Post/Author/DateTime	Post
The Almighty Dru 01-23-06, 08:48 PM	I got the Player's Guide to Eberron last week, and overall, I really like it. Just one thing bothers me with it. Or rather, a bunch of things all in the same vein. I really dislike how it stuffs so much of the content of other sourcebooks into the world. This wouldn't be so bad if all it had were suggestions as to where things could be put, but it doesn't. It outright states where things should be. And while, yes, this in itself is somewhat a suggestion, it is slightly more pressing. Because now, you know that people are going to cite the book, saying that's the "official" place or role those supplemental materials hold. And not only that, but I also disagree with the placement/role of much of the material. Xen'drik was used as a crutch even more than it usually is. Along with that, the placement of certain things in Xen'drik, such as more humanoid civilizations, takes away from what I believe Xen'drik to be: a generally uncivilized place. By putting these supplements directly into the world, rather than suggesting where they might be found, I feel that some of the creative freedoms of the DM are being taken away. One thing I love about Eberron is all the different ways things could be. Different theories on Vol, the Last War, the Mourning, and such. The openness to adapt to your liking, with the world, what supplements you add to it, and where they come from. Now, I know you may be saying, "Well Dru, just don't use what it says in the book." That is, in fact, my overall intention. I just think, in a case such as this, one shouldn't have to use the "if you don't like it, don't use it" rule.
The Dreaming Duck 01-23-06, 09:44 PM	This wouldn't be so bad if all it had were suggestions as to where things could be put, but it doesn't. Agreed. Look at the samurai. In the past, Keith Baker has been asked where samurai belong in Eberron about every other week. He's said, more or less, "I wouldn't use them, but if I did, I could see a samurai tradition among the Dhakaani, the Valenar, or a Sarlonan tradition of warriors dedicated to the Inspired." In all of these cases, it's a "Do it if you want - personally, I won't"; and furthermore, it provides a way for the samurai to actually have a significant role in its culture, without just being a direct earth parallel. The PGtE says "Samurai ARE in the Five Nations. They've been around throughout the Last War, you just never noticed them, and we never saw a reason to mention them in, say, The Five Nations." It lets you PLAY a samurai with almost no effort... but it gives them a barely significant role in the world, and also implies that if your DM hates samurai and doesn't want to allow them in the world, he's robbing you of your right. After all, the Player's Guide SAYS they're there! While I'm certainly capable of telling my players what I allow and what I don't; but I wish that there had been an introduction stating that these are suggestions, not absolutes. As is, the language feels very absolute. And as you say, a lot of the suggestions for the books feel very bland... "Chaos gnomes? Uh, sure. They're in Zilargo" as opposed to something like "Many say that the inherent magic of gnomes is the result of the touch of Thelanis; some say that if a gnome child is conceived in a manifest zone when Kythri is coterminous, the child's mystical connection instead forms with the plane of Chaos, producing a chaos gnome." Something like this is easier for the DM to dismiss as a rumor if he hates chaos gnomes; ties into the cosmology of the setting instead of just saying "Chaos gnomes? Sure, we've got chaos gnomes"; and if you wanted a whole community of them, heck, create a secret city on a massive Kythri manifest zone. But hey, whatever.