Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Edymnion 02-24-06, 10:41 PM	Okay, I started out making a running commentary of everything as I read the book to post up, but I soon found myself falling into a rut of saying the same thing over and over. The main text of this book is absolutely incredible, it is flavorful, it totally avoids all of the shortfalls the other books have had, and aside from little things here and there, it is almost the perfect book. That said, the sidebars, on average, are complete and utter :censored: that I have seriously considered taking a roll of duct tape to just to cover up the nonsense. But thankfully, all of the pure crap is actually tucked away into the sidebars, and isn't in the main body of the book. I'll save everybody the entire list of stuff I wrote (I got tired of saying "Wow, this is great suff, kudos to the guy that wrote this part! But the sidebar is so screwed up I don't even know where to start" over and over), but I'll hit the highparts. Good: Almost all of the main text. This is the kind of book I have been wanting to see for a long time for Eberron. A++ all the way. It is, IMO, the best Eberron book in print short of the ECS itself. Its above even the Sharn book. Everybody in it did their homework, they were knowledgable, and all around avoided the pitfalls the other books have fallen into lately. Kudos to everyone involved in the main text, you guys did a terrific job, and I couldn't be happier. THANK YOU! Bad: 1) Almost all of the sidebars. Whoever wrote about "There are dragons that leave Argonessen just so they can eat some humanoids" needs to be shot. In the face. With a hammer. 2) We've tried to fight the "If its in D&D, then its in Eberron!" thing from the start. Before, it was easy because you could just say "No it isn't, actually read the book instead of skimming and you can see it clearly refers only to the core books." Welp, not anymore. PGtE specifically says that the rule of thumb is that Eberron is a giant generic melting pot that has got everything that has ever been written in the history of the world in it. Reload the hammer-gun please. 3) Repating the nonsense of "Every changling in the world is an extremist" from RoE. At least when it was in RoE, that bit of stupidity could be ignored. Not now. Now it's Eberron canon that all changlings are stereotypes. It was starting that section out so nicely by giving a good balanced view of the race, then pulls this crap out of right field to stick it in there, which pretty much contradicts what it just said a few sentences ago. At least it didn't reprint the whole "pregnant male changling" thing. Not to mention it goes and gives great advice on how to spot a changling, then immediantly presents a feat that takes away 90% of the mechanical advantage you have of spotting them. But on a whole, the book is incredible, I love it to death, its definately the thing to shove into the hands of new players and tell them to read it. Absolute must buy. One thing I noticed that made me smile though. I think whoever wrote the Silver Flame section read the background on one of my characters. From PGtE:"As a refiner burns away all impurity from the ore, so shall the Silver Flame purify the world and its inhabitants." -Davienne of Sigilstar, halfing exorcist of the Silver FlameMy Warforged Paladin of the Silver Flame, Crucible, has a very similar bit in his backstory."Here, I was subjected to the Flame, my doubts and fears were burned away, as the slag is burned out from the iron. I became pure as silver, and was then forged, strong as steel, into a weapon of the Light. Now, I pledge to spread the Flame, so that others may be tempered as I was." -Crucible, warforged paladin of the Silver FlameDunno, but seems like somebody paraphrased some of Crucible's acceptance speech to me :D
Rimbaldi 02-24-06, 10:56 PM	Indeed. However, I would have liked to seen more on the Goblinoid Empire. I would enjoy running that game. A good and useful book! Second in importance only to the ECS itself.
Fabius Maximus 02-25-06, 08:58 AM	Edy, I agree to almost everything you wrote. But: Implementions from other D&D sources are in the main text, too. Especially optional races. That's really bad. I don't mind the sidebars, because I can file them under "suggestions". But creating canon by putting things in the main text is very much like telling me how I should think.
nastynate 02-25-06, 09:47 AM	2) We've tried to fight the "If its in D&D, then its in Eberron!" thing from the start. Before, it was easy because you could just say "No it isn't, actually read the book instead of skimming and you can see it clearly refers only to the core books." Welp, not anymore. PGtE specifically says that the rule of thumb is that Eberron is a giant generic melting pot that has got everything that has ever been written in the history of the world in it. Reload the hammer-gun please. I've never seen the bolded part of this quote as a reason to plop everything ever written haphazardly into Eberron. I've always and will continue to believe that the intention was rather simple. Eberron is designed not to limit the options of a DM. It's a really big world, and has room for whatever you want to add. So if there's some PrC from complete divine that you think would fit, and you find a nice little niche for it in your story, that's just fine. If you have a monster from Libris Mortis that you think would make a perfect minion of the Blood of Vol, that's cool too. It was never meant to mean everything ever written should just get thrown in; there's a place for it, you just have to find one. I am glad that you enjoyed the book though. I also thought this was the most universally useful book printed for the setting since the campaign setting itself. Minor issues aside (there will never be a perfect sourcebook that completely satisfies everyone) I love the mini sections, which are prefect snap-shots for a player to get a taste of what it means to be a templar of the silver flame, or a goblinoid fighter, or a barbarian from the Demon Wastes. The PGtE has a wonderful format, tasty flavorful descriptions, and only a couple discrepencies. Good stuff...
Mula 02-25-06, 11:22 AM	Ugh, purist fanboys. :yuck:
EvilDrPuma 02-25-06, 12:10 PM	Ugh, purist fanboys. :yuck: Ugh, name-calling pot-stirrers. :yuck:
Lurkalot 02-25-06, 12:31 PM	Ugh, purist fanboys. :yuck:Ugh, name-calling pot-stirrers. :yuck: Ugh. Can I play? :yuck:
Edymnion 02-25-06, 02:56 PM	Implementions from other D&D sources are in the main text, too. Especially optional races. That's really bad. I don't mind the sidebars, because I can file them under "suggestions". But creating canon by putting things in the main text is very much like telling me how I should think.Yeah, but it generally was exceedingly limited. Like just one line in the Creation Myths section that mentioned Raptorans and Goliaths and Catfolk. That was bad, but it was only one line, and they didn't mention it again, so it was tolerable. The entire section about how Incarnum is in Eberron as a flat out statement of fact has no place being in the book though, IMO. No, Incarnum is *NOT* in Eberron, its not in *any* setting. Not by default. You can add it in as a DM, but I know for a fact that I will never allow Incarnum in *ANY* game I ever run. Its purely optional material, and I don't appreciate a book like this going out and telling players that not only is Incarnum there, but presents it with more information on how its used than they did Arcane and Divine magic put together (in that section). Talk about money grubbing and trying to drive up sales of a totally worthless book...
bookwurmneo 02-25-06, 03:20 PM	While I don't mind content based off of the other D&D accessories, I dislike the way it was handled in PgtE. I would have preferred that if they wanted to cover this content and it's place, I would have preferred that it would have been kept seperate from the rest of the content, basically I would have like it if they had added 20 pages in the back that discussed the other races and classes found outlined in the same way as the ECS details the core races and classes. That way those who aren't interested in the non-core stuff don't having it tainting the stuff their interested in and actually giving the people who want to use the non-core content ease of reference and actual hints on how the content can fit eberron.
Edymnion 02-25-06, 03:23 PM	Again, I have to say that overall, this is the best Eberron book out there, short of the ECS itself. But I agree. It is the PLAYERS Guide to Eberron. It has no business using optional material (like other books) and introducing them as the default way things are done. Thats something you do for a DM book. This is the book for players, it should not be introducing things that are supposed to be soley in the perview of the DM.
MysteryGilgamesh 02-26-06, 01:42 PM	It is the PLAYERS Guide to Eberron. It has no business using optional material (like other books) and introducing them as the default way things are done. So, wait...You're upset that something players will use (aka: material other sourcebooks), is in the Players Guide? Rather than forcing the GM to make the world accept something that isn't there already? And upset that they're taking the "If it's in D&D..." line seriously? And you're upset that WotC is actually supporting the material they release? That they want their products to have some sort of interconnectivity, and not just being a long string of unrelated things they'll never say another word on ever again? ...There is no string of expletives long enough to express my opinion of your (in my opinion, horrible, and extremely counter-intuitive) opinions.
Edymnion 02-26-06, 03:16 PM	And you're upset that WotC is actually supporting the material they release? That they want their products to have some sort of interconnectivity, and not just being a long string of unrelated things they'll never say another word on ever again? ...There is no string of expletives long enough to express my opinion of your (in my opinion, horrible, and extremely counter-intuitive) opinions.Yes, because when those books cease to be optional rules and instead become manditory things to have just to use the latest book that comes out, the game is in a lot of trouble. You start building up chains where the latest book isn't of any use unless you have the book before it in the chain, and the book before it, and the book before that, or that they spend so much space reprinting everything thats come before it as to be a waste of a book. Would you want to see an Eberron book come out that just assumes that the Wounds and Vitality system from Unearthed Arcana was not only in Eberron, but that the entire setting ran off of it? I mean, its fine if you already have that book and like that optional rule, but for those that don't like it, or don't have that book, its all wasted material. What comes out in the books should be, essentially, stand-alone material. As in, they can only assume you have the PHB, MM, DMG, and any given campaign setting book. They CANNOT assume that you have any other books. References to how that optional material could be used, if you have it, is fine. Like I said, the way they handled Heroes of Horror was excellent. Incarnum being present as a default magic system in Eberron, right up there with Arcane/Divine magic and Psionics is NOT okay. Because if you don't have that book, its 100% unplayable. Its in especially bad taste considering the simple fact that Incarnum is a one-off book that we'll never see anything else from ever again. WotC wants to make money, thats a given. They know full well that printing a book based exclusively on a previous one, that isn't a campaign setting, is financially stupid, because they automatically cut large chunks of their audience out, because only a small percentage of the buyers actually own any given book outside of the core rules. Hence, there's never going to be a Magic of Incarnum II, there's never going to be a Complete Warlock, or anything else like that. Its a one shot side-trip, saying its a default part of any setting not only requires you to have that book just to have a default part of the setting covered, but horribly dates the book it came out in. So while I'm all for "interconnectivity", it *HAS* to be handled in the correct way. Any material from an optional book *MUST* be presented entirely as optional material, not a default part of the setting (Eberron or otherwise).
Sarlax 02-26-06, 04:40 PM	Must Wizards of the Coast hold every DM's hand? Isn't it understood by nearly everyone that everything in the books is optional to begin with? Who doesn't fundamentally get Rule 0? The PGE lacks a stamp on the cover that says, "Information about how to place supplemental material in Eberron is optional." So what? Is your Eberron game going to implode in a massive bubble of discontinuity if you don't immediately purchase Races of Stone, Complete Divine, Heroes of Battle, the Expanded Psionics Handbook, and Monster Manual 3? Of course not. Relax, people. You should be able to figure out for yourselves that the sidebar material is optional. God forbid Wizards should ever again try to help people who've bought a few of their books.
treehouse916 02-26-06, 05:27 PM	I agree with your sentiment that PGtE is right up there with the Sharn sourcebook. They definitely got everyone on the same page for this book. The only problem I have is with the Knowledge bars; I love them, but I think they should be in an appendix where the players can't look at them unless they try to. My players have echoed this sentiment - they love surprises (especially coming to Eberron from a homebrew that I'll admit was a bit -flat-), and sometimes the eye can't help but rove over into those columns on accident. I'm solving the predicament by cutting out strips of card stock sized exactly to the proportions of the Knowledge taskbars (which are all conveniently the same size), so my players can block out the spoilers if they aren't interested. Overall, though, it's all really quite excellent :) The entire section about how Incarnum is in Eberron as a flat out statement of fact has no place being in the book though, IMO. No, Incarnum is *NOT* in Eberron, its not in *any* setting. Not by default. You can add it in as a DM, but I know for a fact that I will never allow Incarnum in *ANY* game I ever run. Its purely optional material, and I don't appreciate a book like this going out and telling players that not only is Incarnum there, but presents it with more information on how its used than they did Arcane and Divine magic put together (in that section). Talk about money grubbing and trying to drive up sales of a totally worthless book... But, considering that Incarnum is new, doesn't it make sense for them to try to incorporate it for interested DMs? It's not like you have to use it now just because it's canon; that's kind of the beauty of Eberron...I know I wouldn't ever let any of my players use Incarnum either, but it's really just as simple as saying 'no, I'm not using that material' ;) Remember - canon is just a building block. Your game comes from tailoring the canon with house rules, a talent that all DMs must hone razor-sharp as more sourcebooks are released.
Edymnion 02-26-06, 05:37 PM	So if the next Eberron book comes out and says that the Foresaker is in Eberron as a dragonmarked member of House Cannith, no one would be even slightly bothered by that? Because "you can just ignore it"?
allenchan 02-26-06, 06:10 PM	So if the next Eberron book comes out and says that the Foresaker is in Eberron as a dragonmarked member of House Cannith, no one would be even slightly bothered by that? Because "you can just ignore it"? Nope, cant say I'd be bothered. Hopefully, that'd mean they would include an updated 3.5 Forsaker, which would be sweet. You could make some cool flavor, too: Some people in House Cannith believe their own kin were responsible for the day of mourning and blame the House for its world-shattering mistake. These members of the House desperately want to break the ties of artifice that led to such a tragic event, and want to free the world of the magic that blinded them and created such a vile place.
nastynate 02-26-06, 06:33 PM	So if the next Eberron book comes out and says that the Foresaker is in Eberron as a dragonmarked member of House Cannith, no one would be even slightly bothered by that? Because "you can just ignore it"? I guess it depends upon the context in which it is written. If there's a ten page chapter completely detailing the forsaker, or it's been inter-woven here and there into every other section (like the dragon marked houses of the ECS), which keeps refering us back to it; reminding us, and drilling into our skulls because WotC wants us to use it. Well then no. However if it's easily ignored text a couple sentences long, or seperated from the main chapter in a boxed side-bar (which can easily be ignored), then I don't really care. I'll see it, think Whaaa? and say nope, not in my world. These little snippets aremeant to be ignored by those who don't want to use them. You know like the little one-liner about goliaths. Wizards people thought, "you know, maybe people will want to use some of those popular races of stone fellas. Or they could be a little tool for selling other books too. "you know if this goliath stuff sounds cool enough, maybe they'll check it out." They weren't thinking, "lets cram all our other sourcebooks into the setting so that people have to buy ten more books, and we get rich. MWA-HA-HA!" When they devote a huge back story, intertwined with the Mror dwarves, that establishes the goliaths as the masterminds behind the Aurum, with the ultimate goal of over-throwing the Dragonmarked Houses, well that's going too far. They haven't. I'll get upset only when these little ideas change the key aspects that make Eberron what it is, not when they are slipped in here and there, just as a sleight nod to other puplications. :D :D
Acev 02-26-06, 07:02 PM	So if the next Eberron book comes out and says that the Foresaker is in Eberron as a dragonmarked member of House Cannith, no one would be even slightly bothered by that? Because "you can just ignore it"? Exactly.
treehouse916 02-26-06, 07:23 PM	So if the next Eberron book comes out and says that the Foresaker is in Eberron as a dragonmarked member of House Cannith, no one would be even slightly bothered by that? Because "you can just ignore it"? The Foresaker doesn't make any sense in House Cannith (unless I'm missing something). But we aren't talking about whether something makes logical sense, we are talking about how you don't like WotC cross-referencing their books and drawing new material into Eberron canon. Those two things aren't necessarily synonymous.
Edymnion 02-26-06, 07:25 PM	Exactly.So no matter what horrible things they do to the setting, no matter how far out in left field they take it, you wouldn't care because you could just ignore it? And thus, ladies and gentlemen, the frog jumped into the pot of cold water.The Foresaker doesn't make any sense in House Cannith (unless I'm missing something). But we aren't talking about whether something makes logical sense, we are talking about how you don't like WotC cross-referencing their books and drawing new material into Eberron canon. Those two things aren't necessarily synonymous.The point is that people are saying they don't care what happens because they can just ignore it. Its okay if WotC publishes Elminster's Guide to Breland to some people, because they can just pretend it isn't Elminster. Or that the Tarrasque is a giant robotic space alien piloted by jello monsters, who shoots Vol with his hippy flower gun and takes over, turning Karnnath into Rainbow Land, because it doesn't matter, we can just ignore it.
treehouse916 02-26-06, 07:32 PM	Do you think it's possible that you are exaggerating, Edy? Do you think it's likely that WotC is going to publish an Elminster's guide to Eberron, or any of the other scenarios that you've laid out here?
Edymnion 02-26-06, 07:36 PM	Do you think it's possible that you are exaggerating, Edy? Do you think it's likely that WotC is going to publish an Elminster's guide to Eberron, or any of the other scenarios that you've laid out here?If they thought people would buy it? They'd do it in a heartbeat. It all goes back to how to boil a frog. If you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, it'll jump out again. But if you put it in cold water, and gradually increase the heat, it will sit there until it boils to death. The same is happening here. They're not boiling us immediantly with an Elminster's Guide to Eberron, but they are very slowly turning up the heat by putting in subraces and Incarnum and everything else they think they can get away with, and then judging the result. If people don't complain and buy it up, then next time they push it just a little farther. Seriously, WotC is out to make money. If they thought they could publish a hundred pages of "Oh my god, I can't believe they're actually buying this" over and over again, and that enough people would pay for it, then yes, I believe 100% that they would do it.
treehouse916 02-26-06, 07:39 PM	I think you are taking things to extremes, though. Unlike an Elminster's guide to Eberron, or a tarrasque using a rainbow gun or whatever you were talking about, goliaths in Eberron (and Incarnum in Eberron, for all I don't like the system) has the potential to make sense. I've considered putting illumians into my Eberron (never did it, because I found a better solution with the kalashtar for what I was doing), and I don't consider myself to be a nut job who doesn't know what's best for my Eberron game. For you to say that goliaths and Incarnum are ridiculous fits for Eberron, and are comparable to Elminster roving Aundair jotting down notes, is to say that anyone who uses goliaths and Incarnum in their Eberron game is similarly ridiculous. Is that what you are trying to say? Edit: All that said, I see your point of view. I just don't think it's going to go as far as you are believing.
Gnome Gninja 02-26-06, 07:46 PM	So if the next Eberron book comes out and says that the Foresaker is in Eberron as a dragonmarked member of House Cannith, no one would be even slightly bothered by that? Because "you can just ignore it"? I think it would bother me, but only because it makes absolutely no sense. Although it is very clever to present an illogical example to make every situation seem like a bad idea, I don't think anyone is going to fall for it. Now, if the next Eberron book came out and said that the Forsakers were an order closely tied to the Ashbound druids (a concept that makes some sense), then I would have no problem at all (in fact, I would point at it and say "Hey! That was my idea!"). Why shouldn't WotC make suggestions about how to use their material? We've tried to fight the "If its in D&D, then its in Eberron!" thing from the start. It would be nice if every single sourcebook to ever come out would remind the DM that it is up to him to decide what to include and what to ignore. It would also be nice if the "If its in D&D, then its in Eberron!" line could be quoted correctly more frequently. There is nothing there that says everything that is ever written for D&D must somehow be crammed into the setting. What is said, quite clearly, is that there is a place for everything in Eberron. Not that you must use everything, but that it is possible to use everything. In virtually every case that comes to mind, PGtE has suggested ways to incorporate information from other sourcebooks in a way that can be ignored completely. Every time PGtE makes a suggestion about subraces (I hate them too, btw), that suggestion makes them rare and obscure, neither forcing a DM to use them nor requiring him to explain why they are never seen. The same can be said of almost everything else that comes from a non-Eberron sourcebook. I find it odd that a method, which gained great support when it was used to give psionics a "take it or leave it" role in the world, is condemned when the same approach is used elsewhere. Magic of Incarnum might have been given a sizable mention in the PGtE, but it's influence is much easier to ignore that that of psionics. And we all know that any DM with talent can easily exclude psionics from the setting without trouble. You arguments against MoI are identical to arguments against psionics; so if you don't like it, don't use it...but that doesn't mean it has no place in a setting. If you don't like something, like Incarnum, just say that you found the information less useful for that reason. Although I think that Incarnum could use some sprucing up, I like it enough to do so. I was pleased that the PGtE gave almost the exact idea I was planning on using to incorporate it...even if they put the island of the skarn and rilkan near Xen'drik instead of off the coast of Argonnessen (where I am moving it, cause I can). On the subject of changelings and their stereotypes, I can only wonder what you expect. Don't the stereotypes have to be presented before the exceptions? Does the PHB mention the stereotypical dwarf, or does it gloss over that? Changelings need a baseline model for behavior before we are shown oddities. If you ask me, they fared better than some others <cough>shifters</cough>...they got three stereotypes rather than one. Since you complain in the same post that they broke the Eberron model for dragon behavior (in a side bar) I suggest that you simply like your dragons one way and your changelings another; whether they are forced into a stereotype isn't really the issue to you. You would prevent dragons from breaking the "god-like being" role while complaining that changelings are not encouraged to break the (three!) roles they are given? I don't mean to be argumentative. I also like the PGtE, and while found a few things that I plan to ignore and/or exclude, I don't think that they were WRONG. Just not for me.
Edymnion 02-26-06, 07:55 PM	I think you are taking things to extremes, though.Well, obviously. My point though is that "Well we can just ignore that" does not make for a real defense. If it did, it would work for any situation, no matter how extreme.
Kid SixXx 02-26-06, 08:02 PM	Edit: All that said, I see your point of view. I just don't think it's going to go as far as you are believing. I tend to agree. I think the "optional presented as canon" design of the PGtE will ultimately lead to more confusion concerning metagame discussions or ruleslawyering on the board than it will serve to kill the original vision of the setting. I concur with Sarlax's sentiment. Nearly all of us know that the various "Races" books and other supplements (even the "Complete" series which I honestly cannot live without) are optional rules. As long as the majority of us don't lose sight of that, then everything should be fine.
treehouse916 02-26-06, 08:09 PM	My point though is that "Well we can just ignore that" does not make for a real defense. If it did, it would work for any situation, no matter how extreme. I think it's a bad point, and I believe you agree with me since you used a straw man argument to back it up. WotC is ultimately going to make books that will sell; I don't think very many people at WotC have any delusions about Elminster fitting into Eberron sourcebooks. Cross-referencing their products is a marketing strategy, and I'm saying you are dreaming if you believe you can stop them from doing this, especially since their 3.5+ era has been so abundant in new sourcebooks. Personally, I'm glad they are making efforts to connect the dots for interested DMs, even if I am never going to use all of the sourcebooks I own (or don't own) at once. And I know I'm not the only one who feels that way. In the end, you have to ask yourself if you are nitpicking, or if this is a real danger. People bought A Player's Guide to Eberron because it is a well-written book full of great Eberron flavor, as you have already said in more words. When you start hearing (many) people say 'I bought PGtE because it integrates six hundred sourcebooks into Eberron', then we all have a legitimate concern. Does that make sense?
Acev 02-26-06, 08:10 PM	Its okay if WotC publishes Elminster's Guide to Breland to some people, because they can just pretend it isn't Elminster. Or that the Tarrasque is a giant robotic space alien piloted by jello monsters, who shoots Vol with his hippy flower gun and takes over, turning Karnnath into Rainbow Land, because it doesn't matter, we can just ignore it. I prefer this to your don't try anything new or the d&d nazi will spank you alternative.
Edymnion 02-26-06, 08:14 PM	Of course we do, but we also have to keep in mind that we are the exceptions to the rule. We are the educated ones that have seen all that there is to offer, that know whats going on, and are all around in the know. The vast majority of players are not on these boards, they are not on any boards. They just pick up a book, read it, and what it says is what goes. Most people that pick up the Players Guide to Eberron aren't going to know that this stuff is supposed to be optional, because nowhere does it say that. Seriously, look at the posts new members make over in D&D General that think they NEED to have all these differant books and minis and maps just to play the game. They don't know to question what the books say, so for them, Incarnum is now completely a part of Eberron, just like Renegade Mastermaker or the Soarsled.
Rowan_Whispercloak 02-26-06, 08:22 PM	Think of the sidebars as extra stuff that our brothers and sisters on the CO boards will try to use as justification for certain builds. As a DM if feel that I can just ignore what I didn't like or don't have a use for.
Acev 02-26-06, 08:30 PM	Of course we do, but we also have to keep in mind that we are the exceptions to the rule. We are the educated ones that have seen all that there is to offer, that know whats going on, and are all around in the know. The vast majority of players are not on these boards, they are not on any boards. They just pick up a book, read it, and what it says is what goes. Most people that pick up the Players Guide to Eberron aren't going to know that this stuff is supposed to be optional, because nowhere does it say that. Seriously, look at the posts new members make over in D&D General that think they NEED to have all these differant books and minis and maps just to play the game. They don't know to question what the books say, so for them, Incarnum is now completely a part of Eberron, just like Renegade Mastermaker or the Soarsled. Your not giving new players enough credit here. I have known a lot of new players and have also taught the game to a bunch of friends. They are the ones who modify the rules the most. They mix and match what they like and ignore what they don't because they aren't worried about game balance. Only experienced players worry about what the books say. Just take a good look at these boards.
treehouse916 02-26-06, 08:39 PM	They just pick up a book, read it, and what it says is what goes. I think you underestimate DMs who don't use message boards. This hobby has been thriving long before the advent of the Internet. Even today, I don't depend on any board to tell me what is good for my vision of Eberron - for me at least, that's an 'offline decision'. So I'd be careful about throwing around the idea that we are the 'educated ones', and those who don't frequent D&D boards compose the unwashed, unenlightened masses. You are in danger of sounding like an elitist, and I don't think you are :) Anyway, a point I forgot to mention, yet was pertinent to my previous post (ugh, too many thoughts running together today), is that D&D books are not going to be bought if the crap/gold ratio is too high on the crap side. I bought Races of Eberron even though I fundamentally agree with everything you (and others) have said about the changeling section being way, way too restrictive and unimaginative. I liked too much of the other stuff to be bothered by it. But if everything in that book had been as bad as the Changeling chapter, I would not have bought it. I think most consumers are picky enough to do the same thing. So even if I accept your viewpoint that the sidebars in PGtE are complete crap and don't belong there, it doesn't affect my decision to buy the book. But if the book contained more material like the sidebars than it did the main content of the book, I wouldn't have bought it. Even though the sidebars don't ruin my game, I still don't have use of a book that primarly contains 'how to fit X into Eberron' advice. I can do that myself. As I said before, I do see your point of view, and I respect it. The idea that consumers are becoming much easier to please, and thus things 'just aren't made like they used to be' is not unique to D&D. But I think, in this instance at least, your predictions are off. If the care they took with PGtE's main content is any indication, it looks like WotC is now hiring and using more authors who care about the setting, not less. And that's an encouraging thing, right?
Atlictoatl 02-26-06, 10:28 PM	Of course we do, but we also have to keep in mind that we are the exceptions to the rule. We are the educated ones that have seen all that there is to offer, that know whats going on, and are all around in the know. The vast majority of players are not on these boards, they are not on any boards. They just pick up a book, read it, and what it says is what goes. What a shockingly elitist statement. Actually, Edymnion, you do *not* see all that there is to offer, know what is going on, or are one of the few 'in the know'. By casually tossing aside the sidebars, you reveal the blinders you've strapped onto yourself while Eberron passes you by. Eberron has become more than its first book. WotC is moving on from the basic material presented in the ECSB (published 20 months ago) and developing their campaign setting. That you disagree with their direction does not change the fact that it is happening. I sympathize, and I exhort a similar opinion when errors are made in the advancement that are blatantly off-track from the direction of the ECSB, but there is very little in the PGtE that is off-track. You yourself admit it is the best supplement since the ECSB. That is true for all of it, including the pieces you dislike. (Even Keith supports the idea that there are dragons in the world that are not part of the Chamber.) IMO, the PGtE does a phenomenal job of suggesting to players and DMs alike how to fit in source material from the many different 3.5 sourcebooks published by WotC. It is, after all, a Player's Guide, and a fundamental question that a new player to the setting would ask is... "If I wanted to play a Goliath (or exotic thing X), how would they fit into the setting?" The PGtE assists with this. It's up to any given DM to say what exotic material has a place in their campaign, but I for one find the PGtE's implementation of these suggestions quite helpful. If you'd stop to examine the entries, you'd see that many of them are quite reasonable. I don't play with Incarnum, or much of the newest material, but for a DM that does, the Incarnum suggestions are ones that endeavor to not disrupt material that has come before. They fit in well with the setting as we know it at this time. What is all the hullaballoo about? The PGtE is a phenomenally well-done book, and represents a major advancement of the Eberron Campaign Setting for players and DMs alike. Let us hope that future releases continue in this vein.
Sarlax 02-27-06, 02:09 AM	Of course we do, but we also have to keep in mind that we are the exceptions to the rule. We are the educated ones that have seen all that there is to offer, that know whats going on, and are all around in the know. The vast majority of players are not on these boards, they are not on any boards. They just pick up a book, read it, and what it says is what goes. I suppose many of us don't share the same view of the unwashed throngs of gamers out there that don't have access to the elite Eberron board community, but this isn't a ... point to completely pass over. A gamer doesn't need to be a regular reader of the Eberron boards to understand that the references to other products are meant to be helpful suggestions. Gamers aren't typically uneducated robots who'll read about Wu Jen in the Eldeen Reaches section, freak out, and rush to find a copy of Oriental Adventures. I have no objection to the lack of a line in the text that walks people through a fundamental part of gaming - that the stuff contained inside is optional (but see below). Perhaps my trust in other readers is naive. For use with the Dungeons & Dragons core books: Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manual, Eberron Campaign Setting. You don't even have to crack this book open to gain the deep wisdom of the Eberron Board Elites that it's optional.
nastynate 02-27-06, 02:29 AM	Seriously, WotC is out to make money. If they thought they could publish a hundred pages of "Oh my god, I can't believe they're actually buying this" over and over again, and that enough people would pay for it, then yes, I believe 100% that they would do it. Maybe I'm just and idealist or a sound businessman, but this marketing strategy is terrible. WotC saved D&D remember? They don't want to cram garbage down our throats. They are trying to produce the best product their designers, playtesters, and budget can within reason. Just because things sometimes fall short, doesn't mean they wanted them to suck, and laughed all the way to the bank. That kind of attitude would lead to bankruptcy. A company that doesn't care if they deliver the product their consumer wants, doesn't care if they make money at all (real-world economic theory here). That's so terribly cynical I feel bad for you now Edy. And no I'm not being condecending or hostile either. I really mean it. They do a pretty darn good job at WotC, all things considered. I can't believe you feel like they are exploiting us. That's awful. EDIT: Cross-referencing their products is a marketing strategy, and I'm saying you are dreaming if you believe you can stop them from doing this, especially since their 3.5+ era has been so abundant in new sourcebooks. Just thought I'd refute this little snippet while I'm at it. Cross referancing products is usually a good thing, both for them and us. Cross-referencing enables us to use their other books more efficiently. It lets them refer you to another product rather than fill a book with rehashed crap about the same subject, so we get more Eberron specific material in our Eberron books. It also shows us that they are committed to their other products, and won't just publish a single sourcebook on a subject and never speak of it again. I'd hate to buy a book like the XPH, and then never have WotC offer any hint that they encourage you to use it in their settings. And the abundant new sourcebooks thing, is just silly. Do you buy new source books just because they come out? or do you buy them because you actually want to use them? Hopefully you only purchase the things you like and intend to use; and if you like the product there's no need to complain. WotC doesn't put out even half of what TSR used to publish, and given that nobody else owned the rights to D&D in between, it would be far more accurate to say they have slowed down the rate of publication. The 3.5 era produces fewer new books than any other era in D&D history!
allenchan 02-27-06, 02:48 AM	Of course we do, but we also have to keep in mind that we are the exceptions to the rule. We are the educated ones that have seen all that there is to offer, that know whats going on, and are all around in the know. The vast majority of players are not on these boards, they are not on any boards. They just pick up a book, read it, and what it says is what goes. Wow. Just... wow. Time to climb of your pedestal there, buddy. I dont think that train of thought is going to endear your opinion to most people. And as for a "Elminster's Guide to Breland", WotC only puts out material that they know people will buy and that people want. Obviously, people wanted the material that is in the PGtE. Elminster's Guide to Breland? Yea, I dont think there's much clattering for that.
Kid SixXx 02-27-06, 06:44 AM	A gamer doesn't need to be a regular reader of the Eberron boards to understand that the references to other products are meant to be helpful suggestions. Gamers aren't typically uneducated robots who'll read about Wu Jen in the Eldeen Reaches section, freak out, and rush to find a copy of Oriental Adventures. And then there is the flip side. Someone may absolutely love books like Libris Mortis or Sandstorm, but may have no real clue about how to make the material "Eberrony." Books like the PGtE offer those avenues. The timing of PGtE was perfect in relation to the Red Hand of Doom supermodule. The suggestions from PGtE saved me a lot of time & effort for other matters that I would have otherwise spent purely in the conversion process. Some of the suggestions in the PGtE are outright silly (Dhakaani Bladesingers? Suuuure..), but printing doesn't make them gospel. As I said before, the only thing the PGtE really threatens to do is make metagame calls a bit more dicey, and that depends on who wins the battle of wills, and how accepting the DM is of alternate materiel. Speaking of alternate material, I happen to like the WP and Vitality system in UA. Hit Points and AC don't necessarily translate to the swooshy, swashbuckling action I'd prefer to have in this particular setting, where a dagger should kill a man just as easily as a longsword would. If your players get huffy about the material, simply remind them that the title of the book is the PLAYER'S guide, not the DUNGEON MASTER'S guide.
treehouse916 02-27-06, 11:22 AM	Just thought I'd refute this little snippet while I'm at it. Hey now, you took my quote completely out of context and got the wrong idea from it ;) Take a gander: WotC is ultimately going to make books that will sell; I don't think very many people at WotC have any delusions about Elminster fitting into Eberron sourcebooks. Cross-referencing their products is a marketing strategy, and I'm saying you are dreaming if you believe you can stop them from doing this, especially since their 3.5+ era has been so abundant in new sourcebooks. Personally, I'm glad they are making efforts to connect the dots for interested DMs, even if I am never going to use all of the sourcebooks I own (or don't own) at once. And I know I'm not the only one who feels that way. The bolded part is what you quoted. If you read the first and last parts of the paragraph in context with the quote, you'll find that I completely agreed with you before you said anything. I'm sure it was an honest mistake - I just thought I'd point it out.
nastynate 02-27-06, 09:58 PM	I'm sure it was an honest mistake - I just thought I'd point it out. Yeah I wasn't singling you out, or trying to refute your entire post. I was addressing a common misconception prevalent on the boards about WotC, their business tactics, and the rate of publication. I just stole this from your post because in two sentences you indirectly stated what so many others have tried to insinuate in huge extravagant rants: BBEWotC. :D
Edymnion 02-27-06, 11:11 PM	I dont think that train of thought is going to endear your opinion to most people.Ah, but you see, thats the beautiful part. I really don't care what other people think about me, or my opinions. You can agree with them, or not. You can praise me, or damn me, and I really don't care one way or the other. They're my opinions, and I'm not going to change them just because of how someone else sees them. And my opinions happen to be based in personal experience. Way too many times have I seen new players say "You can't do that, because the book says it works this way". Not that you shouldn't do it, but that you were completely incapable of doing it because of what the book said. I've seen experienced players do the same thing, but they're generally more open to reason. If you've had differant experiences, then you're going to have a differant view. I know what I've seen, and I know what I think, and I have no plans on changing them until I have reason to.
treehouse916 02-27-06, 11:34 PM	Way too many times have I seen new players say "You can't do that, because the book says it works this way". I think that's more of a 'new to D&D' thing than a 'new to message boards' thing. Lord knows, when I first started DMing I was tickled pink when I realized I could change what weapons kobolds wielded. All of that stuff comes with practice, and plenty of trial and error. WotC isn't catering their products to people who don't know how to play and run D&D. Actually, I'm not really sure I understand where you are going with this, Edy. I pretty much agree with nastynate - even if I took your cynical point of view regarding the motives of WotC, this hobby is very much fan-based and fan-supported. They have to please us. There isn't very much revenue in the D&D franchise besides what they get from direct sales. So I think you are being paranoid ;)
Edymnion 02-28-06, 12:14 AM	I think that's more of a 'new to D&D' thing than a 'new to message boards' thing.Thats more of what I meant to say, actually. New players that pick up the book and see something, and that forms the foundation of how they see it from then on. I think I just got my wires crossed with the other review thread where they were complaining that things were just a reprint of the dragonshards, which the setting needed because the non-boards people would have never seen the dragonshards before. WotC isn't catering their products to people who don't know how to play and run D&D. Actually, I'm not really sure I understand where you are going with this, Edy.Basically, lowest common denominator. The good players are going to be able to use the material no matter where it comes from, and aren't going to get sidetracked or tricked by it. The bad ones will. I would rather try to keep any potential problems to a minimum by trying to keep them from cropping up in the first place than trying to fix them after the fact. I pretty much agree with nastynate - even if I took your cynical point of view regarding the motives of WotC, this hobby is very much fan-based and fan-supported. They have to please us.Correction, they have to please the majority of us. They print what they think we will buy. Its why they had a Year of the Drow, and had a Drow on the cover of Races of Eberron. Drow sells. WotC prints what sells, and not an ounce more. The side effect of this, generally, is good quality, because they know that good quality makes their product the superior good, and generates brand loyalty. But if they think they could make equal long-term profit while spending less money, they will of course take the cheapest route available to them. Its why so few books have an index these days. It takes a lot of time and money to make that index, and they know the majority of people will buy the book even without one. So why spend the time and money on making an index when it doesn't really affect the amount of sales you have?
treehouse916 02-28-06, 12:35 AM	I think I just got my wires crossed with the other review thread where they were complaining that things were just a reprint of the dragonshards, which the setting needed because the non-boards people would have never seen the dragonshards before. Ah, that makes more sense. Basically, lowest common denominator. The good players are going to be able to use the material no matter where it comes from, and aren't going to get sidetracked or tricked by it. The bad ones will. I would rather try to keep any potential problems to a minimum by trying to keep them from cropping up in the first place than trying to fix them after the fact. So are you saying that WotC should print explicit disclaimers all over the place for the sake of newbie DMs and players? If I understand you right, I suppose I just disagree. When I was starting out in D&D (like three years ago, tops) I started as a DM, and it was difficult for a few months, but I got through it without WotC holding my hand. But I didn't start out with lots of sourcebooks, either. I didn't buy anything beyond the core three until I was pretty rules savvy. I'm not sure how it would have been if I had started with Eberron, since Eberron brings some new things to the table, but I definitely would not recommend for any new DM or player to pick up anything besides the core three until they were confident enough in their rules knowledge to recognize sound material from broken material. So maybe that's where our communication gap is. I just don't see many brand new DMs/players even owning Incarnum or the Complete books. Not that they can't or shouldn't, just that it doesn't seem like they would. Is this a flawed assumption? Its why so few books have an index these days. It takes a lot of time and money to make that index, and they know the majority of people will buy the book even without one. So why spend the time and money on making an index when it doesn't really affect the amount of sales you have? That's a good point. So, why do you think they printed an index for the Player's Guide to Eberron?
mearrin69 02-28-06, 03:09 AM	I liked the book. Don't see what the big deal is, really. I see a good deal of the material in the player's guide as optional - same with the other books. In fact, working through an upcoming solo campaign with my wife it turns out she wants to play a half-catfolk druid. Well, I think to myself, I guess I'd make it so that her dad was a wandering catfolk druid from Xen'drik who happened to tarry overlong with the local herb mistress during his journey to the Eldeen Reaches to seek the advice of a certain awakened tree. Wow, turns out the player's guide already had me covered - and even gave me a handy reference to RotW for Catfolk information as well. I'll probably get that book shortly if I can find it on the shelves somewhere. The avian guys mentioned in the same paragraph will remain tucked away in some aerie in a misty hidden canyon somewhere in the continent's interior. Don't need 'em and they remind me of that dude from Buck Rogers (the bad 80's one). M
Just another user 02-28-06, 03:27 AM	So maybe that's where our communication gap is. I just don't see many brand new DMs/players even owning Incarnum or the Complete books. Not that they can't or shouldn't, just that it doesn't seem like they would. Is this a flawed assumption? But that is kinda the point, you are a new GM and play Eberron, one of your players with the PGtE bring in a incarnum using character, as a inexperienced GM what is your first reaction? Say him that he can't use it? But is it in a book,and is not mentioned as a option, so it must be "canon". As a newbie GM is more probable that you choose to put incarnum in your game, (and buy a copy of magic of incarnum). It is really a such improbable scenario?
Slash Blackheart 02-28-06, 07:04 AM	[QUOTE=Just another user]But that is kinda the point, you are a new GM and play Eberron, one of your players with the PGtE bring in a incarnum using character, as a inexperienced GM what is your first reaction? Say him that he can't use it?[QUOTE] well snice i am an inexperienced GM, i would say to that person, yes it is in eberron but for right now i dont want u to play that char to i read up on it, since i am the son of a DM (plays in FR) he has the books, so all im saying is, if u dont want them to play with incarnum, just tell them, its not really that hard, its not going to hurt the game just because incarnum is in eberron now
treehouse916 02-28-06, 08:42 AM	you are a new GM and play Eberron, one of your players with the PGtE bring in a incarnum using character, as a inexperienced GM what is your first reaction? Say him that he can't use it? I'd definitely take a look at the Incarnum book, but I'd remind him that I'm new to the hobby and I'm not too comfortable with adding new stuff in. I'm not really sure if my example works though, because I have three players whom I trust implicitly (we are all long-time friends and coworkers as well as hobbyists). But I did have a situation back in 3.0 where one of my players wanted to try out psionics - I let him bring in a test run character for a few sessions. When we got down to play, he was just too complex and didn't fit the feel of the game at all, so he pulled the character out. -shrugs- It's just not a big issue for me personally to say 'no' to my players, regardless of my level of experience.
Edymnion 02-28-06, 09:17 AM	I'd definitely take a look at the Incarnum book, but I'd remind him that I'm new to the hobby and I'm not too comfortable with adding new stuff in.Then you'd most likely be in a minority. Check the D&D General boards, every other day it seems people are having to talk new DMs OUT of letting their players pick stuff from every book, and just getting them to concentrate on the basic material until they understand it. Many new DMs I've seen don't have the backbone yet to flat out tell a player "No". Most of the ones I've seen, if a Player brought up a book and wanted to play something from it, and could point out where a book the group is already using says it should go, the DM caves in because they don't want to "restrict a players creativity". If the book says its there, then it must be okay, and they don't want to sound like the badguy. Seriously, hit the Whats a DM to Do? board, I'd be surprised if there isn't at least one "My player wants to play an XXXX! What do I do?" where the DM is going on and on about how the player wants something weird, and that he doesn't know how to handle it, and is looking for advice. If those DMs had the conviction to flat out say no, we wouldn't have those threads.
Gez 02-28-06, 09:27 AM	Its okay if WotC publishes Elminster's Guide to Breland to some people, because they can just pretend it isn't Elminster. Why couldn't an Eberron NPC be named Elminster? :D
Edymnion 02-28-06, 09:56 AM	Why couldn't an Eberron NPC be named Elminster? :DHeh, I did that once, actually. Elminster was the town crazy that thought he was a mighty wizard, and Drizzt was the elf stableboy mucking out the stalls.
stevelabny 02-28-06, 12:25 PM	Of course we do, but we also have to keep in mind that we are the exceptions to the rule. We are the educated ones that have seen all that there is to offer, that know whats going on, and are all around in the know. The vast majority of players are not on these boards, they are not on any boards. They just pick up a book, read it, and what it says is what goes. Most people that pick up the Players Guide to Eberron aren't going to know that this stuff is supposed to be optional, because nowhere does it say that. Seriously, look at the posts new members make over in D&D General that think they NEED to have all these differant books and minis and maps just to play the game. This is the lamest reasoning I've ever read. Everything in every d&d book is optional. The DMG (G = Guide, not Rules) still states that a DM can change whatever they want. Sure bad DMs have led to idiots making blanket statements that all house rules are bad, but I don't even believe that tweaking a campaign setting would be a house rule. As soon as PCs are created, their Eberron is different than anyone else's Eberron. And if you find yourself with players or a DM who uses rules or house rules or a tweaked setting or anything else that is something you can't deal with... FIND ANOTHER GAME. This isn't brain surgery, it's supposed to be fun. So if you are sincerely concerned only for other people... don't be, you're ruining your own enjoyment of the books, and you're irritating a lot more people than you're "helping".
Lurkalot 02-28-06, 12:53 PM	If they thought people would buy it? They'd do it in a heartbeat. And there's the difference in underlying assumptions. Isn't it good to be producing stuff that people want? If people are buying it then they want it. If WotC produce stuff that isn't wanted then it wont sell and they'll stop or, more likely, not have produced it in the first place, due to having a good idea of their market. Implicit in your post is the belief that gamers can be told what they like, and furthermore, to their detriment. Whilst again, I agree with your tastes for Eberron (a nice, clean, new setting, devoid of 'race for each class' encumberance and excessive prestige classes), I disagree that people who buy these supplements are doing so out of ignorance. I have more faith.
Sarlax 02-28-06, 01:00 PM	Seriously, hit the Whats a DM to Do? board, I'd be surprised if there isn't at least one "My player wants to play an XXXX! What do I do?" where the DM is going on and on about how the player wants something weird, and that he doesn't know how to handle it, and is looking for advice. If those DMs had the conviction to flat out say no, we wouldn't have those threads. This is a sampling error. How many DMs are going to write this post? My player asked if he could use Toril's regional feats for his Eberron vampire warforged druid. I said no. No help required. Of course all the posts about these issues are going to be from DMs who don't have the finesse or conviction to control a player's appetites. People who don't need help don't ask for it. Second, what difference would a "This is optional line," really make? Ignoring for a moment that the DMG says the rules are optional, how would an "Optional Clause" inside the PGE (rather than on the back) help a novice DM? Player: "I want to be a soulborn skarn." Novice DM: "Says here that's optional in Eberron." Player: "Okay, let's go with that option." Novice DM: "..."
Rechan 02-28-06, 02:38 PM	Heh, I did that once, actually. Elminster was the town crazy that thought he was a mighty wizard, and Drizzt was the elf stableboy mucking out the stalls. How very vindictive and petty of you.
treehouse916 02-28-06, 02:59 PM	Sarlax, that's just great stuff, man. Put better than I could ever hope to :D
Lurkalot 02-28-06, 03:08 PM	How very vindictive and petty of you. Well if he and his group have a long history of playing in Forgotten Realms, maybe it had humour value? I doubt he sent a video-tape of the session to R. A. Salvatore. I once ran a for-laughs one-shot that parodied almost all of the players and was set in our own neighbourhood. There was a weird bit where the house in which we were gaming in was broken into by the PCs and interrupted a group of kids playing a role-playing game (I was shot several times and died grotesquely, incidentally). I've veered way off-topic here, which is my way of distracting people from a sudden bit of tension. Having read through this thread, I've been very very impressed with the high-level of argument, including by those that I disagree with who make their case very well. I would like to see this thread continue in such a rational debate. I don't think the above helps much and I'd hate to see the thread shut-down because we (the Eberron message board community) couldn't be civil and friendly over our disagreements. Whilst someone might think Edymnion's post was petty, no-one here but Edymnion knows the context and it may have been pulled off with great panache or may have been a throw-away bit of colour in a session one night. Quite frankly, even if it was an expression of his deep pathological hatred of the Forgotten Realms, that's fine. He can do that and it doesn't hurt me. Edymnion has put his point of view (which incidentally is shared by others) very well and I wouldn't like him to think any counterpoints I've put to him were in any way meant personally. I expect, based on his posts, I'd very much enjoy playing in a game he ran. If he's as smart as I think he is, he'll not bother to reply to the above. So in short... I hope my post is long enough and rambling enough to have given people a chance to cool down and return to the high-standard this thread has had so far. Rechan, it's very likely that I agree with your point of view, re: Eberron supplemental material and I hope this post hasn't offended you. We're all here because we love the Eberron setting. Edymnion (and others) are so forceful in their views because they love it and want to protect it. I respect that and I think our shared regard for the setting and the game should take precedence over any little differences between us. Please?
treehouse916 02-28-06, 03:23 PM	I'll second those sentiments, Lurkalot. Edymnion hasn't lost his temper once, even though he seems to be largely on his own in this discussion taking place now in a thread that he started. I know when I've got my back up against a wall like that (figuratively speaking) I get defensive and cranky, so it's commendable that he's kept his cool so far.
greatfrito 02-28-06, 03:40 PM	[They] are so forceful in their views because they love it and want to protect it. I respect that and I think our shared regard for the setting and the game should take precedence over any little differences between us. Sorry, this bit bothers me a tad in general, applied to anything. Zeal is no virtue to me. That said, I agree, this thread has done a good job at remaining civil. I read this through yesterday, just before I got ahold of my copy of PGtE. I have to say, I am VERY impressed with this book, as are my players that have read it so far. The set-up, the information, everything. Very nice. (The only complaint around here so far has been that there's not a larger section on Zilargo, but, well, someone has a bit of a Gnome fixation). Honestly, I have -never- used -everything- written in a book. I can't. I've read all of the Eberron books, and Keith's novels, and loved every minute of it, but there is -no way- that I'll use everything. I -will- change things from what they're written as. I won't use things I don't like, even if they're set in stone in the ECS, or FN. Hell, my current campaign is starting in the siege of Thaliost... in the year 994 (a mistake at the planning stage, which turned into an alternate-history set-up. in FN it's established that Thaliost fell a long time before that). I agree that "you can ignore anything" is not a good argument. However, you -will- ignore some things. The statements about Complete series material, or Races of series material that are made in PGtE are hardly big, leaping comments that permanently shape the world. Hardly. Incarnum is not some ancient form of obscure magic for us - it's about to be brand new. There are no Goliaths or Bird-People. Heck, I doubt there will ever be a single half-ogre anywhere in Eberron. Ice races? Nope. Will we be using PGtE? Yes. Very much so. That said, I found the comments on these "extra" materials to be pretty damn good, despite my intention never to use them. Could you have the Incarnum races around Xen'Drik? Heck yeah. Maybe the best place for them. Could you have crazy bird-people in Xen'Drik? I'm all for it, if you're into that. Warlocks tied to Rajahs? Ninjas an ancient trade of the Elves? Sure! Those are awesome ideas - they're just not what I'm using. Anyone who is picking up a DnD book without knowing that -EVERYTHING- is optional is just making a rookie mistake, which I think everyone here has said at some point. They'll pick it up, eventually. Anyways, count me in the "I think PGtE may be the best (read: most useful) Eb. supplement yet, and I really don't mind the 'optional' stuff in it - in fact, I like to read it, though I may not use it." crowd.
Lurkalot 02-28-06, 04:15 PM	I'll second those sentiments, Lurkalot. Edymnion hasn't lost his temper once, even though he seems to be largely on his own in this discussion taking place now in a thread that he started. I know when I've got my back up against a wall like that (figuratively speaking) I get defensive and cranky, so it's commendable that he's kept his cool so far. Actually he's not so alone. I agree with his view of the Eberron setting, I disagree that it's necessary to discourage others quite so much from varying it. And it should be borne in mind that this conversation has already been conducted in another thread once and that this is Edymnion's thread to lead on. There are others on these boards that feel the same way that haven't been posting in this thread. Where I'm with Edymnion is in complaining (very politely) when page count in "my" Eberron supplements gets taken up with too much useless material. So far, everything within tolerance however. ;) This doesn't put me in any different position, philosophically, to those who dislike too much fluff/crunch/changeling/whatever in their supplements. We all make our noise and hope we're heard. Where I differ slightly is on the boards themselves. For the most part, if someone wants to know about firearms in Eberron or (*shudder*) Mecha, I just stay out of the topic. Warforged as robots is probably my personal weakness for sticking my nose in. I think if someone posts a question on something like this, I should mostly keep out unless I have something positive to contribute. At best, I'd offer a polite "this isn't in the original setting, did you know that?" If I thought I had a positive alternative to what they asked for, I might offer it, but on the whole I look at it like this: It's there world and even if I were worried about the setting being taken away from my original view, for every poster asking how to add X, there must be a hundred more out there playing with it as written. I've been swayed somewhat by Edymnion's arguments. You'll notice that I started the "What DO you want in Eberron" thread in the hopes that we can find positive suggestions of what WotC could do instead of sub-races et al. That was in response to this debate. On the other hand, someone did come up with the idea of sub-races resulting from manifest zones which I like. I wouldn't make much use of it, but I'd have it there in the background. It's a very good idea (sorry - not sure who's idea it was, please step forward and claim credit). Nothing is completely black and white, except for my Penguin-shifter sub-race (kidding) and we all have some valid points. If I get too worked up about what's going on, on the boards, I'll just read the headlines on the BBC news site, and then everything's back in perspective. Maybe everyone has said their piece now and all that remains is to shake hands and say well-played. Say something once or twice and people might listen to you. Tell them repeatedly and they'll feel obliged to ignore it. I'd like this to end at the point where we've all taken something valuable from the other's criticism / argument, not far too long afterwards. It's worth remembering that this thread began as a review of PGtE and has now carried spill over from two previous threads. That's not really good, regardless of the issues involved. I think everyone should have a biscuit and a cup of tea before posting further to this thread. And now I'm going to return to lurking in the background because I talk too way much. ;)
treehouse916 02-28-06, 04:33 PM	Actually he's not so alone. I agree with his view of the Eberron setting, I disagree that it's necessary to discourage others quite so much from varying it. Honestly, at this point there are so many threads up where we are having this same sort of discussion that I'm getting them all confused. Right here we have been mostly talking about whether or not WotC is trying to wring every last penny from us while at the same time producing crap quality books (or something along those lines), but things have been bouncing around from one peripheral subject to the next, so it's all become muddled. :confused: While I agree that there is no point in beating a dead horse, and we are rapidly approaching that point, there are still one or two unresolved questions that Edy & Co. have not yet responded to (from me, at least). For example: Quote: Its why so few books have an index these days. It takes a lot of time and money to make that index, and they know the majority of people will buy the book even without one. So why spend the time and money on making an index when it doesn't really affect the amount of sales you have? That's a good point. So, why do you think they printed an index for the Player's Guide to Eberron?
Sarlax 02-28-06, 04:55 PM	I agree that "you can ignore anything" is not a good argument. That's not the entire nature of the argument. Implicit in it is the understanding - which everyone of us has - is that certain things are easier to ignore than others. A line that says, "Xephs live somewhere in Xen'drik" is a lot easier to ignore than, "AC is determined by 10 + armor bonus + dex bonus + other modifiers." The text in PGE that seems to have certain individuals in such a rage is of the former kind. Exceptional text, such as the incarnum section in the main body, is still deliberately easy to pass over. That specific text sticks incarnum on an island that will otherwise probably never see official use. Where's the harm?
Rechan 02-28-06, 05:04 PM	Well if he and his group have a long history of playing in Forgotten Realms, maybe it had humour value? I've gamed face to face with Edy and had several conversations with him. I'm farily certain he'd never be caught dead in the Realms.
Rechan 02-28-06, 05:16 PM	Where I differ slightly is on the boards themselves. For the most part, if someone wants to know about firearms in Eberron or (*shudder*) Mecha, I just stay out of the topic. Warforged as robots is probably my personal weakness for sticking my nose in. I think if someone posts a question on something like this, I should mostly keep out unless I have something positive to contribute. At best, I'd offer a polite "this isn't in the original setting, did you know that?" If I thought I had a positive alternative to what they asked for, I might offer it, but on the whole I look at it like this: It's there world and even if I were worried about the setting being taken away from my original view, for every poster asking how to add X, there must be a hundred more out there playing with it as written. I wish more posters felt the way you did about avoiding what you don't like. Over here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=592504&page=1&pp=30) for instance, several people jumped up and down and did everything but call names to the OP who wanted to know how to work a racial God from the PHB into Eberron. On the other hand, someone did come up with the idea of sub-races resulting from manifest zones which I like. I wouldn't make much use of it, but I'd have it there in the background. It's a very good idea (sorry - not sure who's idea it was, please step forward and claim credit). That was my idea (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=595398). :) It's basically my answer to "How can subraces be possible?"
Edymnion 02-28-06, 08:54 PM	I've gamed face to face with Edy and had several conversations with him. I'm farily certain he'd never be caught dead in the Realms.Actually, my favorite sorceress is from Amn and is currently adventuring somewhere just outside of Baldur's Gate hunting down a bugbear. And she's good friends with the ghost dragon guarding the portals under Candlekeep. I don't particularly like the Realms, but its more of an indifferance than an active dislike. I'll play in a Faerun game if thats all thats available, I would just rather play in an Eberron or Homebrew setting if one is available. And it should be noted that the game with Elminster the town crazy and Drizzt the poop-shoveler was in the same city with the pot maker named Harry. It was a humorous side-off with "How many names can I drop?".
DoveArrow 03-01-06, 01:15 AM	Is your Eberron game going to implode in a massive bubble of discontinuity if you don't immediately purchase Races of Stone, Complete Divine, Heroes of Battle, the Expanded Psionics Handbook, and Monster Manual 3? Yes.
Rechan 03-01-06, 01:28 AM	And it should be noted that the game with Elminster the town crazy and Drizzt the poop-shoveler was in the same city with the pot maker named Harry. It was a humorous side-off with "How many names can I drop?". And a baker named Keith? :D
Just another user 03-01-06, 02:47 AM	And a baker named Keith? :D That sells everything in batches of thirteen. :)
treehouse916 03-01-06, 09:14 AM	Wait a minute...do you mean to tell me all of this hoop-te-doo about the number thirteen is merely a play on the term "a baker's dozen"? I feel so...used. :bigeyes:
Edymnion 03-01-06, 11:26 PM	Wait a minute...do you mean to tell me all of this hoop-te-doo about the number thirteen is merely a play on the term "a baker's dozen"? I feel so...used. :bigeyes:Um, yeah, its just a Baker's Dozen.
Anguirus23 03-02-06, 02:48 PM	^ Wow... That's INGENIOUS.
Edymnion 03-02-06, 07:11 PM	That's a good point. So, why do you think they printed an index for the Player's Guide to Eberron?Two reasons that I can think of, and they may or may not go hand in hand as contributing factors. 1) We made a lot of noise about not liking the lack of indexes. A while back the developers had a thread stickied about what we wanted to see in the books. I sort of tore into 'em (in a polite way, but definately didn't hold any opinion back) on the lack of an index, and a LOT of people agreed with me (don't recall anyone dissagreeing at all). Aka, we came onto the boards and voiced our displeasure at how things were handled, and the problem got fixed. Just like we've been saying since RoE that they should have just copy/pasted the Dragonshard articles, and six months later we've got a book thats almost entirely dragonshard-ish in nature. Could be that they actually *ARE* listening, and that if enough people make a stink over things they don't like, then those things go away. Aka, the squeeky wheel gets the grease. 2) The Player's Guide to Eberron was set up in alphabetical order based on broad topic name, not by the traditional feat/spell/class layout, making it very difficult to search in the traditional way. If you remember a feat you liked, but you don't remember which section its in, you're screwed, so the index was seen as a must have for this book just to make it usable. I'd like to think it was more #1 than #2, but I'd bet it was more of #2 with a bit of #1 in a "Well, they're really going to :censored: at if we don't have one, so throw it in there" kind of way. And just for the record, I believe that each individual writer for WotC books actually does love the game and wants to make the best material they can for it. Its WotC as a company with the accountants and the bean counters that are responcible for things like the poor editing and the like, because they don't want to pay for the best authors and hire the best editors and playtesters.
DoveArrow 03-02-06, 07:51 PM	Two reasons that I can think of, and they may or may not go hand in hand as contributing factors. 1) We made a lot of noise about not liking the lack of indexes. A while back the developers had a thread stickied about what we wanted to see in the books. I sort of tore into 'em (in a polite way, but definately didn't hold any opinion back) on the lack of an index, and a LOT of people agreed with me (don't recall anyone dissagreeing at all). Aka, we came onto the boards and voiced our displeasure at how things were handled, and the problem got fixed. Just like we've been saying since RoE that they should have just copy/pasted the Dragonshard articles, and six months later we've got a book thats almost entirely dragonshard-ish in nature. Could be that they actually *ARE* listening, and that if enough people make a stink over things they don't like, then those things go away. Aka, the squeeky wheel gets the grease. 2) The Player's Guide to Eberron was set up in alphabetical order based on broad topic name, not by the traditional feat/spell/class layout, making it very difficult to search in the traditional way. If you remember a feat you liked, but you don't remember which section its in, you're screwed, so the index was seen as a must have for this book just to make it usable. There's actually a third reason, that you could probably attach to either 1 or 2. Keith fought for an index to be included.
PoeticJustice 03-02-06, 08:16 PM	There's actually a third reason, that you could probably attach to either 1 or 2. Keith fought for an index to be included. I doubt very much that Keith has a lot of swing at Wizards. Look at his voiced distaste for subraces and hesitant adaptations of oriental material and then try to justify those sidebars. If he couldn't keep whisper gnomes out of Eberron I doubt he could keep an index in. Unless Keith comments on this directly, hough, there's no wat to know...
Edymnion 03-02-06, 09:52 PM	I doubt very much that Keith has a lot of swing at Wizards. Look at his voiced distaste for subraces and hesitant adaptations of oriental material and then try to justify those sidebars. If he couldn't keep whisper gnomes out of Eberron I doubt he could keep an index in. Unless Keith comments on this directly, hough, there's no wat to know...Yeah, Keith is a freelance writer. Which means that WotC comes to him when they specifically want something, and then pretty much ignore him and do what they want when they want to do that. Although, its possible that since Keith was working on PGtE and that he had already had to make the indexes for the past two books he worked on, that he went ahead and did the work and sent it in pro-bono.
DoveArrow 03-02-06, 11:51 PM	I doubt very much that Keith has a lot of swing at Wizards. Look at his voiced distaste for subraces and hesitant adaptations of oriental material and then try to justify those sidebars. If he couldn't keep whisper gnomes out of Eberron I doubt he could keep an index in. Unless Keith comments on this directly, hough, there's no wat to know... All I know is that he fought for one and there is one.
nastynate 03-03-06, 01:35 AM	All I know is that he fought for one and there is one. KB does have some influence after all. I'm glad because his ideas are certainly pretty good for the most part, and if an index is too much to ask for, well I don't know what the world is coming to. :D
Gez 03-03-06, 09:02 AM	1) Almost all of the sidebars. Whoever wrote about "There are dragons that leave Argonessen just so they can eat some humanoids" needs to be shot. In the face. With a hammer. Eberron Campaign Setting, page 304 (emphasis added): Usually, dragons aren't monsters in the typical D&D sense; heroes won't barge into a dragon's lair looking to plunder its treasure. Player's Guide to Eberron, page 43 (emphasis added): Perhaps that scaly horror you've encountered doesn't have any secret agenda or hidden interest. It might not be entangled in a plot encompassing a million-and-a-half years of history. It might just be hungry. Good luck with it. Doesn't those say exactly the same thing, just approaching the matter from different sides? The ECS says the cup is 90% empty, while the PGtE says it's 10% full. 2) We've tried to fight the "If its in D&D, then its in Eberron!" thing from the start. Before, it was easy because you could just say "No it isn't, actually read the book instead of skimming and you can see it clearly refers only to the core books." Welp, not anymore. PGtE specifically says that the rule of thumb is that Eberron is a giant generic melting pot that has got everything that has ever been written in the history of the world in it. Reload the hammer-gun please. The motto has always been, from my perspective, "If it's in D&D, it fits in Eberron", meaning it has a place somewhere, but you're not forced to give them that place. That's exactly what the book says. In this respect, saying where the optional races and classes can fit in Eberron doesn't seem a hammer-gun-worthy offense, honestly. They just should have inserted "can" between "these new classes" and "exist in Eberron". Not all from the core books is by default in Eberron (e.g., forest gnomes are in the core rules, not in Eberron, not even in the PGtE -- OK, I cheat, this subrace is so stealthy it's always forgotten, they're not in Races of Faerūn nor in Races of Stone). But everything can fit if you want to include it. In this respect, I had a different impression from yours of the bits about catfolks, buommans, wu jens, and the Incarnum: to me there presence in the PGtE doesn't mean they are in Eberron, merely how they fit if they are. Optional material is still optional, so only the blasted drow pollute Eberron's subrace-free pool. I, for one, would have been miffed if they had copy pasted a sentence like "If the Xs exist in your Eberron™ campaign, then" in front of each reference to optional races, classes, material, magic type, and so on. 3) Repating the nonsense of "Every changling in the world is an extremist" from RoE. At least when it was in RoE, that bit of stupidity could be ignored. Not now. Now it's Eberron canon that all changlings are stereotypes. It was starting that section out so nicely by giving a good balanced view of the race, then pulls this crap out of right field to stick it in there, which pretty much contradicts what it just said a few sentences ago. At least it didn't reprint the whole "pregnant male changling" thing. Not to mention it goes and gives great advice on how to spot a changling, then immediantly presents a feat that takes away 90% of the mechanical advantage you have of spotting them. I don't see how saying that changelings belong to one out of three philosophy schools necessarily makes them extremists in said school. They have a unique identity, or lack thereof, given their mutable nature, and this has led them to three ways of finding their place in the world. Alright. Does that mean they must be stereotypes? No, I don't think so. People aren't defined only by how they see their own self. As for the feat, the only thing that doesn't make sense with it is that it's a feat rather than part of the standard disguise rules. It's normal that you'll imitate better somebody you know well than someone you've just seen once; for the same reason you'll see better through the disguise for someone impersonating a friend rather than someone impersonating the pizza delivery boy.
Edymnion 03-03-06, 01:39 PM	I don't see how saying that changelings belong to one out of three philosophy schools necessarily makes them extremists in said school.Because they said that almost every changling falls into the catagory of "Almost never changes", "Changes at the drop of a hat", or "Doesn't change in the first place". It specifically spells out that anyone that doesn't take one of these extremes is a freak, an anomoly. It doesn't even jive with the first part of the entry. The changlings that take favorite faces for each race, and like to use those same faces whenever they are that race. That isn't a Passer, becuase they use their shapechanging too much. They aren't Becomers, because they aren't constantly experimenting with faces, they are sticking to a select few. And they most definately aren't running around with no face at all on. The "schools" as you put it are extremes of behavior. Like saying every human is a communist that doesn't believe anyone should ever own anything at any time, or that they are a capitolist that would sell their own mothers for the right price. While there are examples of those people out there, the vast majority are somewhere in between, and don't really fall into either extreme catagory. The 3 "schools" are extremists, while it says the moderate ones are extreme minorities. They might as well have said that all half-orcs are slobbering brutes, or that all halflings like to live in sandy holes and smoke pipes while counting the hair on their toes.
MysteryGilgamesh 03-03-06, 01:52 PM	They might as well have said that all half-orcs are slobbering brutes, or that all halflings like to live in sandy holes and smoke pipes while counting the hair on their toes. Ix-nay on the pre-ird-thdition-ey. ;)
Gez 03-04-06, 05:03 AM	It specifically spells out that anyone that doesn't take one of these extremes is a freak, an anomoly. Haven't seen that. Here's the relevant paragraph: All changelings adopt one of three philosophical outlooks regarding their mutable identity. Passers try to avoid the widespread mistrust of their race by living in a permanent state of disguise, adopting a particular appearance and wearing it as their "natural state." They keep their heads down and stay out of trouble. The changelings known as becomers immerse themselves in many different identities. They believe that they are simultaneously who they are who they appear to be, enjoying the paradox and ambiguity of multiple personas. The changelings called reality seekers believe in an abstract notion of perfection and prefer to seek it in their natural forms and in the company of other changelings. I don't see where it says that all changelings must be extremists in these philosophical outlooks. I'll give you the passers, with their "permanent state of disguise", can be seen as being all extremists. But they're the only ones with a wording to that effect. And nothing says you can't be, for example, a reality seeker with some becomer tendancies.
Edymnion 03-04-06, 04:28 PM	Haven't seen that. Here's the relevant paragraph: All changelings adopt one of three philosophical outlooks regarding their mutable identity. Passers try to avoid the widespread mistrust of their race by living in a permanent state of disguise, adopting a particular appearance and wearing it as their "natural state." They keep their heads down and stay out of trouble. The changelings known as becomers immerse themselves in many different identities. They believe that they are simultaneously who they are who they appear to be, enjoying the paradox and ambiguity of multiple personas. The changelings called reality seekers believe in an abstract notion of perfection and prefer to seek it in their natural forms and in the company of other changelings. I don't see where it says that all changelings must be extremists in these philosophical outlooksThe philosophies themselves are extreme takes on the ability of shapechanging, and it says that all changlings adopt one of them. As in, if you don't fit neatly into their little pidgeon holes, you're playing an weirdo. Passers - Living in permanent disguise and using it as their "natural state". Becomers - Many differant identities, believe they are that identity, and like the ambiguity of multiple personas. Reality Seaker - Stay in their natural form all the time. Aka, don't change at all, pick one and stick with it, or be everybody you can be. They are all extremes, and none of them allow for a changling that just takes three or four faces and uses just them, but uses them on a semi-regular basis. You can call them broad philosphies, but they are all pretty much directly opposed to each other. There's no middle ground that you can be, and since every changling supposedly takes one of those views, there's no room for someone taking the middle ground in the first place. Its all based on the nonsense from RoE, who's entire contents seem to stem from some random author getting a paragraph long description of the race and being told to turn in a dozen pages by Friday. As such, all we really got were stereotypes. The fact that RoE wasn't an Eberron book at least let us ignore it on that basis. That it got reprinted in Eberron canon is just plain annoying at best. Again, to use real world economic philosophies, you're either a Communist that thinks the government owns everything, a Capitolist that thinks everything has a price (even your own mother), or a Hippy that thinks no one can own anything at any time. The vast majority of people do not fall into those extremes, but are somewhere in the middle. Even communist countries have money that it's people use to buy things with, and even Capitolist countries count on their government to provide them goods and services. Its not as cut and dry as it tries to make things sound.
MysteryGilgamesh 03-04-06, 06:25 PM	Its all based on the nonsense from RoE, who's entire contents seem to stem from some random author getting a paragraph long description of the race and being told to turn in a dozen pages by Friday. As such, all we really got were stereotypes. The fact that RoE wasn't an Eberron book at least let us ignore it on that basis. That it got reprinted in Eberron canon is just plain annoying at best. I think it's better phrased as "I don't like it, so it's nonsense", Edy. Okay, you don't like it. Okay, it's canon. Solution? Don't play Eberron. Drop it, and never look back. Or go on playing, and accept it as canon, and accept the fact that your view, doesn't mesh with canon, and bend to accept it in others games (those who use it, anyway), while scorning it in your own game. Or ignore it, and accept that everyone who does play by canon will thrust it in your face, constantly, as an example every time you bring up something different. You may not like the example, but hey, there it is, right in canon. Twice or more, apparently, by your use of "reprinted". This means they obviously had a chance to change it. That they didn't, signifies one thing: Thats how it's supposed to be. Then again, there is the whole thing about PC's not being normal, even amongst the adventuring community, even down the fact the PC's are many times richer than any single NPC of a similar level. So yeah, chances are, you are playing the odd man out. Changeling society apparently works like "this", and you're working like "that". Which makes you the outcast. The odd man out. Just like Joan of Arc, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, the colonies that ended up founding America, and more. Just like any human PC is outstandingly different from Joe Dirtfarmer the human commoner of Humdrumsville, or the Lord of Blades is markedly different from most normal warforged.
nirodus 03-04-06, 06:32 PM	Even if it were true that you had to be of one the three philosopies to be a "normal" changling, there's nothing saying that you're character has to be normal or try to fit in. Actually, a lot player character concepts go against the norm, as far as I can tell. Also, for a book about character perceptions of the world to say that there are three changling outlooks and all changlings fall into one of the three, it doesn't neccessarily mean that all changlings hold this view. Most people in Eberron think all changlings are untrustworthy Traveler-lovers, too.
Edymnion 03-04-06, 07:32 PM	I think it's better phrased as "I don't like it, so it's nonsense", Edy.I think its supposed to be the default that anyone saying "this sucks" or "this rules" is expressiving an opinion. Don't play Eberron. Drop it, and never look back.And you're saying I shouldn't be doing this, when you turn around and say "Play the game like I do, or get out"? Or go on playing, and accept it as canon, and accept the fact that your view, doesn't mesh with canon, and bend to accept it in others games (those who use it, anyway), while scorning it in your own game.I never said it wasn't canon. I specifically lamented the fact that it is now canon, and that I think its pure crap that should not have been printed in the first place. Or ignore it, and accept that everyone who does play by canon will thrust it in your face, constantly, as an example every time you bring up something different.Or voice my opinion as I see fit, either or. You may not like the example, but hey, there it is, right in canon. Twice or more, apparently, by your use of "reprinted".Nope, the changling philosophies have only appeared once in canon material. They first appeared in a generic line book. Until now, it was never actually officially part of the Eberron world. Although, it does just go to reinforce a point I've been trying to make since RoE came out. Something bad that gets printed in an early book becomes part of the setting, like it or not. Which is why its so vitally important to get nothing but high quality books out early in Eberron's lifecycle to ensure the setting REMAINS a high quality setting. We already had the Warforged officially burdened with a partial handicap because of RoE, and now the Changlings are all pushed into extreme philosophies by default. Next thing you know, we'll get something mistakingly mentioning a shifter's tail, and then that will be canon for all shifters for the rest of time.
MysteryGilgamesh 03-04-06, 07:48 PM	And you're saying I shouldn't be doing this, when you turn around and say "Play the game like I do, or get out"? I never said it wasn't canon. I specifically lamented the fact that it is now canon, and that I think its pure crap that should not have been printed in the first place. Nope, the changling philosophies have only appeared once in canon material. They first appeared in a generic line book. Until now, it was never actually officially part of the Eberron world. 1: No, I was simply stating a few alternatives you might not have considered yet. 2: Actually, you did say it was not canon, by your refusal to accept that a book labeled "Races of Eberron", which deals specifically and only with Eberron, containing information on playing characters that exist offically only in Eberron, mentioning specific information for the other races for playing them in Eberron, places in Eberron, and containing feats and spells specifically tailored for Eberron, including infusions for a class found only in Eberron, was not canonical for Eberron. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... Just because the cover matches the other "Races of" line, doesn't mean this book is any less Eberron. I mean, it has the name right in the cover. What else does it need? How many people seriously go out and buy a book that tells you how to play races in Eberron, chock full of Eberron detail, made for Eberron, and then ignore all of it (or try to apply everything Eberron to someones homebrew)? I'm willing to bet if they released a "Complete Eberron" book, it'd have the same cover as the rest of the Complete line. Would that make it non-canonical as well?
Edymnion 03-04-06, 07:57 PM	2: Actually, you did say it was not canon, by your refusal to accept that a book labeled "Races of Eberron", which deals specifically and only with Eberron, containing information on playing characters that exist offically only in Eberron, mentioning specific information for the other races for playing them in Eberron, places in Eberron, and containing feats and spells specifically tailored for Eberron, including infusions for a class found only in Eberron, was not canonical for Eberron. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... Just because the cover matches the other "Races of" line, doesn't mean this book is any less Eberron. I mean, it has the name right in the cover. What else does it need? How many people seriously go out and buy a book that tells you how to play races in Eberron, chock full of Eberron detail, made for Eberron, and then ignore all of it (or try to apply everything Eberron to someones homebrew)? I'm willing to bet if they released a "Complete Eberron" book, it'd have the same cover as the rest of the Complete line. Would that make it non-canonical as well?IMO, yes, it would not be Eberron canon. Because its part of the generic line, and not part of the Eberron line. Look in any listing of books by line, and you won't find Races of Eberron listed with the other Eberron books. It contains material for Eberron, but then again, so does Monster Manual III, that doesn't mean that MMIII is Eberron canon either. The Draconomicon is not Eberron canon. Complete Adventurer is not Eberron Canon. Races of Destiny is not Eberron canon. Neither is Races of Eberron. You can use the material in an Eberron game as you see fit, but it is not included by default, IMO, no more than Races of Destiny is in by default.
igotsmeakabob!! 03-04-06, 07:57 PM	On a side note, for purely aesthetic reasons, I would've liked them to have made Races of Eberron an Eberron book instead of a part of the 'Races of' line. Same with if they had a Complete Eberron (which I doubt, since it doesn't seem to fit the line), I'd prefer Eberron-style art in the book and on the cover to the 'complete' line.
Edymnion 03-04-06, 11:48 PM	On a side note, for purely aesthetic reasons, I would've liked them to have made Races of Eberron an Eberron book instead of a part of the 'Races of' line. Same with if they had a Complete Eberron (which I doubt, since it doesn't seem to fit the line), I'd prefer Eberron-style art in the book and on the cover to the 'complete' line.Actually, I solved that by putting it next to my Eberron books with the other generic ones on the other side. Sort of a GENERIC ---- RoE ---- ECS -- Sharn -- etc. Keeps it in the same place as the Eberron books, but doesn't screw up the flow.
Roxlimn 03-05-06, 12:07 AM	Actually, Edymnion, a changeling with four (multiple) personas and sticks with those strikes me as something of a becomer, though not as out there as someone who has a million lives. Realistically speaking, even a changeling only has so much time on his or her hands, so in order to generate anything like a functioning social presence, he or she would have to have about 4 personalities max that he or she uses on a regular basis. I would think that for most becomers, 2 or 3 would be more the norm.
nastynate 03-05-06, 04:30 AM	Although, it does just go to reinforce a point I've been trying to make since RoE came out. Something bad that gets printed in an early book becomes part of the setting, like it or not. Which is why its so vitally important to get nothing but high quality books out early in Eberron's lifecycle to ensure the setting REMAINS a high quality setting. We already had the Warforged officially burdened with a partial handicap because of RoE, and now the Changlings are all pushed into extreme philosophies by default. Next thing you know, we'll get something mistakingly mentioning a shifter's tail, and then that will be canon for all shifters for the rest of time. I do agree with this line of thought. It's pivitol that in the early birth of a setting that you get your facts strait, and publish enough core details that future books have a precedent upon which to draw from. Eberron suffers from two fatal flaws in this regard. First and foremost, is the current release schedule and design teams that WotC utilizes. Eberron is the first setting born into this slower schedule (all other D&D settings had way more books way sooner), which means the early flood of books was never there. In the past this early influx of material was all compiled by a core group of writers, who worked together, and then fleshed out and released books as they were finished, rather than forced by a contrived schedule. The process was like one big project, rather than a bunch of little ones. Previously underexplored ideas, got pushed aside, and then returned to and completed as new books. Our Eberron authors aren't neccessarily part of the original team; they are acting much too independantly, and KB isn't playing as big a role as he should be (through no fault of his own) in the process. There isn't enough teamwork, nor is the regular release schedule a good thing. The books should come to us as they are completed; not forced, or hurried, or patched together by distant correspondance. This leads to shoddy inconsistancies. Editing is not to blame for this; they check spelling and punctuation. It's poor coordination of the writers, and their efforts. The second major flaw is actually part of what intitially made the ECS so great: open-ended material, which is subject to debate and interpretation. While this tool is fantastic for DMs. It's a nightmare for authors. Everybody who bought that book has their own ideas about what's really going on. DMs natually fill in the blanks and build upon what is written to create their stories. Then the writers are asked to publish a new book, and they get backed against a wall. Now they have to fill in the intentional blanks, without telling the whole story (which would strip the DM of his power entirely), and without undermining all the efforts of the people who play the game, and have already embellished upon the previously written material. Impossible! You can't empower the DM with complete creative freedom, and then continue to publish material for the setting. Each sourcebook takes way some option from the DM, and in turn leads those who play the game to keep the best parts of the setting underdevolped. Why write about the Dragonmarked Houses now, when the sourcebook is coming out in November? We don't want to have to rewrite our campaigns after we've already played them. If you follow this logic, then you'll begin to see how bad this is. You were initially thrilled to have the freedom to flesh out things on your own, but now you cannot (or will not) because all your work will be undone in nine months. :waits: So we wait, and don't bother filling in the blanks ouselves. In the past TSR's policy was to overwhelm you with material so that you hardly got through one sourcbook before the next was rolling in. You didn't have to worry about figuring everything out on your own, because the books came out so quickly, you'd hardly ever lack something fresh and new. Additionally while the editing was inferior to WotC, the writers were more coordinated, and inconsistencies were far less frequent, even though 5 times as many books were coming out. Other gaming companies like white wolf would release open ended setting books (focused on single cities) with a bunch of material for you extrapolate upon, but they would stand alone. You were completely free to do with them as you saw fit. They didn't tie directly into the world as a whole, so you could advance your storyline, kill important NPCs, or change things, and the effect on the world was negligable. Their other releases had to do with the world at large, society, culture, etc, so they meshed perfectly (use them if you want, or don't) with the intentional design flexibility of the "By Night," books. Eventually they did go down the slippery slope that began to tie everything together, and focus on events that swept through the whole setting; and you know what happened next? They cancelled it, and started over fresh, without those destructive elements that tied your hands. Everything is stand alone now. So that you only ever use what you want. Hint, Hint, I'm drawing parallels here. Thus the writers for Eberron and we as fans are in a pickle. We want more, but each sourcebook is under intense scrutiny, because we've been allowed to explore the world on our own. We have the time to analyze each book thoroughly and study them intently before the next release, and we spot the mistakes quickly. Three writers are not going to find them as easily as 10,000 fans are. Given the current state of things we have three choices when it comes to fleshing out our Eberron campaign worlds and stories. We can either A) work with what we already have without regard for upcoming releases, B) wait for the next book, or C) be prepared to scrap our homebrewed material when the official book comes out. I myself am (option A) deviating more and more from the core of Eberron as time goes by. I am actually debating weather or not, I should just write a homebrew and shamelessly steal the things I like from Eberron, rather than allow the setting to hold me hostage. That tells me something isn't working right. Kieth had a gold mine of an idea when he came up with this world, but WotC is ruining it. :rant: EDIT: sorry to get so off track
Lurkalot 03-05-06, 06:43 AM	*snip* An excellent summary of the way things are. I have only one thing to add. A further difference between the development of Eberron and the early days of other settings is the dynamism of the community surrounding it. When Forgotten Realms got going, or when Greyhawk took form, the outside community was kept together by the occasional letter in Dragon Magazine. Now look what we have here! The busiest threads here (barring the eternal adventures of the Worst Party in Eberron), are numerous people discussing the direction the products should go, offering suggestions, writing the material ourselves. That's a very different situation and I wonder how WotC will ultimately handle it. I doubt that TSR ever did much in the way of deep market research. They might note that certain things were selling well and others weren't, but I expect it would be more in the line of "Hey, shifting lots of Dragonlance, lets do a Krynn book" than "People really enjoyed the cultural background that we did on Valenar in this book." That's all changed now - they have an attentive and also vocal (Hi, Edy) testing department for their products. Whilst certainly the board here doesn't represent all Eberron players and their tastes, I think we're probably a good resouce for the developers and I expect they look in on us (Lurkalot waves at lurking authors :tiphat: ) So I think we have a natural counter to the non-central design team that Nastynate talks about. One thing that interests me is how WotC will ultimately handle the prodigiousness of the online community. We have churned out masses of fluff, crunch, plot ideas and hypotheses. There's inevitably overlap with what WotC release commercially and they hamstring themselves if they try to avoid that, and blind themselves if they try to ignore us. I think the majority of the community would be chuffed if we inspired some commercial work. And I think the time will come when WotC has to formally take a look at how the community and their product line interact. Let's be honest. The stuff that we have written and posted here, we have done for love of creating and sharing it. If WotC approach this in the right way, then there's a resource here for them. Now this is all off-topic if you go by the thread title, but then so is almost everything else here. :D
Gez 03-05-06, 09:23 AM	Other gaming companies like white wolf would release open ended setting books (focused on single cities) with a bunch of material for you extrapolate upon, but they would stand alone. If by that you meant "push out a worldwide metaplot that made the previously published sourcebook both necessary to understand half of the references, and obsolete because the NPCs are dead, alliances have shifted, and weird new stuff (that's actually very very old) has appeared suddenly", then yeah. I prefer WotC's current publishing strategy to White Wolf's one for the old World of Darkness...
nastynate 03-05-06, 10:01 AM	If by that you meant "push out a worldwide metaplot that made the previously published sourcebook both necessary to understand half of the references, and obsolete because the NPCs are dead, alliances have shifted, and weird new stuff (that's actually very very old) has appeared suddenly", then yeah. I prefer WotC's current publishing strategy to White Wolf's one for the old World of Darkness... It didn't start like that, and it sounds like you are familiar with the setting, so you should know. The world-wide meta-plot came years after the orginal Chicago: by Night Book. I think it was just an experiement that got out of hand, which forced them to scratch it and start over. It was a terrible mistake. D&D is guilty of the same things ya know. They killed Dark Sun (my favorite setting ever), with the meta-plot. In fact it was the destruction of Dark Sun, and the over-all poor direction of TSR that was the trigger responsible for pushing me into Vampire in the first place. WotC is obviously trying to avoid those mistakes, but in turn inadvertantly finding ways to make new ones. I'm not saying vampire is better than D&D. I have in fact returned to D&D for the same reason I left it in the first place; the other gaming system let me down after years of fun when things finally degenerated. My experiences with other gaming systems have made me a better player and DM over all though. It's something people really shouldn't look at like heresy. Knowledge is power! :tongue: <Gosh, I hope somebody knows what I'm playing off there>