Thoughts on Magic of Incarnum, Book of Seven Swords, etc. in Xen'drik Expeditions [Archive] - Wizards Community

Thoughts on Magic of Incarnum, Book of Seven Swords, etc. in Xen'drik Expeditions [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
DBlizzard
10-08-06, 04:59 AM I've been mildly (very mildly) troubled by this since the campaign card that allowed Magic of Incarnum was released. As a DM for this campaign, I have a problem with parts of these books being allowed for use in use in the campaign.

Note that I do not hate these books. I also understand that players want to use the books they have purchased. However, these are my reasons for disliking this.

Essentially, allowing these books forces a DM running XE to buy and understand these books. When someone brings a feat or class from a book the DM hasn't read, it's easy to quickly read the information and be prepared to handle it in an adventure. The warmage isn't that different from the wizard, and the differences can be picked up in a minute or two. Someone who has Sudden Still spell isn't that much different from someone with Still Spell. The DM can read a most a page of description (rarely even that much) and know enough to make rulings on the character.

Some books, however, have complete systems contained. Four come to mind; Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic, Book of Seven Swords and Expanded Psionic's Handbook. The XPH I give a pass to, because Psionics is built into Eberron and the XPH has always been a sort of "expanded core" book. Most Eberron DMs will be familiar with it and it's in the SRD (plus the RPGA was supposed to have published a "Primer on the XPH" for Mark of Heroes).

The other books don't have even close to the level of familiarity of the XPH, though. I have not personally picked up any of these three books, and only Tome of Magic personally interests me. However, I'm forced to use these if a player brings a legal character that uses them (either by faction, or campaign card).

From my understanding, these aren't characters where I can understand the systems they use just by reading a few paragraphs, or a single page in the book. There isn't a primer online, or even an SRD to check. The only way to be familiar with it is to buy or borrow a copy and read it through. If I don't, I will be at the mercy of any player who wants to run it and trust their description of how their ability works. While I do believe those that intentially misrepresent their character are few and far between, they do exist, and the number of players who don't understand their own character's ability are significant as well.

Fortunately, it hasn't been an issue for me. My group at my FLGS Xen'drik game are regulars and don't seem interested in using that. However, that doesn't mean their won't be a drop-in (which I would enjoy and encourage) that might want to use this (which would make my job much harder).

I'd like to encourage the faction masters to keep the ability to use these sorts of books very limited. The Crimson Codex already makes major use of the MoI book (fortunately, not the group I choose to run - although the DM who does run it is equally unfamiliar). I personally would not like to see these type of books see more use in the game.

The exception to this would be in the RPGA and faction masters could follow through on one of the many unfulfilled promises of Mark of Heroes, and publish primers on these books. Publish short treatises for DMs that explain the mechanics of these subsystems, and give us enough background that we can figure out what a character can do just by perusing a few paragraphs that apply to those characters.

Thoughts? Rebuttals?
smerwin29
10-08-06, 10:11 AM I'll try to keep my answer as short as possible. I speak only for myself, not for the other Factionmasters or anyone at the RPGA.

To an extent, I agree with you. I have been running campaigns for about 25 years, and the first thing you learn is that the more you allow into the campaign, the harder it is control things.

But this is a worldwide RPGA campaign, and for every person who wants to limit something, there are five people who want it allowed. And the RPGA is a marketing tool. The more books they sell, the more successful they are.

One thing I disagree with vehemently, although I know why you say it, is that DMs are forced to buy all the books. This is not true. Only DMs who feel the need to understand/control everything and who does not trust the players are in this position. And I say that being one of those DMs, so I know why you say it. However, what everyone needs to understand is that in this campaign you are always going to see something they have not seen before. If you are uncomfortable with this, there isn't much to be done. The campaign isn't going to be for everyone, for countless reasons.

That doesn't been we are going to include everything, but let's just say we are going to need a very good reason to exclude something.

My two quick cents,

Shawn
DBlizzard
10-08-06, 08:15 PM However, what everyone needs to understand is that in this campaign you are always going to see something they have not seen before.

There is a big difference, as I point out, between seeing something new that is a paragraph or even a full page and seeing something new that requires reading 20-30 pages of a new sourcebook. Hardly the same thing.

Look at the main RPGA forum and you'll see a player indignant because a DM made a ruling that wasn't correct. Other players were sympathetic. How am I supposed to make "the correct ruling" if I am not familiar with the rules being used?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DBlizzard 10-08-06, 04:59 AM	I've been mildly (very mildly) troubled by this since the campaign card that allowed Magic of Incarnum was released. As a DM for this campaign, I have a problem with parts of these books being allowed for use in use in the campaign. Note that I do not hate these books. I also understand that players want to use the books they have purchased. However, these are my reasons for disliking this. Essentially, allowing these books forces a DM running XE to buy and understand these books. When someone brings a feat or class from a book the DM hasn't read, it's easy to quickly read the information and be prepared to handle it in an adventure. The warmage isn't that different from the wizard, and the differences can be picked up in a minute or two. Someone who has Sudden Still spell isn't that much different from someone with Still Spell. The DM can read a most a page of description (rarely even that much) and know enough to make rulings on the character. Some books, however, have complete systems contained. Four come to mind; Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic, Book of Seven Swords and Expanded Psionic's Handbook. The XPH I give a pass to, because Psionics is built into Eberron and the XPH has always been a sort of "expanded core" book. Most Eberron DMs will be familiar with it and it's in the SRD (plus the RPGA was supposed to have published a "Primer on the XPH" for Mark of Heroes). The other books don't have even close to the level of familiarity of the XPH, though. I have not personally picked up any of these three books, and only Tome of Magic personally interests me. However, I'm forced to use these if a player brings a legal character that uses them (either by faction, or campaign card). From my understanding, these aren't characters where I can understand the systems they use just by reading a few paragraphs, or a single page in the book. There isn't a primer online, or even an SRD to check. The only way to be familiar with it is to buy or borrow a copy and read it through. If I don't, I will be at the mercy of any player who wants to run it and trust their description of how their ability works. While I do believe those that intentially misrepresent their character are few and far between, they do exist, and the number of players who don't understand their own character's ability are significant as well. Fortunately, it hasn't been an issue for me. My group at my FLGS Xen'drik game are regulars and don't seem interested in using that. However, that doesn't mean their won't be a drop-in (which I would enjoy and encourage) that might want to use this (which would make my job much harder). I'd like to encourage the faction masters to keep the ability to use these sorts of books very limited. The Crimson Codex already makes major use of the MoI book (fortunately, not the group I choose to run - although the DM who does run it is equally unfamiliar). I personally would not like to see these type of books see more use in the game. The exception to this would be in the RPGA and faction masters could follow through on one of the many unfulfilled promises of Mark of Heroes, and publish primers on these books. Publish short treatises for DMs that explain the mechanics of these subsystems, and give us enough background that we can figure out what a character can do just by perusing a few paragraphs that apply to those characters. Thoughts? Rebuttals?
smerwin29 10-08-06, 10:11 AM	I'll try to keep my answer as short as possible. I speak only for myself, not for the other Factionmasters or anyone at the RPGA. To an extent, I agree with you. I have been running campaigns for about 25 years, and the first thing you learn is that the more you allow into the campaign, the harder it is control things. But this is a worldwide RPGA campaign, and for every person who wants to limit something, there are five people who want it allowed. And the RPGA is a marketing tool. The more books they sell, the more successful they are. One thing I disagree with vehemently, although I know why you say it, is that DMs are forced to buy all the books. This is not true. Only DMs who feel the need to understand/control everything and who does not trust the players are in this position. And I say that being one of those DMs, so I know why you say it. However, what everyone needs to understand is that in this campaign you are always going to see something they have not seen before. If you are uncomfortable with this, there isn't much to be done. The campaign isn't going to be for everyone, for countless reasons. That doesn't been we are going to include everything, but let's just say we are going to need a very good reason to exclude something. My two quick cents, Shawn
DBlizzard 10-08-06, 08:15 PM	However, what everyone needs to understand is that in this campaign you are always going to see something they have not seen before. There is a big difference, as I point out, between seeing something new that is a paragraph or even a full page and seeing something new that requires reading 20-30 pages of a new sourcebook. Hardly the same thing. Look at the main RPGA forum and you'll see a player indignant because a DM made a ruling that wasn't correct. Other players were sympathetic. How am I supposed to make "the correct ruling" if I am not familiar with the rules being used?