, maybe we Brits are just weird.
I know I'm going to get slammed for this, and I hate to break up the nerd lovefest.
Just because it's D&D doesn't mean it's good material or wanted by enough fans to support the magazines we love. I'm not willing to accept anything just because it's D&D. There are things I don't like to see in D&D (but not much, like I wouldn't want to see three adventures in a row with space hamsters for example) and there are some things I like to see more than others. While it's nice to step back and realize we're all in the same boat, there's always going to be moaning and griping on the direction of the sails.
I'd have to say that there's a lack of creativity on the DM's part if they "can't" use something out of a sourcebook.I completely agree with you, but there you have it. You might be surprised how rigidly dogmatic D&D players can be. For a while we ran "for your campaign" sidebars suggesting the likes of "change 'Sembia' to 'Nyrond,'" because without that kind of simple hand-holding, people were writing off whole articles.
I'm not saying it's a great reflection on the creativity of DMs, but I am saying that it's definitely true.
--Erik
It was quite an eye-opener for me when I started visiting RPG messageboards (for what else? Ideas!!) who HAD to HAVE stuff spoon fed to them to use it in their game. Every DM I've ever known has been a master at cannibalizing ideas from any source they found and didn't give a rat's ass where it came from as long as it was a cool idea.
I only encountered one player in my 26 years of gaming that walked away from my FR campaign in 1996 or so because he couldn't play in a campaign that didn't achknowledge the "Time of Troubles." I thought he was an aberration, but I have since found out that he's not alone...not alone at all. It's just so weird that such creative and intelligent people apparently lack the confidence to go wander out into their own D&D world without a safety net...I was like that once when I tried to keep up with all the "canon" of FR when it first came out, but then my maturity and pocketbook just said---f%!* it, it's my world.
Like many others on these boards I am always perplexed by people saying that they can't use game material from a sourcebook because its not GH or Eberron. I don't run an Eberron campaign, but have nicely placed shifters (and their feats, spells, etc) in my ice age campaign without a problem. I have done a similar thing with the concept of dragonshards.
I eagerly await all Eberron sourcebooks with glee, and am particularly interested in seeing a sourcebook on Eberron's planes (hint, hint). Hopefully this will make it easier on all those inflexible people that can't use Fiendish Codex with Eberron because it doesn't make sense or whatever(!?).
Since D&D is principally a game of the imagination, I think every new setting can be used to make the game more interesting. If your mind cannot encompass the idea of lightning rails, or mass produced magic, or non-great wheel cosmology, what are you doing playing D&D? Play a game that doesn't change and grow and develop like Solitaire or Scrabble, instead.
Actually, from reading the recent posts since Keith Baker has joined in this thread has become far more sedate. Everyone is backslapping each other. Where's the mindless hatred and misconceptions of the Eberron setting we're used to seeing? Bring back all the haters and let's make the messageboards interesting again.
Hey, wait a second. Since Keith has now joined in on the debate I'd like to hear what problems he believes have evolved with the setting since it began. Surely everything can't be peachy keen with the setting. So, how about it Keith?
|
|
Well, I would like to say that I am a huge fan of each and every campaign setting released for the many editions of D&D, or else I would not have purchased them. They each offer something unique, new material for me to rape, plunder and pillage.
I wonder what the anti/pro Forgotten Realms arguments would have looked like if the internet had been available then as it is now.
I am also a big fan of Eberron. It gives me new lands to explore, new stories to create and new adventures to be had, and thats it. I take what I want and leave the rest. I am eagerly awaiting my copy of the new Feindish Codex (autographed by two of the co-authors no less, Huurrah)
and I can say with absolute certainty that I have ran and will continue to run the generic, grehawkesque adventure paths in eberron. And I am the laziest DM in the world.
Can't wait to see the looks on my player's faces when they confront the Prince of Demons and his twisted warforged jaugernaut lackeys.
"Insert Evil Grin Here"
Tam
|
Director of Narrative
|
I wonder what the anti/pro Forgotten Realms arguments would have looked like if the internet had been available then as it is now.
Somewhere out there in a closet far far away, I bet there's an 8088 and a shoebox of 5-1/4" floppies that used to be a BBS that'd have some proto-flame.
Search for THAT artifact fellow D&D board nerds!
|
|
I wonder what the anti/pro Forgotten Realms arguments would have looked like if the internet had been available then as it is now.
Somewhere out there in a closet far far away, I bet there's an 8088 and a shoebox of 5-1/4" floppies that used to be a BBS that'd have some proto-flame.
Search for THAT artifact fellow D&D board nerds!
I'm sure there would have been controversy, but I think the general environment is different today. There wasn't the same competition for finite resources as exists now. I've heard many extol the virtue of a general Eberron boycott, the theory being that every Eberron book written is a Darksun, or a Planescape, or a Greyhawk book NOT being written. Back then, game was plentiful, and the wolves were fat and torpid.
I've been playing D&D since 1979 when I was 7, and I remember the magic moment that sucked me in. When I bought the World of Greyhawk boxed set and unfolded the maps and just looked at all their was, I was hooked. There was no going back. And now I come to the future, I've mostly done homebrewed, but I have almost all of the Greyhawk, FR, and now Eberron setting guides (not adventures except GH). I read the Eberron stuff and really want to get into it, but can't. Then I thought back and the wondeer of unfolding a massive map, and seeing how much there was to do, is the only thing Eberron is missing that the others had. They're all different, and all have good points and bad points. I really want to love Eberron as much as I love the others, so all I can say is point out 2 poster sized maps. ;)
(Though the D&D nerd in me feels obliged to point out that by making a conciliatory statement in my threatened boardspace, you're provoking an argument of opportunity...)
Your nerdness outweighs mine, Keith. Well done, sir, well done.
(Though the D&D nerd in me feels obliged to point out that Bluff is a class skill for Marketing Directors and is a Charisma-based skill. Since I've maxed my Charisma and Bluff points for my level you'll never know if I'm truly serious. MUHAHAHA.)
I'm way late and I'm going to keep my case simple so I feel like I'm a 5 year old bursting into a physics lecture at Harvard...
What I like about Ebberon:
1. Heroic Durability feat .. useful when you have a grand story like the age of worms and need something extra so that the storyline isn't ruined by a potential savour of the world being eaten by a 7 hp wolf at the start of the first adventure.
2. action/hero points..again..don't give them out for free but when earned and used in judicious manner by player helps create a suitability epic storyline..
3. Ebberon core rulebook had the best art I have seen in 25 years of playing, although the stuff in Red Hand of Doom adventure was just as good..too lazy to look up the artists but their work kicked ass.
4. I like the idea of some trans national guilds..sorta like what has been done with red wizard enclves..
5. Lost continent of xendrick..isolated from civilization..lots of ancient ruins to explore.
What I hate about ebberon:
1. The concept of some mindless decade long continental war..ending with a mysterious nuke like explosion..
2. Warforged..nuff said
3. dragon creation myths..keeping them all bottled off on seperate continent..
4. lots of little things..I will never DM an ebberon campaign although I would play in one..
(Though the D&D nerd in me feels obliged to point out that Bluff is a class skill for Marketing Directors and is a Charisma-based skill. Since I've maxed my Charisma and Bluff points for my level you'll never know if I'm truly serious. MUHAHAHA.)
You'll rue the day when someone makes their Sense Motive on your mad l33t Bluffing skills and rolls a natural 20. :D
You'll rue the day when someone makes their Sense Motive on your mad l33t Bluffing skills and rolls a natural 20. :D
Overruled. PHB page 63, column 2, paragraph 1, last sentence.
|
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.
As a DM, I would love my adventures to run as smoothly as a story or a movie. But because of the D20 nature of D&D, I find that only rarely happens. I was watching Mission Impossible III the other day and I couldn't help but think, "There's no way my group could pull off something like this." Even if your PC's come up with a great plan, all it takes is one bad roll on their part to screw everything up. Sure, I can fudge the rolls of my NPC's and villains, but I can't change the rolls of my players. Generally, one out of twenty times, something really bad happens and even well-prepared characters tend to die. While I appreciate a setting where Raise Dead and Ressurection are hard to come by and death is NOT meaningless, I wonder if putting the story before the game is a wise move.
The addition of a threshold in 3rd edition where characters die at -10 HP instead of 0 HP like in 2nd edition was a great move, but it's not enough if Raise Dead is going to be hard to come by. I'm thinking of adding a new rule in the next campaign I run which has characters die once they reach negative HP's equal to 10 + character level + constitution modifier, so a 16th level fighter with a Con of 20 will perish at -31. Hopefully that will save my players a few GP's and allow me to make Raise Dead and Ressurrection harder to come by.
I'm thinking of adding a new rule in the next campaign I run which has characters die once they reach negative HP's equal to 10 + character level + constitution modifier, so a 16th level fighter with a Con of 20 will perish at -31.
We have a house rule for our campaign. You can use an action point to stabilize, and another action to prevent your death at -10 hp.
Even with this rule, I've had four PC deaths in the Age of Worms campaign (it's brutal). There have only been two instances of raising and both were done by the PCs, not NPCs. Once was a resurrection and the other a reincarnation.
This rule lets the players take a little more risk, with the only major threat to the party being a TPK (which has almost happened a few times).
I know many people don't like my houserule based on feedback from other boards, and I think this opinion of the death penalty is rooted in play style. If you play in dungeon crawls where the only risk is death and survival is all it takes to get the main reward (treasure), then this house rule does cheapen that experience. However, if you run games where there is more at stake than simple survival then this can be very useful.
Battles can be much more than just slugfests. For example, you can put a time limit on a battle before something wicked will occur. In Reflections of the Multiverse, for example, you have to destroy a set of six mirrors and every 1d4 rounds a group of strange outsiders would be released into the world. There were multiple ways to destroy the mirrors that used different skills, but you also had to worry about the outsiders escaping into the PC world. I won't spoil any other adventures, but in some you have to destroy a monster before it eats someone, otherwise it a ritual will be triggered that will nearly destroy an entire city. In some cases if an enemy escapes you'll lose crucial information to following a lead. In some campaigns you have to figure out who to fight, which makes the consequence of the decision far more important than the outcome of the fight. (This is especially important for noir.)
|
|
In my Age of Worms campaign people die when they hit their negative Con. So a guy with a 13 Con dies at -13, and a guy with a 3 con dies at -3.
Not a lot of players come to the table with a 3 Con.
I've tried that system and found it quite useful at low levels. But when you start going up against fire giants with multiple attacks a round dealing over 30 damage a hit, thos 3-10 extra points aren't going to make much of a difference.
|
I've tried that system and found it quite useful at low levels. But when you start going up against fire giants with multiple attacks a round dealing over 30 damage a hit, thos 3-10 extra points aren't going to make much of a difference.
Every little bit counts :-P
But yea, the "uber-damage" of certain high CR creatures has given me pause in my own treks as DM, primarily in Vitality/Wound world, when that 16 Wd pool as a 1st level wizard made you cheer, but now those 30 pt critical htis at 15th level bowl you right over...
Although Toughness/Improved Toughness certain grant one the capacity of extending one's life (and, perhaps, could be used to increase one's "death threshold" as well as give a few hit points?), has anyone used a level-based system to augment one's point of death? As in, -10 or -Con score plus 1/2 or 1/4 of your class levels?
In case I've been misunderstood, I want to make it clear that _as an alternative from the baseline_, I think this is all well and good. D&D is at its best when it provides lots of options, and Eberron is certainly among the best of the "non-vanilla" flavors...
I just wanted to reiterate that I think we're on the same page here. I feel that there should always be a "Vanilla" D&D, something well suited to replicating classic high fantasy, from Tolkein to the Trojan War. I'm the first to say that Eberron is not that setting. One of my negative reactions was to the word "innovation". To me, this implies that as one of the setting designers, I feel that the previous system is flawed, and that Eberron does it better... which isn't the case. Taking the gods, I love having the gods taking an active role in a story. I still have my copy of Gods, Demi-Gods, and Heroes. I don't consider Eberron's distant gods an improvement over the active gods of other worlds... but I like it as an opportunity to explore a D&D setting in which the gods are truly unknowable, and exploring the issues of faith, corruption, and misdirected zealotry that can arise from this.
So I do consider Eberron an exotic flavor as opposed to vanilla D&D, and I feel that there always should be a solid vanilla, whether that's Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms. In fact, one of my primary concerns with the future of Eberron is the fear that certain aspects of it will be "dumbed down" to make it more vanilla.
On the issue of death, frankly, I just cheat. I'm a bad DM. If I want to play a wargame completely ruled by the numbers, I'll play minis. In tabletop, my greatest concern is the story, and again, if Legolas gets dropped by some %$#@ of an orc who just happens to get a critical hit, not much of a story. This doesn't mean I won't let players fall, because if there's no sense of risk or failure, there's no drama... and if the entire party is defeated, game over. But I am more likely to bend the rolls so they end up right at -9 instead of -11 (still requiring first aid or an action point to stabilize, but at least giving them that chance). As I said, in my eyes there are many ways to penalize PCs for failure without death; consider the cost of a resurrection in time and gold and look for other losses that could be equally significant. Oh, you did survive the thrust, barely - but only because the blow caught on your amulet of shielding and destroyed it instead of piercing your heart! Or perhaps Spanky the NPC jumped in front of you at the last minute... and now you'll have to finish the adventure without his help. There is a loss, but it's not as severe as death (especially in a world where resurrection is uncommon, as I have it in my campaign).
Again, it's a different play style, and what I do does frankly break the rules. It's something that by-the-book players will likely hate, because damn it, by the rules that Amulet of Shielding can't possibly be threatened in this situation. And I *will* kill PCs... I just want it to feel that it is a dramatic moment that's worth a death in a book or a movie, not just some meaningless "Oh, he died? Damn it - now we have to go back to the temple!" thing. Needless to say, I DON'T run this way if I'm running an RPGA event, and it was quite an interesting experience when I was running the D&D open at a con and suddenly found myself killing off PCs right and left!
|
Creative Director
|
I've tried that system and found it quite useful at low levels. But when you start going up against fire giants with multiple attacks a round dealing over 30 damage a hit, thos 3-10 extra points aren't going to make much of a difference.In my Age of Worms campaign people die when they hit their negative Con. So a guy with a 13 Con dies at -13, and a guy with a 3 con dies at -3.
Not a lot of players come to the table with a 3 Con.
Which is, of course, why this system's great. It gives low-level PCs a much-needed layer of protection while not making high-level characters super powerful.
Except, of course, for those 3 Con characters. They'll never make it past 1st level anyway though, so it's not really a problem there either.
I had always judged that a deity had too many other concerns to worry about your cleric's every action.
With that in mind (and veering even more wildly off-topic with every post) I will say that one of my favorite Order of the Stick strips has to be the one where Thor has to interupt his battle with Surtur to answer Durkon's call for spells.
I've been playing D&D since 1979 when I was 7, and I remember the magic moment that sucked me in. When I bought the World of Greyhawk boxed set and unfolded the maps and just looked at all their was, I was hooked. There was no going back. And now I come to the future, I've mostly done homebrewed, but I have almost all of the Greyhawk, FR, and now Eberron setting guides (not adventures except GH). I read the Eberron stuff and really want to get into it, but can't. Then I thought back and the wondeer of unfolding a massive map, and seeing how much there was to do, is the only thing Eberron is missing that the others had. They're all different, and all have good points and bad points. I really want to love Eberron as much as I love the others, so all I can say is point out 2 poster sized maps. ;)
The Eberron DM Screen comes with a poster map of Khorvaire that has outlined borders or each region and nation. There's a free one you can download and print; it has no outlined borders, but it does have distances for sections of roads and lightning rails.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebwe/20041206a
Since D&D is principally a game of the imagination, I think every new setting can be used to make the game more interesting. If your mind cannot encompass the idea of lightning rails, or mass produced magic, or non-great wheel cosmology, what are you doing playing D&D? Play a game that doesn't change and grow and develop like Solitaire or Scrabble, instead.This statement by Phil L. (see above post, paragraph 3) is both ridiculous and condescending. According to Mr. Phil, if the rest of us don't like robots, lightning rails, planes, trains, automobiles, phones, self-propelled carriages, and whatever else abounds in Eberron, we shouldn't be playing D&D. R-R-Retarded.
I don't need to expound upon the 30+ year history of D&D's Sword & Sorcery/traditional high fantasty style game. If Eberron were an alternative campaign like many others in 2nd edition, I could probably live with it (then again, maybe not). Eberron, as far as I can tell, is now the flagship campaign setting for WoTC, and Greyhawk can't even get an adventure or an accessory, much less a hardback book published. The loss of the traditional style setting (Greyhawk) in terms of published 3.0/3.5 material COMBINED with the ascencion of Eberron to replace it, which is completely NON-traditional D&D fantasy is absolutely unacceptable. I and many others want to purchase official WoTC D&D products instead of the fly-by-night Open Game License products which unbalance the game. Yet, unless I want war-forged and other such nonsense, I really can't hope to purchase the Greyhawk/traditional products that I once could. That Sucks. And to make things worse, the one source Greyhawk fans have (Dungeon Magazine) to getting anything for Greyhawk is clogged up by Eberron and Forgetable realms nerds who complain that Dungeon doesn't print enough of their desired adventures. Quit complaining, be grateful for what you've got, and go buy the latest hardback book. At least you have the option.
If WoTC insists on publishing Eberron, that's their choice. I will not be buying it. I would hope Mr. Phil could be tolerant of those of us who enjoy the traditional/old school D&D game and don't wish to see it turned into something off Dr. Who.
I'm pleased Mr. Baker is concilliatory about Greyhawk. I find it irritating that WoTC takes for granted that the long-time gamers & Greyhawk fans will stick with D&D no matter how much they stiff us by failing to produce products we do want; and producing crap we don't, merely trying to expand their markets. I hope Mr. Baker will mention this to the Geeks at WoTC at the next board meeting. I hope 2007 will be a better year for everybody's preferred campaign setting.
And gentlemen, PLEASE pring more of Greg Vauguan's adventures ASAP. Regards, A. Stewart
And to make things worse, the one source Greyhawk fans have (Dungeon Magazine) to getting anything for Greyhawk is clogged up by Eberron and Forgetable realms nerds who complain that Dungeon doesn't print enough of their desired adventures.
I think there are a lot more Greyhawk fans on the Paizo boards than FR or Eberron fans.