Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DoveArrow 04-18-06, 08:58 PM	From my understanding, the reason the Eberron material dried up essentially boils down to WotC telling everybody "You can't write a web article on any topic we could possibly put in a book at any point for the remaining lifetime of the setting." One of my big beefs with the PGtE has been over the fact that they reprinted information from one of the dragonshards on Aerenal. However, the statement above got me thinking. Do you think it's possible that the reprint wasn't intentional? Maybe it was an honest mistake, and they just couldn't fix it before it went to print. Maybe the information contained in both the dragonshard articles and the PGtE came from Keith's original 110 page proposal. I'm curious to know what you guys think. Do you think that the reprint of the Aerenal dragonshard in the PGtE was responsible for the restriction placed on web articles? Let me know.
ekomega 04-18-06, 11:17 PM	I remember Keith saying that certain aspects of the Aerenal elves were from the number 2 guy's (Rich Burlew?) proposal. I don't know if the Aeren legend was one of them. It could've just been a difference of understanding about something that Keith didn't invent. Maybe WotC just decided to put their foot down over the fans' reaction to Keith and web material. "What you get on the website is great, but buy the books!" and all. Since a lot of fanboys got really excited over free material and loved it and were getting rather ornery about the books, they probably needed to do this. I can't help but be upset by the loss of the web articles. I like free stuff I can get every week without going to an FLGS, especially since there aren't any great (there are some good) stores in my town (of 1+ million people).
DarkWarriorKarg 04-19-06, 04:35 AM	No... it's the lack of internal communication at WotC that's responsible for the restrictions on webarticles. Continuity is a good thing. Build a "bible", follow it. It worked for Stargate, it can work for you.
Just another user 04-19-06, 05:05 AM	IMHO, WotC didn't want to have another Gigax or another Greenwood, i.e. a single author that can decide the future of the setting, they want to have full control on how Eberron would develope without the fans saying "no, it didn't happen that way because Baker said that..." like it was happening. The fact that Baker is freelance and don't work for the wizards of the coast didn't make things better.
Splendide 04-19-06, 05:27 AM	You're probably on the money there, JAU. Of course, the popularity of lines with one main vision seems to be much higher than that of generic settings...funny that. I've previously mentioned that each White Wolf line has a line developer specifically for it...does Eberron? If not, why not?
Sarlax 04-19-06, 02:14 PM	IMHO, WotC didn't want to have another Gigax or another Greenwood, i.e. a single author that can decide the future of the setting, they want to have full control on how Eberron would develope without the fans saying "no, it didn't happen that way because Baker said that..." like it was happening. To some extent, that was and is happening. For instance, people regularly quote Keith Baker on the boards from his message board postings, using posts as evidence how X is in Eberron. This shouldn't occur. There is a communication problem at Wizards, but it's not really so much about people not talking as it is about people not reading. For some reason, a lot of authors don't seem to be as into D&D as people on message boards can be. This is evidenced by somewhat frequent failures to remember things about how the settings work. Eberron examples are numerous. Things that come to mind are alternate treatments of how common resurrection magic is, whether the Blood of Vol is outlawed, whether a certain biggest airship of all time is smaller than regular airships, etc. Don't assume that my criticism means that I expect all designers to memorize all books. It's not an all or nothing proposition. Instead, I expect the designers to be deeply familiar with all the books appropriate to their project. IE, if you're writing Constructs of Eberron, you'd better have read the ECS, Magic of Eberron, Races of Eberron, etc. You should take care that claims you make about the setting itself are consistent. Or, if they are inconsistent, make note of that (call it out in a sidebar) and explain why the change was made.
MysticTheurge 04-19-06, 02:32 PM	Of course, keep in mind that Keith Baker has not one, but two supplements coming out later this year. It's not as if they've cut him out of the development process.
Euangelion 04-19-06, 03:48 PM	It's not like it has to be just Keith writing things for it to stick to the main vision. James Wyatt is just as good at writing for Eberron as Keith is, IMHO. Heck, Heroes of Horror could almost be an Eberron supplement in and of itself, thanks in no small part to James. And as others have mentioned here and elsewhere, there's talented people writing sourcebooks for Eberron. Talent is not the issue. Hastily created material and material created in a vacuum are the worst part. Again, part of the problem is that Eberron differs from generic D&D in some significant ways, and the implications of that obviously were not completely thought out by the time the deadline for the ECS came. Evidence of this includes the unresolved issues regarding the Weretouched Master PrC (addressed in the erratta); how the lifting of cleric alignment restrictions works with alignment based spells like holy smite; does the term "demon" in Demon Wastes refer to Tanari'i and other chaotic evil outsiders or to fiends in general; does the fuzzy alignment apply to just dragons, to certain other creatures, or to all creatures and how much (i.e. are there unicorns of every alignment distributed equally, or are they "usually" CG, or are they still "always" CG, recognizing that even in generic D&D "always" doesn't mean that there are absolutely no exceptions), how involved are the religions in healing services, many issues with the unique Eberron cosmology, and so on. Frankly, I feel that they farmed out the writing assignments too widely much too soon, when they should have had fewer people concentrating more on establishing the foundation of the setting to make building on the setting down the road much easier for any and all involved. A total of 21 different people have worked on or are working on the 10 Eberron sourcebooks (including Races of Eberron in the mix). But hey, on the other hand, this was a new approach to creating a new campaign setting, and I'm sure if they could go back and do some things differently they would. But they can't. They, and we, can only go forward.
Edymnion 04-19-06, 09:28 PM	"What you get on the website is great, but buy the books!" and all. Since a lot of fanboys got really excited over free material and loved it and were getting rather ornery about the books, they probably needed to do this.Well, considering the simple fact that the web material was of exceptional quality, and the books we were getting at the time *cough*RacesOfEberron*cough* was pure crap when it came to learning what you needed to know about the Races, its no mystery why everybody was saying "Forget RoE, just read the Dragonshards". So, what did WotC do? They nerfed the articles. Only time will tell if they bring the book quality up to the old article quality (so far it looks like they have, with PGtE), or if they just nerfed the articles so no one will have a comparison when they release the next steaming pile of book. Prove me wrong guys, but if the book quality doesn't stay at PGtE level from now on, and the articles stay crappy/non-existant, don't be surprised when people give you hell for it.
PoeticJustice 04-19-06, 11:56 PM	Let's not rule out that Keith's been too busy to write quite yet, though. Then again, there's not a whole lot left to write for that fills a vital need. I suppose Argonnessen could use support, as could the Shadow Marches and the Talenta Plains, but given the frequent requests for a "Frontiers of Eberron" book, I'd say the possibility of such a Dragonshard was duly canned. I used to buy every Eberron book sight unseen in order to support the brand. That's no longer the case. If the book isn't a Grand Slam-something I'll reference constantly for an extended amount of time-then there are FAR better uses for my money. After all, for 30 dollars I can treat my friends to a night at a hookah bar, take a girl out for a decent date, or pick up a few CDs. Given the quality of Magic of Eberron and Five Nations, that's exactly what I'll be doing if Secrets of Xen'Drik isn't up to snuff.
DoveArrow 04-20-06, 12:40 PM	Prove me wrong guys, but if the book quality doesn't stay at PGtE level from now on, and the articles stay crappy/non-existant, don't be surprised when people give you hell for it. Well, I'm sure you know what I'd say to that. :)
Hellcow 04-20-06, 01:05 PM	I remember Keith saying that certain aspects of the Aerenal elves were from the number 2 guy's (Rich Burlew?) proposal. I don't know if the Aeren legend was one of them. It could've just been a difference of understanding about something that Keith didn't invent. Not at all. I still don't even know exactly what's in Rich's proposal... but it was in no way directly lifted into Eberron. Rich created a culture of necromantic elves, but this didn't include Aeren, the deathless, the Undying Court, the line of Vol, the Qabalrin, or any of the other things that currently define the elves of Eberron. The issue is that during the initial brainstorming sessions, we were talking about new ideas, and someone - either James, Bill, or Chris - thought of Rich's proposal and said "What if the elves had a necromancy thing going on?" I took that and ran with it. So the original suggestion was inspired by Rich's work... but none of the specific details. I've talked to Rich about it since then, and it sounds like the two are quite different. I'm still keen to see Rich's full proposal at some point, since I think he's absolutely brilliant and I'm sure his setting is equally brilliant. But Aerenal wasn't somehow cut and spliced directly out of it. As for the reuse of Dragonshard material in the PGtE, that was suggested on the design outline. As sad as it is, the bulk of the D&D-playing world DOESN'T check the web material; furthermore, once it's in print, it's really more solidly canon than when it's on the web. Whether this relates to WotC's desire to change the direction of Dragonshards... That I can't say. As I said elsewhere, I hope to get Dragonshards started up again in about a month's time, and we'll see what I'm able to do with them then. I have a few ideas I'd like to explore... we'll see if it works.
Edymnion 04-20-06, 01:18 PM	Prove me wrong guys, but if the book quality doesn't stay at PGtE level from now on, and the articles stay crappy/non-existant, don't be surprised when people give you hell for it.I'd just like to say that I just now realized that what I wrote above could be taken wrong. I don't mean it in reguards to any single person, but towards WotC in general. (heh, I saw were Keith had responded to this thread and immediantly went "Oh crap, I think I shot my mouth off again and Keith walked through the line of fire...")
Euangelion 04-20-06, 09:08 PM	I have a few ideas I'd like to explore... we'll see if it works. Would a post-Players Guide to Eberron request list be helpful in choosing topics?
Hellcow 04-20-06, 11:13 PM	Would a post-Players Guide to Eberron request list be helpful in choosing topics? Sure, but bear in mind that restrictions will still apply to future articles; just because a topic wasn't covered in PGtE doesn't mean it's open for Dragonshards. But feel free to start something.