Post/Author/DateTime	Post
kedi 09-05-04, 04:25 AM	Hi there,Eberron boards viewers. There was a thread called Is anyone worried about Eberron? (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=297960&page=1&pp=30). The first post reads as: For many years now the Forgotten Realms that we have all come to know and love has been sort of the "flagship" for TSR/WoTC, but with the new release of the Eberron setting I am starting to have some fears that this may change in the coming years. For some reason I seam to be getting this feeling like WoTC is taking the attitude that "Forgotten Realms is our past but Eberron is our future", and this may be the untimely case. Now i have thumbed through the Eberron book and it definately has some interesting and unique features to it and does look like an intriging world to play in, and i am not trying to take anything away from what Keith Baker has accomplished. But I still have this undying fear that it may send our beloved realms the way of the dodo. Now I could be completely wrong (and I hope I am), and WoTC could support both settings equally, but I thought I would post this thread and see if any of my fellow FR lovers out there feel the same way I do or if their assesment of the situation differs. Although it could be said, arrogantly, that this will just be another speed bump on the FR path, but only time will tell. P.S. I am not trying to incur the wrath of Big Sis nor from anyone who is fond of the Eberron setting, I am merely stating that the future is somewhat up in the air right now and am wishing for some feedback.I've found mechanics improvement is pretty good but I wouldn't spend 40 bucks for it, neither would I play a Eberron Campaign. Not my cup of tea. I'm curious what you guys are thinking.
atanhel 09-05-04, 04:38 AM	well the reason I began looking at Ebberon, is because I never liked FR much ( not to say I hated playing my campains in them!) why you ask? well there are a copple of reasons. first thanks to games as Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale, I knew the world a little ( and I say a little), but I could never distain from the idea of placing some likeble NPC on places where the games put them. Futhermore my party played these games as well, and... well they're aleays calling a random wizzard edwin and drow's viconia, which is quite anoing afer a while. But I can live with this all, no problem, but the fact is, I play with people who know the world better than I do ( that's been the reason that I've always made my own world)! It's no fum for anyone to have PC be better informed than the DM! And with Ebberon that problem is gone! futhermore Ebberon has some mega-freaking good stuff, like lightning rail ;) but seriousely, Ebberon is a great campainsetting and I think, although FR is like vanilla or chocolat, Ebberon is a great flavour indead, and that it will claim many new fans! It's like lemmon ice: fresh, new, and for those who like fruits, the new way! ( ofcource this doen not mean that FR is doomed! It will keep exiting! but look at greyhawk: It will diminish and go into the west.)
Brastan 09-05-04, 05:43 AM	Its late, I shouldn't be posting, I should be sleeping but here it goes. From what it seems like WotC is still proceeding with FR products and there are new games and novels for the setting. I would hate to see WotC stop production of FR because that would mean that Eberron would be swamped with people who don't really want to play it. WotC would also loss money from many FR players not picking up Eberron but instead going to Home-brewed. There might be the remote possibility that FR might (in the very distant future) move to a GH situation. This would also happen to Eberron eventually if such a model holds. I don't think support will stop. There are enough players who are quite happy with FR to continue to buy the products. Settings die when the consumer base slackens. I never really played any published setting so my use of Eberron does not change the number of FR players. This seems to hold for many younger Players and DMs with this setting. What I would like to see is a novel series(or adventure arc) that traverses the D&D cosmology. Shifting between Gray Hawk, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, and Eberron (in no particular order). That would be a great boost to all settings.
Caliber 09-05-04, 07:10 AM	First off let me say I'm an avid fan of Forgotten Realms. I played in the campaign world for YEARS and came to love it very much so. These days I prefer Eberron though. It breathed a fresh breath of life into the game for me and renewed my interest in the game. I like the idea that the PC's are the heroes and that Elminster/<insert famous npc here> won't be coming to save their fat from the pan (not that he/they ever did). No ancient ruins/dungeons every 1/2 mile.... No archmage in every farming community.... No gods walking the earth having ales with the peons... You get the point. Just my preference of course. -Caliber
Lujayne34 09-05-04, 07:53 AM	I love the Forgotten Realms. And despite what a lot of people say about powerful NPC's coming to save the day that has never happened in my campaigns. They made brief appearances (and some of those were connected in indirrect ways to the PC's adventures). The incredible detail which has been provided over the years to FR is fantastic. The varied cultures and locations to stage adventures is great. And yes even the NPC's like Elminster and Drizzt are great. I love Eberron. It is a fresh approach to things. I have even come to appreciate the elven cultures (although in another thread I at first did not really like them, being an elven traditionalist that I am). I like Eberron because of its varied culture as well. THe new take on religion is wonderful. The society based on the use of magic and the dragonmarked houses etc are fantastic. I have also loved other settings from WOTC/TSR like Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Spelljammer. Just because a new setting is out doesnt mean that I will never visit these again.
Lara Flynn 09-05-04, 08:31 AM	What a provoking title. When I saw the thread at the FR boards I decided not to answer, because - as BigSis stated - when looking upon the success of the FR, nobody has to worry about them being no longer supported by Wizards. In my opinion both settings are fun to play with, though for different reasons of course. And by the way, the FR needed quite some time to become the uber-NPC setting it is today. And I agree to Lujane34, one can avoid those, if one really wants to. (at least up to L20-something). In short: I don't fear for the FR getting lost and I enjoy having some new toys.
Saurenda 09-05-04, 10:50 AM	[QOUTE] It's like lemmon ice: fresh, new, and for those who like fruits, the new way! [/QUOTE] Um...I like my sovergin host hot, and my silver flame, flamming? Oo; At any rate the thing I love the most about Eberron that I HATED about FR is the Gods and NPCS. Tempest, Mystra and most of Elminister should die. I am so glad that for once the PCS are the heros and not just for the Dm and his old NPCS and favorite gods to jerk around. Also I got tired of living in the same place, fighting the same shades, and going the same underdark. It got old, and with so much not happening for the PCs FR is a sad place that could live without you, and get along quite well. In Eberron without the PCs bad things happen and you fix it, because no one else can. There are no super level NPC or PC classes for NPCs, they were mostly whiped out. Now, the level one PC is the hero. FR never had the PCs at the focus of anything. The most you could hope for was to retire to get resurrected again and again. Here in Eberron you may never get ressurected, and if you do it can go wrong. As for WotC I hope they slowly, but eventually dump FR. Let is stay out it's course and die naturally. The strong survive and Eberron is strong. All you other may be upset that your planescape wasn't picked up, your Darksun isa gone, and your FR is dying. Cry me a river. Preferrably somewhere in the Mournlands. Let Forgotten Realms become forgotten, and let it live out whatever fire it has left for it's fans to enjoy. It's over, and the candle upon which it's flame sits is nearly melted all away. No spellwreave or Elminister can save it. I'm sure people wept for "Keep on the Boarderlands" the first campaign setting when it died too. Look for the Forgotten realms and Greyhawk Catalogs, good campagin setting never truly die. If it is as good as you claim it will live on as a memory and worked onf rom time to time. Now it is Eberron's moment to shine. If your afraid get out of the way, we didn't get in the way of FR. We all tried it at some point. If you think Eberron is not your cup of tea, fine. Read your old crumbling dusty FR books and play them. No is saying you can't. Some prefer Eberron, and your more than welcome to join us. The transition may not be easy, and you may think your losing something, when all you are is gaining something very good.
Ph33r_the_Wheelchair 09-05-04, 12:55 PM	I personally don't think that Wizards is going to suddenly drop FR and stop making books and things for it. At the very least people like R.A. Salvatore will continue to write FR-based novels. But what if Wizards did drop FR and never makes another supplement? Oh, yeah, that would be a freakin' disaster, considering that I have no interest in the Realms and yet can think of 8 Forgotten Realms sourcebooks off the top of my head. Honestly, if Wizards never makes another book, so what? There's like a dozen already, so its not like anything's stopping you from playing FR. So regardless of the relative merits of Eberron to FR, any FR player really has no reason to be upset if it does get dropped. How many books do you need?
Neofish 09-05-04, 01:36 PM	I used to play in the FR, but no matter how many deeds we acomplished, we were always playing second fiddle to almighty Elminster and gang. I love Eberrron because now we are the heros of legend, the new races are neat, not like the crapy genaisi. FR will never die, has greyhawk died?
protonik 09-05-04, 02:24 PM	I have DMed an FR campaign for three years now and I enjoy it, my players in that group want to keep playing it so I will still be playing FR but I have a seperate group that I will be running Eberron with. I prefer Eberron to FR though for many reasons: Too many gods. Man, 100+ deities is great, realistic and could be fun, if I could remember them all, let alone the core deities of the setting. I can't, it asks too much time of me. With Eberron I can easily fake it and still use the core setting. I can make clerics of Pantheons as opposed to individual deities and that is ok, my players won't question it but the second I make the 900th Cleric of Cyric or Bane, they will roll their eyes... why don't they do that in Eberron? pantheons can provide a greater variety of domains etc. for the NPCs and without having to remember the morality of a particular deity and what his alliances are. Easier to remember and run. Too much back story. I was not a 2e fan of FR. I hated it, too many products, too much silly stuff going on. How many chosen do we need? Oh and my players want to be chosen of this god or that one. Uh uh, no way. How about when a player corrects you about a little tidbit of information from obscure boxed set no. 226? See, my players know more than I do about. My Realms-fu is weak and their Realms-fu is very strong. With Eberron I have more freedom and less material to have to remember. The world isn't so huge but it also has the versatility of the Realms. Drow aren't around every corner, I HATE that. I remember when Drow were actually mysterious and cool but now, my players know EVERYTHING about their culture and while they don't use that knowledge in game, it certainly makes drow encounters less interesting and frightening. Before th Driz'zt thing exploded I could use the Drow to great effect, now most players just sit there. Sure, I have a group of new players that I taught to fear the drow mechanically, but they know all about house politics etc. and that ruinbs a lot of the run for me as DM. NPCs aren't the stars of the show overall. I like that a lot. FR has too many stars and not enough stuff for PCs to accomplish. The novels tell the stories of the RSE not the characters unless you want to get to a point where the sourcebooks become fountains of useless information. It has happened, how many people have been running long standing FR campaigns since 1e and not had a time of troubles? Eberron also has the feel I go for in my games, that dark, yet adventurous world. Awesome stuff.
nevcoup 09-05-04, 02:38 PM	I agree with protonik. The most frustrating feature of FR are all of the FR fluff-lawyers and such. Too little flexibility because such players have a vested inerest in tying their character's identity/background to some fluff release. The FR setting is fine (aside from some things already mentioned), it is really more about the lack of flexibility due to players mostly. This may very well happen to Eberron, though. The more novels, etc... that come out, the more fluff-lawyers will appear.
allenchan 09-05-04, 03:07 PM	Gotta say for FR had a few things going for it that I prefered: Their gods, the campaign specific things, and you killed DRAGONS. Eberron is great, playing my first campaign in it, but I still cant get over the fact most people are never going to fight, much less see a dragon. Its not Dungeons & Dragons, its Dungeons & Dragonmarked.
Saurenda 09-05-04, 03:22 PM	Gotta say for FR had a few things going for it that I prefered: Their gods, the campaign specific things, and you killed DRAGONS. Eberron is great, playing my first campaign in it, but I still cant get over the fact most people are never going to fight, much less see a dragon. Its not Dungeons & Dragons, its Dungeons & Dragonmarked. Not exactly true on the dragon part. You can stil have dragons who hoard treasure and turn a blind eye to whatever the other dragons believe is just. It depends on dragon to dragon. There will always be dragons to kill in Eberron, just not immeaditely when the campaign begins.
Brastan 09-05-04, 03:35 PM	Actually if you read the adventure ideas for Aundair (p. 141) down at the bottom you'll find an adventure idea about a copper dragon takeing up residence near a very important peace of property. This could take combat or talk to resolve. Remember Bilbo chatted up Smaug before he was shot by Bard of the lake-men.
Just another user 09-05-04, 03:51 PM	A problem of the FR is that they are a 20+ years old setting. The number of sourcebook pubblished for them is incredible, what could the WotC could send out that is not a reprint/conversion of an existing AD&D sourcebook?
hailstop 09-05-04, 05:17 PM	A problem of the FR is that they are a 20+ years old setting. The number of sourcebook pubblished for them is incredible, what could the WotC could send out that is not a reprint/conversion of an existing AD&D sourcebook? I think that, more than anything, is why FR is stagnating. Anything out for Eberron reveals new details, but anything out for FR reveals less.
Megrim_Lord 09-05-04, 05:25 PM	FR has that nostalgic, depressing feeling at the end of the campaign which makes you bored and game starved, so you'll play again. Eberron has an exciting, heart racing, cliff hanging feeling at the end of the campaign, making you want to KEEP PLAYING, MORE MORE MORE!! :D Eberron is more appealing and diverse to me, FR just... isn't
Save-vs-DM 09-05-04, 06:00 PM	I think that both settings have their merits and drawbacks. The wonderful thing is that you now have two wonderful choices (more, really). Comparing Eberron and the Forgotten Realms is really comparing Apples and Oranges. Their both fruit, but entirely different tastes. I highly doubt that wizards will stop supporting the realms, and that's great. The realms is great for those who love a highly detailed world with many useable NPCs and Gods. It's a wide, big world with a lot of detail and information. Eberron, on the other hand, has fewer books to buy, which is great for those just getting into our wonderful hobby. It also has fewer high level NPCs, but room to add more. Nothing exists in a bubble. Both will continue and endure, hopefully for many years to come. I think that both hardcore Eberron and Forgotten Realms fans need to throw aside thier differences and both agree that both settings have much merit. Cheers, Save vs DM
The_Declaration 09-05-04, 06:36 PM	I'm a huge fan of the Realms, but I also fell in love with Eberron. If FR would die tomorrow, it's not that i wouldn't care, but thx to Eberron, I know that D&D will keep me as a customer for the next 10 years. I'm really curious about what WOTC's big guns have in their mind concerning FR. Do they even know what they want to do with it? I bet they'll keep the Realms hot until they're totally sure that Eberron is really the new beef. After that: who knows? But Eberron will (i guess) go right in the History after Greyhawk, Dragonlance and the FR, I'm pretty sure that Wizards will be able to make it a winner.
lostone 09-05-04, 06:53 PM	I've enjoyed playing and DMing in FR for many years, however FR has it's annoyances. The biggest is the power level, no matter what crisis comes up, a clever character can find a way to manipulate events and get Elminster/Symbul/Uber_NPC involved and save the day that way. With Eberron, once the group hits a respectable level 6 or so, there are very few NPCs to rely on, the group is more on their own and things are more rugged that way. I like Eberron better simply because of the power levels. FR has become bloated with powerful NPCs who would realistically step in and help with dire events, sometimes even without the PCs asking for help at all. Plus I like the way Eberron is set up for more political intrigue than I ever felt FR offered.
Red_Decker 09-05-04, 07:20 PM	As stated in my profile I have both Eberron and FR as gaming interests. I like both, and will continue to like both. I currently find myself in a greyhawk campaign that will take our characters to FR because my DM prefers FR. She might eventually take us to Eberron and possibly d20Modern because they're all connected. FR won't be dying anytime soon. Eberron will have the majority of WotC's focus because it's new and requires care to remain afloat. Alot of the posters are saying FR has too many NPCs, too much, too much. Same thing will happen 20 years down the road and it's already begun. The more source books brought out the more restrictions there are on the DM. Also, a DM makes the game right? then why is everyone saying it's no fun for a player to know more then the DM? Truth is theres still alot of ground not covered in novels that DMs can still play with. After all you can't have every town, village, or cabin on the map labeled. I love both settings and will continue to enjoy both settings. The people who have declared this to be the end of FR are wrong, those that say this is the time for Eberron are right however. Eberron will get it's time in the spotlight but FR will endure and shall remain a staple of D&D. http://www.geocities.com/customsmiliesbyswordmaster/inthered.txt
Alac Luin 09-05-04, 07:47 PM	It's kind of funny. This is based on a reoccuring theme in this thread. I love the realms for the diversity and meadleing of the gods. I also love Eberron for the lack (for want of a better term) of diversity and meadleing of the gods. Each world has a distinct feel and tone. I can actually see D&D able to support both worlds for what it they are.
Rajorke 09-05-04, 09:26 PM	having this discussion is like asking whether or not you like bread or water better, both are consumable but have a different make up and appeal.
KM 09-05-04, 10:31 PM	I think that WOTC will support Eberron well. If you paid someone 100 grand for they're setting, you will want to try to get your money back as well.
Plaid_Terror 09-06-04, 12:06 AM	The title on this thread makes it sound like I have to choose... well I choose not to choose. I WILL play FR AND Eberron. Just as I have always played D&D and just about every other game out there that caught my interest. I love the Realms, always have. (GH and Dragonlance on the other hand...) I will continue to play AND DM the Realms. I will also continue to run my own campaign setting. I will continue to play in the 2 home-brewed campaign settings of my DM's. And I will play Eberron, I will DM Eberron. I love ALL my games... whether as a player or a DM. Don't EVER tell me I have to choose. :D
lostone 09-06-04, 12:47 AM	I feel like I should be listening to some patriotic music with all the loyalty being displayed here :D
nevcoup 09-06-04, 01:01 AM	having this discussion is like asking whether or not you like bread or water better, both are consumable but have a different make up and appeal. :rolleyes: It is exactly like that. They do have a different appeal. That is the entire point of the discussion.
Rajorke 09-06-04, 01:43 AM	but that discussion is pointless you cant discuss which is better because neither are they just have a different appeal and some people like one over the other and some like both, and i would say that the majority of the people here probably like both. so i guess my argument is that choosing between the two may be fine for playing a specific campaign but saying that one is better than the other is unfounded because there could be an endless amount of argument for either side.
tete 09-06-04, 02:49 AM	As a younger person I played and GMed in the realms back when it was AD&D 1st edition. Then I started playing other games and started to dislike D&D or AD&D as a system. I even ran GURPS FR for awhile untill the world became too bloated and way too many authors in the pot. 3rd edition came out and while I tried it I really didnt care much for it because I prefured (at that time) dice pools and classes system with no levels. Well after hearing about a game called Mutants and Masterminds I took a second look at d20 as a whole. I fell in love with M&M as a system, and since M&M is a variation on d20 the source books work great. Now I was on a quest for a fantasy world to run my d20 game in. I found Kingdoms of Kalamar, and while I love the amount of detail it lack the wonderment that I had when I was younger. Eberron found a place in my heart. Eberron allows more imagination of the sometimes even absurd to find its way in should a GM wish it. Between using M&M for the rules and Eberron for the setting I am feeling young again, where every story is a grand tale of adventure.
Mr. VanderMeer 09-06-04, 05:37 AM	While we've seen some settings being abandoned I really don't see this happening to FR. It's just too popular. Just look at the line of novels. I like most big settings out there: Greyhawk, FR, Dragonlance. But I love Eberron.
Moleculor 09-06-04, 06:37 AM	The same thing that happened to FR (the sheer weight of books dragging it down, the number of high-level NPCs to save your butt) will happen to Eberron in 20 years. Unless WotC is smart and has authors kill off characters before they become too high a level. Constant rebirth is the only way to maintain Eberron for longer than FR has lasted.
R-man 09-06-04, 06:58 AM	At present I am running my own version of another campaign world, Harn howver I was very happy to see the publication of Eberon for one simple reason. Fantasy RPG's worlds have grown predicable. I was happy to see Wizards produce a genuinely different world and then make the effort to support it. We have to remember how many people take their influence from D&D in whatever field of endevor that they work in, whether it is being a writer, computer games designer, tv scriptwriter, Artist, RPG games designer or whatever. Anything that helps these people move away from the tried and true is a good thing, so when the most influential Fantasy resource out there makes an effort to "open things up" I say Huzzah!!
Atlictoatl 09-06-04, 11:01 AM	In the interview with the design team for Eberron, Bill Slaviscek mentioned that they designed their release calendar through 2006 to include the new campaign setting, before they even knew what that campaign setting was going to be. By now, they have certainly designed their release schedule through 2007. My point being that they could have no idea prior to the release of Eberron how popular it would be. It is most likely that FR product will continue to be released through 2006 and probably 2007. If WotC/Hasbro sees a purchasing trend wherein FR dollars seem to be lost to Eberron, it is possible that they would schedule more Eberron product than FR product, to capture those dollars. If they see Eberron dollars outright replacing FR dollars, they may eventually discontinue the line completely, but that would be a few years off, after a lot of market research. Hasbro is about making money. They don't care about the purity of the rpg hobby and may not care about the purity of the FR line. The best thing any fan of a D&D line can do is buy the product. Thankfully, FR tends to be fairly high-quality, unlike most of the core stuff these days, so it's not currently a difficult decision about whether or not to buy FR product. For those with limited purchasing power, though, it may become a hard choice to choose between FR or Eberron. IMO, we could only be so lucky as to have two excellent product lines to have to choose between.
nevcoup 09-06-04, 11:38 AM	but that discussion is pointless you cant discuss which is better because neither are they just have a different appeal and some people like one over the other and some like both, and i would say that the majority of the people here probably like both. so i guess my argument is that choosing between the two may be fine for playing a specific campaign but saying that one is better than the other is unfounded because there could be an endless amount of argument for either side. I think there is some confusion here. First, the thread, technically speaking, has nothing to do with which setting is better, or even more appealing. It is about whether or not Eberron will get more company support. Second, many of the posts do have to do with which setting appeals to the person more...despite the fact that this is technically not the topic. When a person finds more appeal for a setting that is tantamount to saying that the person thinks the setting is better. The semantics of "a discussion about better is pointless...we are just talking about differing levels of appeal" is sophistry.
Saurenda 09-06-04, 12:50 PM	The same thing that happened to FR (the sheer weight of books dragging it down, the number of high-level NPCs to save your butt) will happen to Eberron in 20 years. Unless WotC is smart and has authors kill off characters before they become too high a level. Constant rebirth is the only way to maintain Eberron for longer than FR has lasted. The thing is there are no "favored" of Gods that give ginormous increases in power. Which is good. There are no 400 year old old men outside of the elves and some demons. Though cultists of the dragon and The cult of the dragon below sounds kinda similar I'm convinced they aren't. No, I don't think WoTC will repeat this mistake again. there needs to be a cut off point. One man can only do so much in a lifetime, and thats what makes him a hero that he did manage to do that one or two great things. Indianna himself only had about 3 adventures (I'm not counting young indiana) and he was among the most memorale fictional archeologists I can think of. There was no need to give the guy immortality or magic powers beyond mortals. He did what he could, and when his adventure was over we didn't need to know what happened afteralls because the day had been saved. In noir things will be different from higher fantasy. The story may continue, but it doesn't continue to drive something into the ground. People will die, heroes will die and they will never come back. A level 4 fighter can be remembered as one of the greatest heroes of the time even if he doesn't match in levels to a king or general. It all depends on the action. As for making the same mistake, sure information will come out. But the information will not bog us down like it does in the realms. People seem not to realize that the author is not Ed GReenwood, it's Kieth Baker. Different authors, different styles, different results. The end result cannot be the same. 20 years down the road? I'm looking forward to a game next week, not projecting myself out that far. If Hasbro has a problem with sales it would have said something by now.
stembolt 09-07-04, 01:06 AM	Wow I am very surprised with some of the responses here. I like Eberron because it is everything Forgotten Realms is not. Completely independent of Eberron I have hated FR, everything bad about it is far too numerous to list (most of it mentioned above) and everything good is, well basically nothing. FR offers nothing interesting or unique over a generic or homebrewed fantasy world. That being said wizards will not drop FR. The reason is that norms buy FR novels. That’s where the money is. Non gamers purchasing FR novels is apparently one of the biggest revenue streams for wizards.
Splendide 09-07-04, 05:46 AM	I never liked Forgotten Realms, or tradition roleplaying for that matter. Shadowrun is where I started. Then to Cyberpunk. Then to WoD. Then to Mekton. Eberron is a natural next step for me, as it has elements of all of these games within it. I like it a lot. I don't care if FR is supported or not, as long as Eberron is and that it gets intelligent support, not pathetic money-hungry expansions that clump together a couple of cheesy prestige classes and feats with a fragment of useful material.
ENHenry 09-07-04, 12:59 PM	If a person doesn't want to see FR go away, they'll keep buying Forgotten Realms new release products - it's that simple. If FR stops making any money, then FR goes away. It's Eberron for me right now, but I will invariably return to the Realms - in fact, its ubiquitous name-recognition among D&D gamers, and that established mythology make it useful for some purposes. If you want a setting that you have to do very little work in to give people a background, then the Realms is perfect.
Duke Lenethar 09-07-04, 01:19 PM	I run FR, and it's my favorite setting. I don't interject the Chosen or the Gods, I let the PCs do what they need to do themselves. Elminster never even appears, neither does Drizzt (althoguh, forgive me, Elminster did appear as a reference from the paladin who enlisted the PCs (and they aren't friends: the paladin does not like the Harpers for inadvertently causing the death of his friend). I like some of the artwork about Eberron (particularly those egg-shaped monoliths and a lot of the architecture), but that is where it stops. My group and I knew we were not going to like Eberron from the moment we saw it. The whole "swashbuckling adventure" catch never caught for those of us who like mystery and epic adventure. The magical technology or whatever irks me, as does the moral ambiguity of the setting (if I want moral ambiguity, I'll turn on the news). The elf-lichdom thing struck me as an original lame idea. In all, the game seems like it's trying to become Quake with a sword on paper, with crazy action and stuff that just doesn't work for me. If FR is phased out and Eberron becomes king, then I will have no problems focusing entirely on my 40K/WFB armies, or giving up gaming entirely to concentrate on hobbies I have neglected (like writing) or things that I should have focused on long ago (like running). Not now, or ever, will Eberron secure a place in my heart. Personally, I believe people like it because it's new, and eventually it will become just one more setting.
Darrius Adler 09-07-04, 02:15 PM	FR will be arround as long as it is profitable and as such, will be around for a very long time. Computer games, novels, game books etc... it is probably the most well known setting if only in name of all the D&D lines with Dragonlance being a probable close second. FR has never been my favorate setting but I have enjoyed the games I played in it. For me Ravenloft has always been the setting I run or my own homebrew world. Eberron sparked my interest due to elements of Ravenloft that I see in it (no one is sure the gods exits, there are no uber NPC heroes to bail you out, Eberron appears to be low in clerical magic while Ravenloft is just low magic, etc..) while still having more of a standard fantasy setting. I look forward to seeing more information on the setting.
Drawmijs_Heir 09-09-04, 01:27 PM	Sorry Keith, sorry all, but I have got to put in my two cents! First off, let me say that I own both settings. Yes, I have played in FR for years, and of course I love it. I'm a long time fan of it! However, my main reason for dropping in is NOT to discuss the merits of one setting over another, but to expose the depravity of the Eberron setting! The Realms has its drawbacks, yes! Most of which stem (IMO) from the burden of detail that has piled up over the years. The reason for that detail is because we (as gamers) have demanded it. The same will happen to ANY setting that lasts for any amount of time. For those of you who are complaining that the Realms doesn't allow the PC's to be the 'heroes', WAKE UP! The PC's have ALWAYS been the heroes! I have never once in my 20+ years of gaming had a session where everyone sat around while the NPC's got into all of the action! If this is happening in your games, then it is a DM issue and has nothing to do with the setting! The same goes for people who are saying that the other players know more about the Realms than they do, or that the PC's are always getting the high level NPC's to help them out. HELLO? You (as in the DM) are in control of the game aren't you? You can always just let the PC's deal with it on their own. I'm sure Elminster has plenty of other stuff that he could be doing. Anyway, this crap aside. I have other issues to address... Where to begin? Look, D&D is a game about medieval-fantasy characters wandering around, looking in dark holes, killing monsters in their various forms, and getting drunk off of the loot that they dredge from these creatures lairs! It can have various degrees of intrigue and politics, role-playing styles, etc, but at its heart this is what it is about! Now, I'm not saying that Eberron doesn't have these things. It does. In fact it has these things and more, and that is what bothers me. Eberron is like when the circus rolls into town. Sure it is full of all kinds of colorful lights, and whoooo - LOOK AT ALL OF THE RIDES!, but when you get past all of this glitz there are some things about it that are just plain... Well - stupid! For starters there is the 'noir-factor'. If you are looking for noir, then go play the Call of Cthulhu or something. Leave the gangbuster, Indiana Jones, private detective crap in the genre where it belongs. D&D is versatile enough to allow for a good mystery without all of the shady Sin City style hitmen, and corrupt merchants. Then you have the 'Final Fantasy element'! Cities like Sharn are like something out of Final Fantasy or bad Japanimation. They are more akin to a sci-fi setting, and completely undermine the roots of D&D's origins (LotR, the novels of Jack Vance, Fritz Lieber, Robert E. Howard, etc). This extends to the Lightning Rail kind of stuff as well. For all of you who have been playing D&D for any amount of time, stop and ask yourself; How in the hell did my players end up riding on a freakin' train? Then ask yourself if that train really has any place in D&D, or does it just seem kind of cool because it is a so called 'new addition' to the game. Worst of all are the War-Forged! I mean, Keith if this was your idea, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? Whoever came up with the concept of making sentient-constructs-with-a-soul must be out of their mind! Do you have any idea what this is going to lead to? Most likely it is only a matter of time before we start to see an evolution in ALL constructs! The 'War-Forged Template' is right around the corner! Iron Golems will soon be able to feel regret after stomping their victims to a bloody pulp! OH, better yet! They will be able to be retro-fitted with all kinds of new turbo-chargers, plasma-weapons, and Pink Floyd Lightshow arrays! I never did hear the final answers on whether a War-Forged corpse could be animated with an Animate Dead spell, or what happens if a Druid casts Reincarnate on one? It seems that under the War-Forged entry in the Eberron book, there is an exception to almost everything 'construct' about them. They are their own thing really, but the sad shame is that they are going to pervert everything we (again, as gamers) loved about the traditional constructs! Eberron has made some improvments to the mechanics of the game by tightening up a lot of the rules, and I'm sorry if I am hurting anyone's feelings man, but somebody has to say it! You want to talk in cinematic terms, here you go; Eberron will do for D&D what Joel Schumacher did for the Batman franchise, minus the rubber-nipples! I did buy the main Eberron setting, but my D&D dollar is going to stop there [at least setting-wise]. The Realms may be a little overdone, but at least Greenwood's world provided us with something that didn't steer our favorite hobby in a new direction! Eberron is just an Indiana-StarWars-Fantasy mix, dressed to impress! If you don't feel the same, then oh-well. You are entitled to your opinion too. Who knows maybe Eberron will be the new Forgotten Realms, but as far as I'm concerned it is taking the game in a whole new direction. -- Drawmij's_Heir
fizzbang 09-09-04, 02:19 PM	Eberron is like when the circus rolls into town. Sure it is full of all kinds of colorful lights, and whoooo - LOOK AT ALL OF THE RIDES!, but when you get past all of this glitz there are some things about it that are just plain... Well - stupid! I'm sorry that you feel that way. For me, it's definitely a matter of different styles of setting. Forgotten Realms is a high fantasy setting. It's probably more true to D&D's roots as a Tolkien-inspired, character-based fantasy wargame. It's definitely more in lines with the traditional "wizards and dragons and swords, oh my!" style of most strict fantasy stories. And as such, it'll probably continue to be a stable backbone of the D&D settings. However, Eberron is a setting with much more variety. Mixed into the D&D fantasy basem it's got elements of pulp, noir, and even touches reminiscient of cyberpunk and horror. It takes the D&D system in directions that the traditional settings haven't even begun to touch, and the variety appeals to many groups who have grown tired of the pervasive and often derivative high fantasy settings. There are folks who despise this "tampering" with D&D's roots: Eberron isn't for them. The variety only makes for a stronger product, and allows for more opportunies: players and DMs are provided with a rich area and style of play that can be used to tell all sorts of stories. A temple-raiding dungeon crawl game can work just as well as a murder mystery in the chambers of the Dragonmarked houses or a desperate flight from the horrors of Khyber unleashed. On a personal note, I think the best advance of Eberron is the flexible nature of the alignment system, coupled with the system's focus on intrigue and roleplaying uncertainty. By raising the style of play from simple, straightforward hack-and-slash-for-loot, to more discerning investigation, social interplay and moral uncertainty, Eberron has raised the maturity level of the classic D&D game. Even the "evil villains" and "monsters" have a detailed society and understandable reasons for their actions. Is Kaius evil because of ancient alliances and his vampiric existance, or does his dedication to rebuilding his kingdom and repentance of his undead nature justify him? Do you return a Dhaakani artifact to its rightful heirs, knowing they may use it to rebuild their ancient empire? How do you rectify a faith in the good of the Silver Flame with their history of genocide and evil in the name of good? This is a huge progress from the Tolkien roots of "orcs are evil because they just are". It's an advance that has been long in coming to our beloved system, and when it's done by a company with such a large name as Wizards, it may even prompt more maturity in the rest of the industry. Eberron is a tremendous step in the right direction for D&D. Players who just want to stick to classic high fantasy or simple hack-and-slash would definitely do better with other systems, though.
The White Sorcerer 09-09-04, 02:29 PM	The elf-lichdom thing struck me as an original lame idea. Elf-lichdom? Oh, you must be talking about the baelnorns, the good-aligned elf liches of Faerūn. :D
straylance 09-10-04, 02:44 AM	Either way, its just a matter of taste. That is what a Campaign Setting is for, after all. Eberron fills a completely different niche in taste from Faerun, which is why it is (appears to be) working. Sure, its getting extra sales from being new, but any semi-discerning individual is going to sit down and read a few sections of it before they shell out cash. And let's be honest: FR is like a benchmark for high fantasy. When they went looking for a new setting, they were trying to get as far away from FR as they could get away with. As far as the viability of things like alignment abstraction, "the rides" and the mixing of traditional (elves+liches), it probably didn't take too much market research to figure out that was going to sell. A lot of advanced players are drifting to Eberron, at least temporarily, because the normal D&D assumptions get old after awhile. They don't want to stop playing D&D, but its also a lot easier to work with other players if your changed view on alignment can be referenced to a book somewhere (a while back there was someone on these boards trying to toast alignment entirely, and I would be interested to see what he would say of this). But its a bummer if you hate one or the other; you're missing out on the unique potential that each has. I, personally, like both.
Red_Decker 09-10-04, 03:40 PM	Alot of you are talking about how the setting makes the game. Here's the thing, you can have a murder mystery in Faerun just as easily as in Eberron. Under the novel guidlines for submission it lists Eberron as Sword and Sorcerry with a dark edge. It's a matter of DMs and playstyle. I'm in a murder mystery in Greyhawk in my current campaign. And Alignment ambiguity is already there it's just stated it Eberron. Oh, and the reason I bought the ECS is because of the open-call. Don't get me wrong I like the setting and dragonmarks. Don't care much for Warforged but I like the other races. You can do alot with it, but you can do the same with FR, it just takes alittle work. http://www.geocities.com/customsmiliesbyswordmaster/inthered.txt
Kid SixXx 09-10-04, 04:26 PM	I love the FR as a setting. My beef with it is also my beef with Star Wars as a genre, which is a purely socio-mechanical peeve. The fluff in the FR is so profound that those fond of the setting seem to spend too much time explaining things to death and not enough time gaming. As much as I like details which make a setting more "visual" to the players, it really annoys me that the facts, tidbits, and lore of the FR are hotly debated as if they were actual world history, and that in such debates, someone has to be "right" and someone has to be "wrong." Rule 0 never seems to apply to the FR board wars because of the concept of "canon," whatever that's supposed to really mean, as it doesn't really matter what is "official" because we'll do our own thing in our own campaigns anyway. Don't get me wrong. I like a good ruleslawyering debate but not at the expense of fun. I also enjoy fluff, but not if it distracts from gaming rather than enhancing it. When you get your new books from your FLGS, you're supposed to round up the crew, order pizza, and get your dice out. You're not supposed to lock yourself in a room, study fluff til you lapse into a coma, and then wait with bated breath at the msg boards in anticipation of pouncing on some poor slob's "miscounting of the facts." One thing I've learned from lurking those boards is to never invite a discussion of the current FR cosmology. The "Bring Back The Great Wheel" are a bitter lot. I haven't seen that much hate for a concept since Salvatore snuffed Chewbacca in the novel he wrote.
tylerthehobo 09-10-04, 04:32 PM	What I would like to see is a novel series(or adventure arc) that traverses the D&D cosmology. Shifting between Gray Hawk, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, and Eberron (in no particular order). That would be a great boost to all settings. Well, there were those Spelljammer adventures and novels in the early 90s, but...yeah...neat idea, but... Basically it was Star Frontiers with swords, as I recall. Man, I'm just chock full of 80s references that are dating me, today... :mymy:
ruleslawyer 09-10-04, 04:33 PM	Elf-lichdom? Oh, you must be talking about the baelnorns, the good-aligned elf liches of Faerūn. :DWell, the baelnorn have a separate backstory; the half-dragon elf lich doesn't... yet, anyway. I like Eberron because it is everything Forgotten Realms is not. Completely independent of Eberron I have hated FR, everything bad about it is far too numerous to list (most of it mentioned above) and everything good is, well basically nothing. FR offers nothing interesting or unique over a generic or homebrewed fantasy world. I'd disagree. What distinguishes FR to me is the IMHO exceptional quality of writing in the setting materials (check out the Volo's Guides, the Undermountain boxed set, and Dwarves Deep for some examples) and sheer variety and plethora of adventure hooks present throughout the setting, in particular Ed Greenwood's work. The things that have turned me off have been 1) the proliferation of crunch material without any corresponding flavor and 2) the transformation of the setting's key NPCs from background individuals and narrators to active figures, mostly through the novels but in part through the proliferation of supplements and setting revisions. I've always found the argument regarding FR NPCs shoving PCs to the sidelines rather a canard in any case; ideally, those NPCs should be sources of lore and should drive adventures, not shove aside the PCs. I view the latter as a problem stemming from DMPC-style favoritism, not the setting. I do like Eberron, but mainly because it's new and different, not because it's "everything that FR is not." And even then, there are aspects of the setting, in particular some of the rather textbook-like presentation of the material (no songs? Descriptions of rituals? Day in the life of an Eberron citizen?) that I'm less fond of. I think that Eberron's strength is most clearly represented in those pulp comic-style illustrations and sample PC backgrounds, just as FR's is in the ramblings of El and Volo. Hopefully, we'll see more of both in each of these settings.
Kid SixXx 09-10-04, 05:03 PM	I've always found the argument regarding FR NPCs shoving PCs to the sidelines rather a canard in any case; ideally, those NPCs should be sources of lore and should drive adventures, not shove aside the PCs. I view the latter as a problem stemming from DMPC-style favoritism, not the setting. I'll have to agree with this to a certain extent. Logically from a metagame standpoint, if you are running an FR campaign and your PC's are the heroes du jour, they are pretty much expecting a run in with iconics, if not actually looking forward to it. They will want to be rebuffed by Elminster, have an audience with Alustriel and so forth. Conversely, they will also want to attempt to foil the machinations of the Realms more vile ne'er do' wells. I don't think the problem arises from PC's being pushed to the side, rather it arises from PC's metagaming and not being able to believe that they are doing anything "official." They crush the Night Masks in game, yet a novel appears 2 months later with Orbakh as the villain, alive (sorta) and well. They manage to defeat Obould (how I don't know), yet future material may point to Drizzt as his slayer depending on future works. Ad nauseam. There is a perception (real or imagined) that the FR does not allow PC's to "run with the ball." While I agree that it is up to the DM what happens in-game, I certainly cannot fault them for doing things that PC's either expect him to do, or look forward to him doing. The first thing that PC's will do if they arrive at Mithral Hall is look for Drizzt. It is unavoidable. The notable FR Iconics are so much more than NPC's, which is a blessing and a curse to the setting.
stembolt 09-10-04, 07:26 PM	I'd disagree. What distinguishes FR to me is the IMHO exceptional quality of writing in the setting materials Really? Well convincing a diehard FR fan is a loosing proposition so I will agree to disagree. FR is for the most part poorly written (although there are a few gems) it is also poorly conceived and executed (with very few gems). The world fits together incoherently, the characters motivations are foolish and the organizations are worse; in short the world stinks.
Red_Decker 09-10-04, 08:40 PM	Really? Well convincing a diehard FR fan is a loosing proposition so I will agree to disagree. FR is for the most part poorly written (although there are a few gems) it is also poorly conceived and executed (with very few gems). The world fits together incoherently, the characters motivations are foolish and the organizations are worse; in short the world stinks. How do you mean incoherently. How are the motivations foolish? Anymore foolish then in Eberron? And the organizations of Eberron make perfect sense? http://www.geocities.com/customsmiliesbyswordmaster/inthered.txt
stembolt 09-10-04, 09:14 PM	Well Red_Decker the answer is in fact that Eberron has done a much better job of portraying a believable world than forgotten realms. The Government, Religious, Guild, and ideological factions are much better conceived and realized in Eberron. In fact if you want to see how these things work together, for your own campaign, I recommend getting the Eberron book to see how they do it. There are a few general reasons why Eberron does such a good job. Every mistake and problem in FR was looked at and the designers tried to fix when they built Eberron. Eberron could not exist without the mistakes of FR. Eberron is also the pure child of third edition, the rules and setting flow both ways to create a final product. Unlike forgotten realms where the setting is based on a bunch of novels supposedly set in the same world. FR requires quite a bit of hammering to make it fit. Eberron was built by a team with years and years of experience, certainly some of the best in the industry. And the setting concept was the best of thousands of submissions. FR was based on the loose ramblings of one guy and then expanded upon in article, supplement and novel form. With all these factors in mind it is simply a fact that Eberron is a superior product, it holds all the cards. All that being said, nothing will change the mind of a diehard FR fan so I am not going to be dragged into a long debate here.
Red_Decker 09-10-04, 10:15 PM	Good reply. Here's mine. Despite all of the "mistakes" made with Faerun and the rest of Toril, it has flourished. It surpassed is former superior and replaced it as the staple campaign setting. Its roots were most likely similar in the beginning of its conception. Eberron however had the advantage with a suport staff that knew what it was up against. Just like it's easy to build a character that can beat a posted character. Despite this FR seems to be as strong as ever and it's doubtful that WotC will dump it altogether. Eberron was a project, Forgotten Realms is an ever evolving story with a few holes in the plot. In truth I need to take a better look at Eberron. As stated I purchased it for the Open-Call I skimmed through it and developed a story from parts that caught my attention mainly psionic parts. After discovering that no one in my gaming group cared about it, I put it on the shelf. http://www.geocities.com/customsmiliesbyswordmaster/inthered.txt
Solwynn 09-10-04, 10:19 PM	I think that they could retrofit FR. When they came out with Greyhawk Wars and changed the setting a bit to reflect recent history it made the setting a bit more interesting - shook the world up a bit. WotC obviosly thought that this post-war concept worked because they did it again in Ebberon. Why not change the FR setting a bit as well. Despite the fact that eveyone here claims to not abuse the power of Elminster and his high-level ilk in their FR campaigns most seem to think that this IS happening. Fine. Redo the setting to get rid of the unsavory elements and make everything that's old new again by distilling FR down to it's likeable essence with a few new twists. And not just minute detail changes like they did when that went from the grey FR boxed set to the blue one. But not warforged-sized changes either. Too many gods? Have some of them merge pantheons and become new, more distant, versions of themselves. Too many drow? They have a huge war amongst themselves and become more scarce. I like Eberron because it is distilled down and has lots of plot threads to develop with all the new power groups to vie against, etc. But it is just NOT traditional fantasy. Gimme a good tradional fantasy setting that has as much punch to the world as Ebberon and I'm on the next lightning rail out of there. Maybe FR is too entrenched to breathe new life in it anymore. Maybe the thrill is finally, irretrieveably gone. If so, fine. I think I for one can say that I got my money's worth out of it and had some great adventures in it. But adventuring is about exploring... questing... going into the unknown... with nothing but your sword in your hand and faithful companions at your side. I haven't lost any of those companions when I switched worlds to Ebberon. They're still gaming with me. But in FR... where is the new? Where is the unknown, the unconquered? To quote Johnny Cash "I've been everywhere, man." I want a new FR-like world! Now I don't want a Ravenloft... or a Red Steel... or some other ghastly Second Edition abberation. Just something Tolkeinesque... but with a pulse.
ruleslawyer 09-13-04, 05:17 PM	Really? Well convincing a diehard FR fan is a loosing proposition so I will agree to disagree. FR is for the most part poorly written (although there are a few gems) it is also poorly conceived and executed (with very few gems). The world fits together incoherently, the characters motivations are foolish and the organizations are worse; in short the world stinks.What FR materials have you read, stembolt? I'm just curious. Any of the following? -The 1e boxed set -FR4 The Magister -FR11 Dwarves Deep -The Volo's Guides -Faiths and Avatars -Secrets of the Magister -Ruins of Undermountain/Ruins of Myth Drannor -Serpent Kingdoms I'm not too happy with the quality of the 3e materials, myself (and I'd hardly call myself a "diehard" fan; I happen to loathe the novels and am not so fond of a vast number of supplements and adventurers that happen to be green-stamped with the FR label). But I'd say any of the above rank among the materials that best illustrate "organizations," "coherence," and above all the"motivations" of the Realms' merchants, rulers, shadowy organizations, and individual NPCs, which I actually feel is one of the severely underexplored elements of Eberron at present.
ruleslawyer 09-13-04, 05:27 PM	I'll have to agree with this to a certain extent. Logically from a metagame standpoint, if you are running an FR campaign and your PC's are the heroes du jour, they are pretty much expecting a run in with iconics, if not actually looking forward to it. They will want to be rebuffed by Elminster, have an audience with Alustriel and so forth. Conversely, they will also want to attempt to foil the machinations of the Realms more vile ne'er do' wells. I don't think the problem arises from PC's being pushed to the side, rather it arises from PC's metagaming and not being able to believe that they are doing anything "official." They crush the Night Masks in game, yet a novel appears 2 months later with Orbakh as the villain, alive (sorta) and well. They manage to defeat Obould (how I don't know), yet future material may point to Drizzt as his slayer depending on future works. Ad nauseam.I do agree with this completely. It's one reason why I'm really not a fan of the FR novels. If Eberron begins to enjoy serious novel support, though, I do fear for its ability to avoid a similar phenomenon.
fizzbang 09-13-04, 05:54 PM	I think that they could retrofit FR. When they came out with Greyhawk Wars and changed the setting a bit to reflect recent history it made the setting a bit more interesting - shook the world up a bit. WotC obviosly thought that this post-war concept worked because they did it again in Ebberon. Why not change the FR setting a bit as well. I think this may run into a problem with the "FR Purists" who would rail against the sweeping changes to the settings. I have friends who can be rather heated in their debate about which "age" of FR was the best, and I don't doubt that such a massive shifting of the setitng to another age would risk causing another schism in the fanbase. But still, an excellent idea at heart. As much as I look forward to further information about the setting, I worry a bit about what may happen to Eberron after it enjoys a half-dozen years of definition and ossification...
Hetter 09-13-04, 10:19 PM	Alignment ambiguity is already there it's just stated it Eberron. Alignment ambiguity :confused: What Alignment ambiguity (in FR) :confused: In FR, if you're a cleric, you can only be one step away from the alignment of your god. In Eberron, you can worship a LG god while being CE. Even better, IMO, in FR you come across, let's say, a red dragon. It's an evil :censored: , it's common knowledge, and if your party is powerful enough, you kill it. In Eberron, if you come across the same red dragon, for all you know it could be LG, making killing it a BIG mistake :OMG!
Red_Decker 09-13-04, 10:33 PM	If you can justify it by your alignment you can do it. You can have a LG sereal killer that feels he's purging the evil from the face of the planet. He's not neccesarrily evil just misguided. He thinks he's doing good and he's following his law. CE can save a hundred kids from a burning building because it will confuse potential enemies. And dragons just like anything else could change their alignment. That's where the alignment ambiguity comes in. The only place it's not is in clerics they have to be on step away but whorshippers don't. It's there but it's more prevalent in Eberron because of the cleric thing and it's stated. Difference of opinion can always create enemies despite having the same alignment. http://www.geocities.com/customsmiliesbyswordmaster/inthered.txt
Methos of Aundair 09-13-04, 10:50 PM	Recall that WizCo is a corporation whose primary interest is financial gain. They don’t care about one campaign setting over another, to them it is which campaign will garner them the most financially. Take Dungeon and Dragon magazine for instance, there are still people who play 2nd AD&D yet neither magazine discusses topics, articles, or have adventures designed for that type of player. Why? There isn’t enough interest market wise to put the financial backing into it. If you don’t believe this, read the newest Dragon magazine editorial, or where questions are asked by readers. There was a question directly related to this very subject I speak of. FR is old, has been out for a long time and already has a substantial number of interested buyers (as in us, the customers). WizCo has just invested a lot of money into designing a brand new campaign setting (i.e. Eberron) and in order to make back the money they invested in they have to advertise it and put out loads of accessories in order to earn from their investment. Its not about whether or not they are going to still support FR, its that they want to make Eberron a financial gain and have the support of customers like FR already has. Eberron was a major risk to WizCo, and they will do everything in their ability to earn as much as possible from that risk. For those of you who recall when FR first came out they had to push the FR in order to earn from it as well. They got lucky and FR became a major success. Though at that time I believe it was TSR, can’t remember exactly. Either way, this has more to do with financial risk to the company rather than which campaign setting WizCo prefers.
Docrailgun 09-13-04, 10:59 PM	Whereas I'm a good example of the opposite: I've played my homebrew universe for 15+ years. I've read FR books, sure, but the only time the setting intrigued me was when it first came out, years ago. I don't like Greyhawk... I didn't like it during 1st ed AD&D. Further, I don't touch non-WotC d20 products (and I buy precious little of the official stuff). Eberron is the first published setting I've been interested in using. Personally, I hope that Eberron becomes the official setting at some point (and WotC drops the Grehawk-wizard spell names). So I want to see the Realms go away? No, of course not. I can do without Greyhawk, but I know there are plenty of fans for that universe as well. But, Eberron doesn't have as much metaplot as the other two universes (at this point), and that's good for newcomers. Eberron has the ability to attract manga/anime fans, fans of "Indiana Jones" movies (and their ilk), and people who want to play gothic or "noir" role-playing plots and won't normally play fantasy games. Eberron brought me back to the dark side (D&D) from an attitude of "D&D is just about prestige classes and min-maxing characters". I'm excited about D&D again after years of trying to find something more interesting to play. Its late, I shouldn't be posting, I should be sleeping but here it goes. From what it seems like WotC is still proceeding with FR products and there are new games and novels for the setting. I would hate to see WotC stop production of FR because that would mean that Eberron would be swamped with people who don't really want to play it. WotC would also loss money from many FR players not picking up Eberron but instead going to Home-brewed. There might be the remote possibility that FR might (in the very distant future) move to a GH situation. This would also happen to Eberron eventually if such a model holds. I don't think support will stop. There are enough players who are quite happy with FR to continue to buy the products. Settings die when the consumer base slackens. I never really played any published setting so my use of Eberron does not change the number of FR players. This seems to hold for many younger Players and DMs with this setting. What I would like to see is a novel series(or adventure arc) that traverses the D&D cosmology. Shifting between Gray Hawk, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, and Eberron (in no particular order). That would be a great boost to all settings.
Hetter 09-14-04, 12:04 AM	If you can justify it by your alignment you can do it. No argument there. You can have a LG sereal killer that feels he's purging the evil from the face of the planet. He's not neccesarrily evil just misguided. He thinks he's doing good and he's following his law. That's not misguided, that's evil, pure and simple. In 20+ years of gaming, no DM, including myself, would allow that character to remain LG past the second or third killing. PHB page 104, Good vs. Evil: "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing and killing others. Seems rather clear cut to me. Your LG sereal killer would rather quickly become LE. He may think he's doing good, but he's not, by definition. He is lawful, though, as he's following his evil beliefs. CE can save a hundred kids from a burning building because it will confuse potential enemies. No argument here, either. CE can get away with doing just about anything they want. And dragons just like anything else could change their alignment. Actually, they can't. Look in the MM under alignment. Every dragon is always a certain alignment. A fair number of monsters have that wording. I admit, in the glossary, always doesn't mean always...but it might as well. An exception to an always alignment is either unique, or extremely rare. Not so in EB. Difference of opinion can always create enemies despite having the same alignment. Entirely too true...of both the world of fantasy and the real world :(
Red_Decker 09-14-04, 12:09 AM	That's not misguided, that's evil, pure and simple. In 20+ years of gaming, no DM, including myself, would allow that character to remain LG past the second or third killing. PHB page 104, Good vs. Evil: "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing and killing others. Seems rather clear cut to me. Your LG sereal killer would rather quickly become LE. He may think he's doing good, but he's not, by definition. He is lawful, though, as he's following his evil beliefs. Then explain how paladins can get away with it. http://www.geocities.com/customsmiliesbyswordmaster/inthered.txt
Hetter 09-14-04, 12:55 AM	Then explain how paladins can get away with it. Paladins aren't serial killers. In my experience, if they become such, they lose their paladinhood and turn evil.
Geoff Watson 09-14-04, 01:12 AM	For those of you who are complaining that the Realms doesn't allow the PC's to be the 'heroes', WAKE UP! The PC's have ALWAYS been the heroes! I have never once in my 20+ years of gaming had a session where everyone sat around while the NPC's got into all of the action! If this is happening in your games, then it is a DM issue and has nothing to do with the setting! -- Drawmij's_Heir Well, there are several 2e adventures were the PCs are saved by Elminster or Drizzt or other characters from the novels. It's not just a DM issue, it's part of the FR style of adventure. Geoff.
Valheru 09-14-04, 09:59 AM	One thing I've always hated about prepublished worlds, when they first come out, they're new and exciting, no one knows any of the "BIG" npcs yet, and so adventure hooks start off natural. Since the system is designed to start at low level and go up from there, none of the npcs had to be that high anyway. Then all the adventures, video games, novels, etc come out. And before you know it, the world is populated by all of these Super High level NPC heros from the various books. Eberron tries to be different by claiming that very few NPC's are above 12th level or so, but unless they impose some limit on their novel line, such as, "once hero reaches point X, it must be killed or retired", eventually they're going to end up with a couple of really high level hero's that every other DM without a fresh idea is going to want to use. Then you have the same problem with other world settings. Mordenkainen, Eliminster, <insert high level favorite world specific npc name.>, summons a group of 1st level adventurers. "I need you to go to place x and recover item y." Players, "You're the almoighty, all powerful <blank>, why the hell are you highering us farmboy adventurer wannabes to do something that could easily get us all killed, when you can wave your hand and everything falls dead at your feat?" DM, "Becuase, well... aw... just take the damn quest and don't be difficult." I REALLY hate it when DM's start games like that, and it seems to happen everytime I play in a published world. Eberron may not have the high level NPC's yet, but it will. And them saying that it doesn't is just going to eventually bite them on their ass. PS: When the Epic Level Handbook came out, I asked, "What's the point, in my games, level ten is epic for the world, not level 21." I primarily run home-brew settings, and even when I don't, I never deal with an NPC over level 10. Sometimes, a level 10+ party of heros will find that the villian is a coniving schemeing level 5 or 6 nobody. And they'll still have a nightmare of a time to take him down.
Drawmijs_Heir 09-15-04, 10:35 AM	Well, there are several 2e adventures were the PCs are saved by Elminster or Drizzt or other characters from the novels. It's not just a DM issue, it's part of the FR style of adventure. Geoff. Touche' Perhaps it isn't always a DM issue, but my point remains the same. The PC's are always going to be the center of the game because they are the ones who are playing it. - After I wrote that last post I re-read the Eberron setting. Yes there are some exciting things in there (the druid and ranger stuff is stellar; as is the way clerics are devoted to churches rather than single deities), but I am telling you guys that this is more sci-fantasy than it is high fantasy! These 'new things' are just improved game mechanics. You could drop most of the 'coolness' of Eberron into any of the existing settings and it would work fine. Take away the new mechanics and what do you have left? Robots, Turbo-rails, Khyber Shards, and a map... They should have taken all of their research and did another rules upgrade to 4.0, and then published Eberron in the back of Dungeon Magazine.
Lina_Inverse 09-15-04, 10:55 AM	faerun is overrun with high level npcs and has waayyyy too many deitys.ebberon has no dragons and a severe lack of dungeons,and is therefore not D&D. they both suck.
falling 09-15-04, 11:15 AM	let me start by saying that i have played a lot of rpg's not only d20 but nearly every system that has ever been released in print and even a bunch that have not. FR is a fantastic line that has held true to its original concept for a very long time. eberron is not as ground braking as it seams every one thinks, it is how ever a beautiful story. i say story because any new setting is just a story that has yet to be told in fuel. FR has had a good run and has told its story a for a long time and from a number of different angles eberron how ever is new and has yet to reveal its numerous twists and turns. in short i can hardly wait for more info on this new and exciting world
Hetter 09-15-04, 11:23 AM	After I wrote that last post I re-read the Eberron setting. Yes there are some exciting things in there (the druid and ranger stuff is stellar; as is the way clerics are devoted to churches rather than single deities), but I am telling you guys that this is more sci-fantasy than it is high fantasy! These 'new things' are just improved game mechanics. You could drop most of the 'coolness' of Eberron into any of the existing settings and it would work fine. Take away the new mechanics and what do you have left? Robots, Turbo-rails, Khyber Shards, and a map... Eberron isn't high fantasy, there's no doubt about that. I disagree that it's sci-fantasy, however. They've taken magic to the next logical step, IMO. Magic for the masses. There are always mages that are out to simply make a gp (or several hundred thousand) and Eberron is the logical extension of that. Yes, you have "tech" items, but they are magically powered and created by mages. Does it cost the mage in time & XP? Yes, of course. But it also provides the mage with a TON of money after he's done with that to do his research...never met a mage that wanted more/better spells, and you need lots of money to do that. So those types of mages made the magi-tech items and are now sitting pretty doing all the research they want. Of course, that's just my opinion. YMMV.
Gingerbread Golem 09-15-04, 11:26 AM	Hey this seems to be a thread filled with smart and intelligent people...but...it has come to my ear that someone thinks the forgotten realms should truly become forgotten :eek:...NO WAY! :mad: I play a FR campaign with a friend of mine and it rocks...The FR is a little boring if you play to much because of the mighty NPC's that can fix anything but i dont think it should be forgotten completely...I thnk Ebberon will be a fresh start for D&D with a lot of new oppurtunities but dont forget the forgotten realms... Yours sinceely SINDRE :D
Hetter 09-15-04, 11:30 AM	faerun is overrun with high level npcs and has waayyyy too many deitys.ebberon has no dragons and a severe lack of dungeons,and is therefore not D&D. they both suck. No dragons??? Are you nuts? There are plenty of dragons in Eberron. As for a severe lack of dungeons...well, that's just as preposterous. Look at the history of Eberron. With all the empires that have risen and fallen through the ages, there are tons of dungeons out there. They're not listed in the ECS, but how many dungeons are listed the the FCS? Most (if not all, I don't have the FCS in front of me) of the dungeons in Faerun are in the supplements, not the FCS. I would imagine the same will hold true for Eberron. We just have to wait for the supplements.
Hetter 09-15-04, 11:42 AM	Falling, I agree wholeheartedly, except I think that there are still plenty of fine stories to be told (and played!) in FR. GG, I also agree with you. No way should FR become forgotten. I don't think play in FR can ever get boring. Gotta remember rule 0...the DM is always right. That includes what most DM's should be doing in FR, and NOT ever having those high level NPC's come and save your bacon. If your gaming group uses published adventures where that happens at the end, your DM should, IMO, change that end so you can get out of it yourself. To take the most extreme example I can think of right now, your characters shouldn't ever see Elminster (well, interact with him, anyways). If you do, it should be because you've done something VERY bad, and he's coming to let you know don't do that again, and smacking your wrist in the process. Again, YMMV. Hrmm...Elminster smacking your wrist...jeez...that's like your character going "what, I did what wrong? Hey! Ouch!! Uh-oh...I don't feel so good now" :mymy: EDIT: You shouldn't be interacting with the high level (read epic) NPC's until you're epic level, yourself...once you're on a more-or-less even playing field, then you can play with the Elminsters of FR.
straylance 09-15-04, 11:56 AM	Pardon me, and perhaps this conversation belongs in a different thread, but: They should have taken all of their research and did another rules upgrade to 4.0, and then published Eberron in the back of Dungeon Magazine. I check into this thread every so often, and I see version of this argument almost every time. If Eberron doesn't qualify as its own campaign setting, what does?
LordofIllusions 09-15-04, 12:14 PM	After I wrote that last post I re-read the Eberron setting. Yes there are some exciting things in there (the druid and ranger stuff is stellar; as is the way clerics are devoted to churches rather than single deities), but I am telling you guys that this is more sci-fantasy than it is high fantasy! These 'new things' are just improved game mechanics. You could drop most of the 'coolness' of Eberron into any of the existing settings and it would work fine. Take away the new mechanics and what do you have left? Robots, Turbo-rails, Khyber Shards, and a map... They should have taken all of their research and did another rules upgrade to 4.0, and then published Eberron in the back of Dungeon Magazine. LoL, I would not slay Eberron like that; but I must say that all of this hype and attacking the Realms could only come from one source. The Eberron fans feel like Forgotten Realms is a threat to their world; they feel like the must overcome the titan Forgotten Realms for Eberron to have a place. I like both worlds; I feel that Eberron is new and that is why we have a slew of fan boys and girls here. On the other hand when someone says something negative about Eberron what is the first setting they attack ? Forgotten Realms. Why ? Again they feel that the Realms is a threat to Eberron and some of the Realms fans feel that Eberron is a threat to Forgotten Realms. Both are Dungeons and Dragons campaign settings and no one is better than the other. They each have different styles and no I am not going to lie like other posters and claim that when I bought Eberron I suddenly threw away my Forgotten Realms books(or never touched them again.). :rolleyes: ~~~
lugnut71 09-15-04, 01:12 PM	I like both worlds; I feel that Eberron is new and that is why we have a slew of fan boys and girls here. On the other hand when someone says something negative about Eberron what is the first setting they attack ? Forgotten Realms. Why ? Again they feel that the Realms is a threat to Eberron and some of the Realms fans feel that Eberron is a threat to Forgotten Realms. Both are Dungeons and Dragons campaign settings and no one is better than the other. They each have different styles and no I am not going to lie like other posters and claim that when I bought Eberron I suddenly threw away my Forgotten Realms books(or never touched them again.). :rolleyes: ~~~[/QUOTE] I don't know Eberronites didn't start this thread it was started on the Forgotten Realms board. Also when someone says something bad about any setting the first one to be attacked is Forgotten Realms. It is typically the view of the elitist that the masses (in this case those who play Forgotten Realms) are wrong. I for instance do not care for the Realms. It strikes me as awkward. I think your drawing a bit to much in to those and taking offense way to easy.
LordofIllusions 09-15-04, 01:17 PM	I don't know Eberronites didn't start this thread it was started on the Forgotten Realms board. Also when someone says something bad about any setting the first one to be attacked is Forgotten Realms. It is typically the view of the elitist that the masses (in this case those who play Forgotten Realms) are wrong. I for instance do not care for the Realms. It strikes me as awkward. I think your drawing a bit to much in to those and taking offense way to easy. Nothing in my post leans towards any offense taken. Also, did you miss this portion of my post ? : "and some of the Realms fans feel that Eberron is a threat to Forgotten Realms." As a matter of fact, I can point you to two popular threads where your so called Eberronites persistently downtalk Forgotten Realms in particular in order to massage the possibly fragile ego of some Eberron players and DMs. ~~~
Lina_Inverse 09-15-04, 02:48 PM	No dragons??? Are you nuts? There are plenty of dragons in Eberron. As for a severe lack of dungeons...well, that's just as preposterous. Look at the history of Eberron. With all the empires that have risen and fallen through the ages, there are tons of dungeons out there. They're not listed in the ECS, but how many dungeons are listed the the FCS? Most (if not all, I don't have the FCS in front of me) of the dungeons in Faerun are in the supplements, not the FCS. I would imagine the same will hold true for Eberron. We just have to wait for the supplements. nope no dragons.they might CLAIM to be dragons,but they arent.dragons have LOOT,not just tresure LOOT.there is a severe lack of dragons sitting on loot for allmightly fun dragon slaying jaunt.a PC who hasnt slain dragons by level 20 isnt a D&D PC.
lugnut71 09-15-04, 06:02 PM	Nothing in my post leans towards any offense taken. Also, did you miss this portion of my post ? : "and some of the Realms fans feel that Eberron is a threat to Forgotten Realms." As a matter of fact, I can point you to two popular threads where your so called Eberronites persistently downtalk Forgotten Realms in particular in order to massage the possibly fragile ego of some Eberron players and DMs. ~~~ Now see this is what I'm talking about. People take offense because someone disagrees with them and they strike out. Then somebody else takes offense and they lash out. Why should people be threatened on other side? Also I did not miss that part of your post but I find it intresting that you placed it in the middle instead of right after the other. Now the implication that someone could take from that is that you are making the one stick out over the other. Of course it is more likely you just wrote it out fast and didn't really think about it. Or also likely you though of the second as an afterthought. I would also like to add that fan boy or girl is typically used as an insult on messageboards. Now it is possible you didn't know that but I also know that you have been on messageboards for a long enough time to think otherwise. So really you probably don't want to use that term. So to stay somewhat on topic as always both settings have their strengths and flaws. I myself prefer Eberron for a few reasons which are in no particular order. 1. I like that a good cleric can worship and evil good. I also like the reverse of this. Along these seem lines I like that not everything is known about the gods themselves. 2. I like the new races I feel. They fit the setting and all seem to belong. 3. I don't have to be a high level magic user (arcane or divine) to travel quickly across the continent. Any place is only a few days away for me. 4. I like that the setting is built around lots of low level magic and rare high level magic. 5. For whatever reason I like places were really powerful monsters are sealed away. Now could I have done these things with Forgotten Realms yes. But if I wanted that I would of just made a homebrew with them. I also want community with other players. This can really only be done with a shared setting. If I change those things about the Forgotten Realms then I am playing a homebrew with other peoples NPC's in them. You can get away with a few little changes in any setting. Boy I guess I got off topic again.
The White Sorcerer 09-15-04, 06:20 PM	there is a severe lack of dragons sitting on loot for allmightly fun dragon slaying jaunt. There are actually dragons like that in Eberron. Not all dragons sit around in Argonessen reading prophecies. I have to say, claiming that Eberron lacks dungeons is outright ridicilous. Xen'drik is filled with them, the Demon Wastes have the Labyrinth, even Sharn has dungeons of sorts. And that's not nearly most of them.
lugnut71 09-15-04, 06:24 PM	Also the Mournlands are pretty much a huge Dungeon by themselves. That being sad I believe Lina is being acerbic.
stembolt 09-15-04, 11:28 PM	Both are Dungeons and Dragons campaign settings and no one is better than the other. They each have different styles and no I am not going to lie like other posters and claim that when I bought Eberron I suddenly threw away my Forgotten Realms books(or never touched them again.). I threw away my FR books before Eberron came out. Most of my group just got sick and tired of using a crappy game world. ebberon has no dragons and a severe lack of dungeons,and is therefore not D&D. they both suck. Eberron has dragons that are actually mysterious and powerful. And it actually has logical reasons for ruins and jungles. So, wrong on both counts.
The_other 09-16-04, 01:14 AM	nope no dragons.they might CLAIM to be dragons,but they arent.dragons have LOOT,not just tresure LOOT.there is a severe lack of dragons sitting on loot for allmightly fun dragon slaying jaunt.a PC who hasnt slain dragons by level 20 isnt a D&D PC. AWESOME!!!! you are officially the most ignorant person i have ever seen. (opens book) wow it says here the continent of Argonnesson is populated mostly by DRAGONS and barbaric tribes that guard the coasts. (looks even more) wow the world itself was created by a DRAGON (looks yet more) wow a group of blue DRAGONS that guard Adar from the Inspired (looks much more) wow DRAGONS discover a prophecy that involved DRAGONmarked people (looks yet much more) wow DRAGONS teach giants magic (looks yet more) wow it says that DRAGONS hoard treasure and are sometimes greedy (looks yet more) wow it says that there are still evil DRAGONS too kill....even gold dragons!! and we all know they have the most treasure my 2 silver
Just another user 09-16-04, 04:55 AM	nope no dragons.they might CLAIM to be dragons,but they arent.dragons have LOOT,not just tresure LOOT.there is a severe lack of dragons sitting on loot for allmightly fun dragon slaying jaunt.a PC who hasnt slain dragons by level 20 isnt a D&D PC. Wait, wait, are you saying there are no D&D PCs in Dark Sun?
Kid SixXx 09-16-04, 08:45 AM	"and some of the Realms fans feel that Eberron is a threat to Forgotten Realms." Yes they do, and sadly a lot of them harbor an dislike the Eberron setting without even having reviewed one shred of the material. It's purely irrational, as the devs on both sides have stated that neither setting will be neglected in respect to the timely release of content. FR folks want the deadlines to favor their setting, and Eberron people want more material for our setting. It's a Catch 22. Truth be told, FR folks seem to want the lion's share of all releases whether written or computer. Otherwise they wouldn't have gotten furious when the 3.5 computer game, ToEE, was made for Greyhawk and not the FR, nor would they be so outraged now, given that the both the D&D MMOG and new RTS will be set in Eberron. Not only is it a matter of FR folks perceiving Eberron as a threat, it is a philosophy of hoarding that demands that anything with a D&D stamp on it be set in the Realms. To talk to some FR people, the purpose of the OA book is to revive Kara-Tur, and not to actually attempt to run a campaign in Rokugan. Demon Stone for PS2 may satisfy them for a bit, but I fear they will riot if NWN does not get an expansion, or if there is no new Baldur's Gate game. As a matter of fact, I can point you to two popular threads where your so called Eberronites persistently downtalk Forgotten Realms in particular in order to massage the possibly fragile ego of some Eberron players and DMs. Not as much downtalking as demystifying, I think. FR is a wonderful setting but it is deified a bit too much for my liking. The FR folks will tell you that the FR is all there is as far as game settings go, when there are still a lot of people that run homebrew campaigns, as well as campaigns in other settings. Now that Eberron is around, there is yet another alternative. People should be made aware of all of the choices they have available to them, and choose for themselves.
ENHenry 09-16-04, 09:33 AM	No dungeons in Eberron? :D *Henry points to the Forgotten Forge, Shadows of the Last War, and The Queen with Burning Eyes, the first three Eberron Adventures* riiiiight. ;)
LordofIllusions 09-16-04, 02:12 PM	Yes they do, and sadly a lot of them harbor an dislike the Eberron setting without even having reviewed one shred of the material. It's purely irrational, as the devs on both sides have stated that neither setting will be neglected in respect to the timely release of content. FR folks want the deadlines to favor their setting, and Eberron people want more material for our setting. It's a Catch 22. Truth be told, FR folks seem to want the lion's share of all releases whether written or computer. Otherwise they wouldn't have gotten furious when the 3.5 computer game, ToEE, was made for Greyhawk and not the FR, nor would they be so outraged now, given that the both the D&D MMOG and new RTS will be set in Eberron. Not only is it a matter of FR folks perceiving Eberron as a threat, it is a philosophy of hoarding that demands that anything with a D&D stamp on it be set in the Realms. To talk to some FR people, the purpose of the OA book is to revive Kara-Tur, and not to actually attempt to run a campaign in Rokugan. Demon Stone for PS2 may satisfy them for a bit, but I fear they will riot if NWN does not get an expansion, or if there is no new Baldur's Gate game. Not as much downtalking as demystifying, I think. FR is a wonderful setting but it is deified a bit too much for my liking. The FR folks will tell you that the FR is all there is as far as game settings go, when there are still a lot of people that run homebrew campaigns, as well as campaigns in other settings. Now that Eberron is around, there is yet another alternative. People should be made aware of all of the choices they have available to them, and choose for themselves. You have FR heads that are biased towards FR and you have Eberron heads that believe Eberron can do no wrong. Both are sad cases. I like both settings; it gives me a wider variety of worlds to play in(Yes I am one of those DMs that sees the DM as a player as well; to an extent.). Hence I hold no bias towards one or the other. I agree with people being made aware of all of the choices they have available to them and if they are here on the Wizards of the Coast site I believe they are well aware. ~~~
eRaz0r 09-16-04, 02:24 PM	Hence I hold no bias towards one or the other. I agree with people being made aware of all of the choices they have available to them and if they are here on the Wizards of the Coast site I believe they are well aware. I do have to wonder if this is the case. You were so quick to jump on my casual comments (in the other thread) regarding what I liked about Eberron, that I couldn't help but think you were a FR aficionado. I make no secret about my current preference for Eberron (which I admit, might change as time goes on). I personally find FR a little bland, but perhaps that's because I've played some lackluster games in the setting. I wonder if you don't have a bias towards FR, given your other posts on the topic..
LordofIllusions 09-16-04, 02:29 PM	that I couldn't help but think you were a FR aficionado. The key word here is "think." ;) ~~~
eRaz0r 09-16-04, 02:30 PM	In any case, our little group is still waiting to play it's second session of Eberron. We'll see how it matches up in game play to our other games. As a player in this one, my experience might mar my impression, as it did for FR.
LordofIllusions 09-16-04, 02:32 PM	I think the key word isn't "they". ;) *Clap, clap* Bravo, you caught my typo. What need are there for spell checkers in this world when the one and only eRazor is present ? Here's a :cookie: . Feel better now ? ~~~
eRaz0r 09-16-04, 02:43 PM	*Clap, clap* Bravo, you caught my typo. What need are there for spell checkers in this world when the one and only eRazor is present ? Here's a :cookie: . Feel better now ? ~~~ Hmm. I wonder - do you always need to have the last word ? Isn't that a sign of insecurity ? Oh wait. Here I'm doing it. Whoops.
stembolt 09-20-04, 04:10 AM	The thread on the FR board about Eberron is very entertaining to say the least this one (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=4436884#post4436884) takes the cake.
Kid SixXx 09-21-04, 09:43 AM	The thread on the FR board about Eberron is very entertaining to say the least this one (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=4436884#post4436884) takes the cake. Yep, our bretherin in the FR camp can be a strange lot. They have a gigantic world full of everything under the sun which begs to be described in vivid, cinematic glory to it's players. Then they categorically attempt to crucify a setting who's premier tenant is the vivid description of cinematic glory to it's players.. Go figure.
fizzbang 09-21-04, 09:49 AM	They have a gigantic world full of everything under the sun which begs to be described in vivid, cinematic glory to it's players. Then they categorically attempt to crucify a setting who's premier tenant is the vivid description of cinematic glory to it's players.. Go figure. Yeah, I got halfway through writing a response to that, and then had to give up because it would mean that we'd have to define a mutually acceptable definition of the term "cinematic". And once an argument gets down to the definitions of terms, then things can get snippy...
Kid SixXx 09-21-04, 11:00 AM	Yeah, I got halfway through writing a response to that, and then had to give up because it would mean that we'd have to define a mutually acceptable definition of the term "cinematic". And once an argument gets down to the definitions of terms, then things can get snippy... I agree. I personally was puzzled when the poster said that he knew no DM's up to the challenge of vivid description of a campaign setting on a cinematic scale. It was then when I questioned why he played in the FR at all, since the hallmark of the FR setting is that it contains lots of detail that should be related in as cinematic a nature as possible. How can you make your players feel like they are in Baldur's Gate if you cannot describe the hustle & bustle of the city in adequate terms? Shouldn't the feel of Baldur's Gate be different than, say, that of Suzail? Why DM the setting if you cannot relay the details to your players? Why be an FR player if your DM can't make you feel like you're in the Realms? Very strange, indeed.
fizzbang 09-21-04, 11:28 AM	How can you make your players feel like they are in Baldur's Gate if you cannot describe the hustle & bustle of the city in adequate terms? Shouldn't the feel of Baldur's Gate be different than, say, that of Suzail? Why DM the setting if you cannot relay the details to your players? Why be an FR player if your DM can't make you feel like you're in the Realms? Very strange, indeed. That was a bit odd. But I think some of that may come from the fact that so much of the FR setting is defined down to all but the smallest detail. A DM doesn't necessarily need to describe the hustle and bustle, since all of the players already know all about Baldur's Gate. They've read the books, played the game, bought the T-shirts, eaten the commemorative snack food, and done the short-lived mid-90s dance craze. A DM running an FR game could get away with just describing places and characters by their book and page references: in fact, one of my less impresive ones used to do exactly that. However, there are parts of Eberron that have been explicitly set aside as remaining undefined. A DM has the freedom to develop it as they see fit and as suits their campaign without worrying about the purists complaining about the unapproved deviance from canon. Of course, this means the onus of description is back on the DM's shoulders, but that's nothing a good DM can't deal with and embrace. It's that freedom and variety, along with the excellent set-up for players to be the primary heroes that really makes the setting open to cinematic potential to me.
fizzbang 09-21-04, 11:52 AM	How can you make your players feel like they are in Baldur's Gate if you cannot describe the hustle & bustle of the city in adequate terms? Shouldn't the feel of Baldur's Gate be different than, say, that of Suzail? Why DM the setting if you cannot relay the details to your players? Why be an FR player if your DM can't make you feel like you're in the Realms? Very strange, indeed. That was a bit odd. But I think some of that may come from the fact that so much of the FR setting is defined down to all but the smallest detail. A DM doesn't necessarily need to describe the hustle and bustle, since all of the players already know all about Baldur's Gate. They've read the books, played the game, bought the T-shirts, eaten the commemorative snack food, and done the short-lived mid-90s dance craze. A DM running an FR game could get away with just describing places and characters by their book and page references: in fact, one of my less impresive ones used to do exactly that. However, there are parts of Eberron that have been explicitly set aside as remaining undefined. A DM has the freedom to develop it as they see fit and as suits their campaign without worrying about the purists complaining about the unapproved deviance from canon. Of course, this means the onus of description is back on the DM's shoulders, but that's nothing a good DM can't deal with and embrace. It's that freedom and variety, along with the excellent set-up for players to be the primary heroes that really makes the setting open to cinematic potential to me.
malkav138 09-21-04, 12:08 PM	I think this argument is a bit silly. Of course forgotten realms is extremly detailed its been around for 20 years. Is that a problem? No not really. Is all of material neccessary? No not really. But do you buy the books anyway? maybe. But to assume an aggressive stance towards a campaign setting is...well...silly. I like FR, I like EB, I like DND, wheres the problem. I could run an EB style game in FR. I could run a highly detailed game with cool highly detailed NPCs in EB. Heck, i could even stretch the Sea of Fallen Stars out quite a bit and drop the whole friggin EB main continent right into an exsisting FR game. What would happen then. Would the walls of the WotC DND multiverse break into a billion little parts? I doubt it. Lets face the facts the facts ladies and gentlemen. A campaign setting is just that...a setting. Its a backdrop for your players to exsist in. Its a bunch of ideas for players and DMs. If you dont like them, DONT USE THEM. You could have Eberron without trains and airships(and BTW speaking of airships..I have seen a couple of pro-FR posts in this thread with posters a bit miffed about airships. Well if you look at the upcoming releases for FR there is a book called The Shining South coming out. I'll Give you three guesses as to what is on the cover?) You could have FR without Elminster and Drizzt. I enjoy roleplaying games in general, and I buy a lot of RPG products. But i dont buy them because I feel that my game lacks depth, or that I need to be knowledgable in whatever setting I am running. I but them because I like to read them. I like to look at the art, and yes I like getting a few PrCs and feats. Its not that I cannot make my own feats. But Sometimes it feels better using material that has been playtested by a whole team of developers to (although I do disagree with them often) try and make sure that the rules are fair. But as far as Eberron replacing Forgetten Realms, I think you should let the release schedule for the rest of this year and the beginning of next speak for itself. Both settings are receiving pretty much equal treatment. I mean c'mon Eberron is using almost the exact same marketing strategy as FR(Races of Eberron is already slated and I would not be in the least bit surprised to see a players guide to Eberron and then multiple books on different regions the way.) Personally the only thing that is different about the Eberron marketing strategy that i can see is that they have brought back serialized modules. I reaaly like them. I think that FR should get the same love. On the computer game front of course they used eberron for the DND online. Its new. FR has had multiple online games some of them quite good, and also has the best DnD game ever made under its belt. (Neverwinter Nights...which is BTW being sequeled in 2006.) But all in all I think the most important aspect of roleplaying games is the "Golden Rule" (I know that Whitewolf used to actually have this rule printed in there books although I am not sure this is still the case) Golden Rule: If you don't like it...Change it. If you do not like the course of a current campaign setting, WotC has given you these boards to post suggestions. It would be ignorant to assume that the developers arent reading them. I think we would be better served as a community to offer suggestions and fixes then to just bash something because its not exactly what we want.Why not instead be proactive, and design your own campaign world that takes the things you like about ALL ssetting and makes them available to your players. Games are supposed to be fun. And I do not think that this thread as is supports the idea that gaming should be fun. Getting upset over Eberron is like getting upset because someone decided to make a Disney flavored Monopoly as opposed to traditional style (I apologize if Disney flavored Monopoly actually DID offend anyone.) Who cares if your buying Park Place or Castle Disney( I have no idea what the actual name of the castle is) your oppent still has to pay if they land there. Personally I hope WotC makes a new campaign setting every year. I think its wonderful to add fresh ideas and new concepts to a hobby that is quite literally all about using your imagination to have fun. SO...you dont like eberron or forgotten realms...then imagine yourself a new world for you and your players thats more your style. Then there is the other point, WotC is a company that has to make money to pay its employees. So it has to make products. And beleive me it will continue to do so. So before you critisize new campaign settings, ask yourself this: Would you rather have WotC create new campaign settings to meet there release quota, and continue to supoort the old ones as well, or are you ready for DnD 4.0(so you can buy all of those sourcebooks all over yet again)? Personally I would rather have new ideas from any campaign setting then a rework of the rules.
Kid SixXx 09-21-04, 01:47 PM	I think this argument is a bit silly. I also think the argument is a tad silly, but it's no more silly than having a favorite sports team and defending their record regardless of whether they win or lose. The threads are definitely more tame than the ones that debate Star Wars canon all day: those can get pretty nasty. I also fully support both settings. My only beef, & the reason I take part in such debates, is that there are a lot of preconceived notions & misconceptions about Eberron that really need to be straightened out. The predjudice against the setting is a bit too irrational for my liking.
ruleslawyer 09-21-04, 09:14 PM	Agree. And will add, conversely, that some of the anti-FR sentiment I've seen elsewhere on the WotC boards (not here!) is a bit too strong for my tastes (or mayhap "broad" would be a better word, since there is FR published material that I truly loathe). This is a truly civilized and actually interesting thread; kudos to everyone for keeping it that way!
wizard of oz 09-21-04, 10:34 PM	I like both settings is that allowed? I think what draws me to each setting is diferent. I like some of the over the top villans of Greyhalk. I like the neutrality of everything in Eberron and the new cosmology, the Forgotten Realms has the coolest deities, and Scarred Lands, well...
Methos of Aundair 09-21-04, 10:46 PM	One of the best things I like about Eberron is that it was created entirely different from a normal DnD cosmology. I got tired of every world having the same demihuman deities and the same plane structure. I was really happy the way Eberron is unique in that area. I like FR and Eberron both but prefer an Eberron CS right now. Unfortunately I am DM'ing in Eberron rather than playing. :( Wish I could find someone else who would DM an Eberron game.
mistakeagian 09-21-04, 11:00 PM	What makes FR and Eberron differnt is that Eberron was MADE for D&D v3.5, FR wasn't! I played FR when I started playing D&D, about 1995. It was an amazing world, great setting, jovial style. It was really neat. A great Introduction to fantasy. I think the v3.0 and v3.5 FR stuff has been lacking. It is loosing its flavor to cater it to a Statistical system. Eberron was made to fit this system. It was made to be the high flying set of your pants action adventure game. FR will always be, and hopefully it will be able to gear more towards the hardcore fantasy genre now. Eberron will always be cause its accessable, it is contemporary (as FR was in its original days) it is comparable to the movies we watch, the books we read, the world we live in. It is faster paced and harder hitting. I like Eberron, I like FR, but in all truth, one is not comparable to the other.
Haer'dalis 09-27-04, 11:50 AM	I got tired of every world having the same demihuman deities and the same plane structure. I was really happy the way Eberron is unique in that area. 1) If you want a world with different demihuman dieties why not try Scarred Lands. For what I know they have a fresh feel to the typical DnD as well as Eberron does. 2) The plane structure is actually quite interesting as every CS has it's own and independant cosmology now. This has caused quite a stirr in the case of FR (why a part of the Concordant Opposition ->here the domain of Oghma has become a plane on it's own rights ?, etc.) so I can't quite agree with that arguement. I do agree with the arguements that Eberron is the next level of game evolution however. There is but one thing that I don't think will happen though. As I bought my ECS earlier this month I thought that with such popularity, the setting is bound to become core in the DnD 4.0. But then I had a second thought. It can't be so as it doesn't have the characteristiscs a core setting needs to have. Because of the alignment ambiguity (hope I spelled that right) it may not be clear to newcomer players who normally need some feedback in this matter. This goes especially for cleric characters. Here enter FR. Having pushed GH aside (if you think otherwise compare the evolution of the FR an GH timelines in the recent years) and having clear rules about alignments and especially clerics they make for a good core setting.
fizzbang 09-27-04, 12:31 PM	I do agree with the arguements that Eberron is the next level of game evolution however. There is but one thing that I don't think will happen though. As I bought my ECS earlier this month I thought that with such popularity, the setting is bound to become core in the DnD 4.0. But then I had a second thought. It can't be so as it doesn't have the characteristiscs a core setting needs to have. Because of the alignment ambiguity (hope I spelled that right) it may not be clear to newcomer players who normally need some feedback in this matter. This goes especially for cleric characters. As much as I agree that Ebrron is a step forward for D&D, I don't think I could see a scenario where it would become the "core" setting for some theoretical D&D 4.0. It's got too many things that are slightly tweaked for that setting, both in terms of mechanics and style. I think the central fanbase of D&D is fantasy, and making the core setting something that is anything but primarily fantasy (like Eberron's blend of fantasy/noir/pulp) is a good way to confuse new players and alienate purists. FR is definitely the highest of high fantasies. I could see it as the D&D 4.0 core setting, although that could run into trouble, since the FR setting is pretty much defined to death, and the core setting should be left mostly open to the DM's creative desires. Notice how little of Greyhawk's setting is actually described in the 3.0/3.5 books? Other than dieties, there's pretty much no setting information given. A player who had never read any pre3.0 GH stuff wouldn't know anything about nations, politics, or metaplot in the GH world. In order to be a good core setting, FR would need to be presented in an equally restrained manner. I don't know if a lot of FR fans would take kindly to having their highly-defined world stripped down to a handful of dieties and a casual mention of racial attitudes. But I suspect 4.0 is really too far off to be speculating about such a thing...
Haer'dalis 09-29-04, 07:25 AM	Notice how little of Greyhawk's setting is actually described in the 3.0/3.5 books? Other than dieties, there's pretty much no setting information given. A player who had never read any pre3.0 GH stuff wouldn't know anything about nations, politics, or metaplot in the GH world. In order to be a good core setting, FR would need to be presented in an equally restrained manner. I don't know if a lot of FR fans would take kindly to having their highly-defined world stripped down to a handful of dieties and a casual mention of racial attitudes. I wanted to point to that as well but my keyboard got blocked and I couldn't do a thing about it :( But I suspect 4.0 is really too far off to be speculating about such a thing... 3.0 was released in 2000 as far as I can recall, and 3.5 came in 3 years after that which means that we may expecting 4.0 in 2006 and that's not that far away. What I just said is a mere guess but it may yet be a lucky (??) one.
The_Declaration 09-29-04, 07:39 AM	3.0 was released in 2000 as far as I can recall, and 3.5 came in 3 years after that which means that we may expecting 4.0 in 2006 and that's not that far away. What I just said is a mere guess but it may yet be a lucky (??) one. 1978: AD&D 1989: AD&D2 2000: D&D3 ... 2011: D&D4 (?)
Haer'dalis 09-29-04, 07:50 AM	1978: AD&D 1989: AD&D2 2000: D&D3 ... 2011: D&D4 (?) compare the development rate of the old D&Ds and that of 3.0 and you'll see that as time moves on our most beloved system ( :D ) evolves much faster than it used to. Since it took Wizards only 3 years to publish the revision I suspect that we'll see the 4.0 ed well before 2010 (after all it's all about money isn't it?). BTW there were D&D and D&D2 as well AFAIK
The_Declaration 09-29-04, 09:09 AM	well, again it's pure speculation, so we'll see. But it's true that WOTC cash-cow approach is changing the deal, I admit.
q'afuu 09-29-04, 09:19 AM	If 4E was to be released in 2006, WotC has less than 2.5 years left to do so. Remember how long it took to playtest 3E? An equal period would be needed for 4E. And if there was already large-scale playtesting going on, I'm pretty sure the word would be out. So no, I see no reason to suspect 4E is lurking just beyond the horizon yet. 2010 seems like a much better estimate than 2006 at least.
Methos of Aundair 09-29-04, 09:24 AM	Originally posted by Haer'dalis Quote: Originally Posted by The_Declaration 1978: AD&D 1989: AD&D2 2000: D&D3 ... 2011: D&D4 (?) BTW there were D&D and D&D2 as well AFAIK Basic D&D came out in 1974 (I believe, not for sure) and before that were the Chainmail pamphlet rules.
Brianish 09-29-04, 09:56 AM	I'm a big Eberron pusher, but I haven't gotten the feeling that they're starting to look away from the Realms. On the contrary - it seems to me that they're promoting Eberron and FR as their big two - the Yin and Yang of D&D, sotospeak. Different, but equal and etc.
Ourph the Mingol 09-29-04, 04:31 PM	Basic D&D came out in 1974 (I believe, not for sure) and before that were the Chainmail pamphlet rules. The first Basic D&D set was released in 1977. D&D (now usually referred to as original D&D or OD&D) was released in 1974. The two are quite different.
The White Sorcerer 09-29-04, 04:48 PM	Ugh. The old editions are confusing. Not talking about the rules here (although they're pretty confusing too) but about the editions themselves. On-Topic: Yay Eberron! YayLight (33% less Yay) Forgotten Realms!
malkav138 09-30-04, 08:58 AM	I think that DnD 4.0 release year will depend on the market. I do not think that WotC will release another edition until sales of 3.5 start falling well below expectations. It is my beleif that they will continue to release source and core material for 3.5 as long as it will sell. 4.0 will not come about because a rules revision is needed, 4.0 will be a marketing ploy. The start of another pass on the WotC cylic marketing plan. Its kind of like adding new marshmellow shapes to your favorite cereal. Makes you want it...even if it is bad for teeth.
Methos of Aundair 09-30-04, 09:02 AM	Originally posted by Ourph the Mingol The first Basic D&D set was released in 1977. D&D (now usually referred to as original D&D or OD&D) was released in 1974. The two are quite different. When you say the first Basic D&D set are you talking about the red box? I can't remember. Nor do I remember the Chainmail pamphlet rules (they were before my time :D ). One of my players still has the pamphlet rules from when he played, they looked rather interesting. Anyone know of a good website that discusses the history and timeline of D&D, kind of curious?
Haer'dalis 09-30-04, 12:06 PM	4.0 will not come about because a rules revision is needed, 4.0 will be a marketing ploy. The start of another pass on the WotC cylic marketing plan. As was 3.5 ??
malkav138 09-30-04, 01:34 PM	Agreed.
Ourph the Mingol 09-30-04, 01:50 PM	When you say the first Basic D&D set are you talking about the red box? I can't remember. Nor do I remember the Chainmail pamphlet rules (they were before my time :D ). One of my players still has the pamphlet rules from when he played, they looked rather interesting. Anyone know of a good website that discusses the history and timeline of D&D, kind of curious? Actually, the "red box" was the 3rd edition of the Basic D&D line, not published until 1983. Here's a basic timeline of D&D up through the mid 80's Chainmail - Rules for Medieval Miniatures: First publication 1971 (published previously in shortened form in the Domesday Book). The Chainmail rules were published in various forms through 1979. Original D&D: First publication in 1974. Released in a woodgrain box with stickers for cover art (some pre-publication boxes were released in '73 without cover art, just the plain woodgrain box). It remained in publication until 1979 in various forms. Greyhawk - Supplement I: First publication in 1975. Greyhawk was a general rules expansion, with new combat rules, additional character classes (paladin and thief), as well as new monsters, spells, and treasure (Yes, it's the first RPG splatbook! :D ). Blackmoor - Supplement II: First publication in 1975. Blackmoor was the second expansion, adding underwater rules, two new character classes (monk and assassin), and hit location rules. It also contains the first scenario ever published for a role-playing game, "Temple of the Frog", which was later developed into module DA2 Temple of the Frog. Eldritch Wizardry - Supplement III: First publication in 1976. Eldritch Wizardry adds the druid character class, additional magic items and artifacts, as well as rules for demons and psionics. Gods, Demigods and Heroes - Supplement IV: First publication in 1976. Gods, Demi-Gods, & Heroes supplies pantheons of deities, including their monster-style statistics. D&D Basic Set - Holmes edition: Edited by J. Eric Holmes. First publication in 1977. Cover artwork by David Sutherland depicting a fighter and magic-user facing off against a red dragon sitting atop a hoard of gold. Sometimes referred to as the "blue box" for the one printing of the set that came out in monochrome blue, even though other printings were all in color. Published through 1979. (It was also rereleased as part of the 1999 Silver Anniversary Collector's Set). Early printings contained Dungeon Geomorphs - Set One and Monster and Treasure Assortment - Set One. Later printings contained either B1 - In Search of the Unknown or B2 - Keep on the Borderlands. (Here is a picture (http://www.acaeum.com/DDIndexes/SetPages/SetScans/Basic1st.html) ) D&D Basic Set - Moldvay edition: Edited by Tom Moldvay. First publication in 1981. Cover artwork by Erol Otus depicting a warrior with a spear and a sorceress facing a green sea-dragon emerging from water. Sometimes referred to as the "magenta box" or "purple box". The Expert set edited by David Cook and Steve Marsh was also released at the same time. The "Cook Expert" set also had cover artwork by Erol Otus depicting a magic-user scrying through a cloud of mystical steam on the scene depicted on the Basic set cover. Both sets were published through 1983. (Honestly, the best version of the game ever published IMO.) All printings included B2 - Keep on the Borderlands. (Here is a picture (http://www.acaeum.com/DDIndexes/SetPages/SetScans/Basic8th.html) ) D&D Basic Set - Mentzer edition: Edited by Frank Mentzer. First publication in 1983. Cover artwork by Larry Elmore depicting a warrior with a sword fighting a dragon. Usually referred to as the "red box" set. (Here is a picture (http://www.acaeum.com/DDIndexes/SetPages/SetScans/Basic12th.html) ) The Expert and Companion sets were also released in 1983 (the Basic and Expert sets were basically redone to coincide with the release of the Companion set). These rules were later expanded in the Masters Set and the Immortals set. Eventually almost all of the rules published for "Mentzer Basic" were collated in the Rules Cyclopedia, published in 1990. (Here is a picture (http://www.acaeum.com/DDIndexes/SetPages/SetScans/Cyclopedia.html) ) This Basic set did not come with a separate included adventure (though the rulebooks did contain a short "practice" scenario). AD&D Monster Manual: First publication in 1977. Published through 1989 with a new cover after 1983. AD&D Player's Handbook: First publication in 1978. Published through 1990 with a new cover after 1983. (Yes, TSR was still publishing 1st ed. PHBs AFTER 2nd ed. came out, because demand was still high enough to support both. Wierd!) AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide: First publication in 1979. Published through 1989 with a new cover after 1983. AD&D 2nd ed. and all supplementary materials for that edition were released in and after 1989. Most of the above info is from the Acaeum (www.acaeum.com), a site specializing in information about pre-1990 D&D and AD&D collectibles. A good site to visit if you're interested in accurate information about the history of D&D.
kedi 11-17-04, 03:49 AM	MY sum up is: Greyhawk: KiDr Abusion. Well described, nice to play. Forgotten Realms: Depends, can be very KiD or DI, depending on DM. Great description, interesting story, unlimited possibilities. Ravenloft: Pure DI. Great and #1 for Role Players. Ebeeron: Poor KiD, low level, poorly described, cool wanna-be.
mortellan 11-17-04, 05:39 AM	I am seeing now that GH and EB share much in common. Probably the best thing that can happen for EB -is- for FR to stay around so it doesn't get glutted with material to fast. Fortunately EB's world is already hashed out, that way if it flags any they can't shoe-horn it into Faerun like they did for a few other settings.
The White Sorcerer 11-17-04, 07:59 AM	Ebeeron: Poor KiD, low level, poorly described, cool wanna-be. Uh-huh. Luckily, unlike Ebeeron, Eberron is a cool setting. And am I supposed to know what all those abbreviations mean? And why are the o's in "poor" in bold?
tete 11-17-04, 08:51 AM	Huh??? Abusion? DI? KiD? Ravenloft is NOT #1 for Role Players... Mabey Ars Magica, it makes you hate to Rollplay by having one of the worst combat systems I've seen. Thus forcing you to Roleplay. Or any game with the storyteller system. D&D is first and formost a battle game and always has been. Though many would complain about it being an unrealistic one(Riddle of Steel fans mostly), combat is still the primary focus not the roll of your character. If we have to pick a D&D world I would vote for Kingdoms of Kalamar being best for Role Players. And If I must go with a non third party game I would vote for Gygax's Greyhawk, though you could pick any world before if got too many authors depending on what kind of experiance you are looking for. Out of the new stuff Eberron is by far the best. New Greyhawk is dumbed down (though complete arcane was a big help in bringing Old Greyhawk back) and Forgotton Realms is suffering greatly from the too many authors syndrome.