Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ORC_Paradox 09-15-06, 09:00 AM	Yes gang, your FR mod is a huge Eberron fan. Before the flames begin, I'm also a FR fan. One of my favorite characters/games was set in FR. I picked up the 1st edition grey boxed set when it first came out. I liked the style it was written and the paper was neat, but it made the whole product difficult to read. And I have most of the FR 3rd edition books as well as the 2nd edition book and various other products. (Aurora's Whole Realms Catalogue is the best suppliment for any game system/world.) I'm somewhat disappointed when seeing all the "FR vs. Eberron" threads, not so much because of the flames, (though that's a big part of it.) but for all the narrow-mindedness that goes on. What happened to the D&D players that would take what they liked, and seek out NEW things to add to their games? It's not a matter of This or That. There's no reason not to like all the D&D settings. In my day, (and I go back a ways...) we'd take what we like out of bits and pieces of various campaigns to improve our own. We'd take what we didn't like about one aspect of the game and changed it to make it something we like. It's like picking one flavor ice cream over another- it's a matter of opinion. But why have just vanilla and chocolate when you can have a vanilla/chocolate swirl? Take Eberron's Warforged, for example. I don't see any reason why the Red Wizards WOULDN'T have created them as bodyguards. The "free will" is to allow them as player characters, but what if the Redforged actually LIKED serving their masters? They'd hold off any attackers from getting close to the Wizards who would fling spells from a safe distance. FR does have golems, so it's not really a new idea. What's new is using them to be members of an adventuring group rather than some inanimate object guarding a chest. And wouldn't the Red Wizards just LOVE to sell these things to every household in the land? They'd be sleeper agents, ready to take over once their masters were set and issued the order. Profit from setting up the takeover. Imagine that!
The Ubbergeek 09-15-06, 10:26 AM	Posted it to the Eberron forum also, hum?
ORC_Paradox 09-15-06, 10:42 AM	What do you mean?
Teh_username 09-15-06, 10:58 AM	I really don't like Eberron, but I love most of the new races in Eberron. Warforged could fit pretty well into FR (the Red Wizards were even working on "tinkering" with various golems for possible sale anyway; remember the Thayan Golem from MoF?), and I'd be interested in something (web article?) fitting them into the Realms in the same way that Champions of Valor fit the Races of... ones in. Shifters could be worked into Malarite churches and here-and-there in Chult in an interesting fashion (there're Saurian shifters, right?), I think. As to the Eberron versions of the "standard" races? Hate, hate, hate them. Far too many of them are either "I want to play an eeeevviiillll PC in an ordinary party without actually having to roleplay" or just "let's take some race, file off anything that made them interesting, and slap on some sort of generic 'opposite' to the way they usually act! AWESOME, RIGHT?!?" I hate, hate, hate the "drow" of Eberron. You're not drow, you're Wild Elves with black skin. Get ****ing over yourselves.
Imruphel 09-15-06, 11:05 AM	I like Eberron's artificers in particular and think that they would work perfectly in Faerun as a legacy of ancient Raumathar (sp?). To my mind, the vremyonni of Rashemen are clearly artificers. As for warforged, I also see them as legacies of Raumathar but have yet to include them in my game. However, that could easily change. Changelings are great and easy to include. I'm not sure about shifters yet but I am thinking about them. I'm happy to steal ideas from anywhere for my FR games and, if I ever run Eberron (which largely depends on how inspiring Faiths of Eberron is), I expect that I will steal ideas from FR, Greyhawk, Dawnforge and possible even Midnight. After all, why not?
Old Sage 09-15-06, 11:19 AM	Take Eberron's Warforged, for example. I don't see any reason why the Red Wizards WOULDN'T have created them as bodyguards. The "free will" is to allow them as player characters, but what if the Redforged actually LIKED serving their masters? They'd hold off any attackers from getting close to the Wizards who would fling spells from a safe distance. FR does have golems, so it's not really a new idea. What's new is using them to be members of an adventuring group rather than some inanimate object guarding a chest.A while back Krash and I were *speculating* about the Raumathar, Imaskari and warforged-like constructs. The *jist* of those thoughts revolved around the Raumathari potentially gaining access to one of the lost Imaskarcana (possibly increasing Raumathari knowledge of Imaskari artifice and artifical creation). This allowed for the opportunity of a House Cannith-styled cabal to rise among the Raumathari... and become responsible for the creation of warforged-styled creations in the ancient Realms. As I see it, if the Raumathari plundered the depths (or rather were left as vassals) of Inupras... I'd imagine they may have discovered the First (or perhaps learned a little about what knowledge it contained), so that's a possibility... given that it holds the knowledge of the Imaskari Artificers. I don't think they'd use the Fifth since it doesn't really relate to technical knowledge as such or the Third for that matter.
The Ubbergeek 09-15-06, 11:52 AM	To be fair, WizO. Warforged.... The 'Sons of Gond'. How about Gond have a pet project of making artificial life... Maybe it's his petitioners who accepts to come back to loife? Ideas, ideas....
KnightErrantJR 09-15-06, 11:54 AM	I don't see Eberron as a setting that I want to run as a DM, and it doesn't interest me near as much as FR. That is not meant to be any kind of condemnation, just a statement of my personal preference. On the other hand, I do like shifters and changelings, and they really aren't that hard to incorporate into campaign in the Realms. Warforged I'm not likely to use, since they are SO iconic its like using kender in FR. On the other hand, having just reread parts of LEOF, Sage makes a good point about the Raumathari and constructs. I have adopted using action points in my games, and I really liked the concept of Artifact Spells that was introduced in Secrets of Xen'drik. Heck, I liked a lot of the spells that showed up in Magic of Eberron, especially the elven spells that damaged people's minds by opening them up to knowledge of the ages all at once . . . very interesting idea for an offensive spell. If someone in our gaming group wanted to run an Eberron game during his DM turn, I would have no problem playing in an Eberron campaign, just like I had fun playing in a Greyhawk campaign years ago.
GothicDan 09-15-06, 12:33 PM	So, Paradox, the core of what you're asking us is: What happened to the D&D players that would take what they liked, and seek out NEW things to add to their games? Some of us like to do that about certain things, some of us don't. I don't play in either Eberron or FR, so my personal opinions aren't influenced by my experiences in either world, or what would make X or Y encounter more fun, etc. I am simply a minimalist. 2E already did much to hodge-podge FR into its current state of disordered, unexplained, unrelated chaos (which, having looked over other settings' boards a bit lately, is what a lot of people dislike about it). While I'm not saying that things from core/other settings should not be adapted into FR, what really bugs me is this: When people want to bring things into FR that would serve no purpose but to be 'unique' or to capitalize on mechanical benefits. It's sort of like Prestige Classes in general. The core classes, with the wide variety of feats available, can represent pretty much all but the most idiosyncratic character types (specific divine or arcane traditions, mostly). Basically, I don't ask myself, "Why not?" but rather, "Why?" I would feel the same about any setting, though, be it Dragonlance, Greyhawk, FR, or Eberron. The sole exception would be Planescape, of course. But that's because Planescape's always been a little "weird."
Kid SixXx 09-15-06, 01:26 PM	What do you mean? I suppose he implies that posting this here and not on our Eberron boards bears some hidden indictment of the FR boards, since there is a proverb about the direct relationship between the volume of high-pitched noise in a circular moving part and its scheduled diet of lubricant. We Eberron folks know that this thread would pretty much preach to the choir, because our rather small library of sourcebooks forces us to be creative in our use of material. In short... We'll use just about anything if we can reason away the content. FR folks are usually good folks. I suppose the crux of the matter is that Ed Greenwood is a genius. FR is such a carefully crafted & excellent place that folks here don't seem to feel comfortable monkeying around with the vision, as opposed to Keith Baker who encourages us to break Eberron as often as we can. There seems to be (IMO) a lot of "exploring" of the vision and sitting back as the FR vision unfolds, rather than actually getting personal ownership of the setting by tinkering with any and every aspect. Sure, Keith has his hard guidelines of his vision on how things should work (Dragonmarks & the Prophecy being high on the list) but everything else is fair game. Naturally, my perceptions of how FR folks do business may be waaaay off, but we can say the same about the misconceptions about the way Eberron folk handle themselves as well. Which is why I suppose the "Why the hate for FR?" threads posted on these very boards get posted. I find the home-field nature of these threads really funny. The question is always asked of Eberron players, but never posed to Eberron players on our board. Do you really expect an honest answer to the question, or do you just want a convention of like-minded fury? When we come from our board to this board to debate the issue, it's less of a discourse and more like Barbarians at the Gate. Nothing gets solved and alleged bad blood resumes... which is silly IMO because ultimately we're talking about something we all do for recreation and enjoyment. Should it really cause so much discord? Hopefully this thread will be a step towards bridging a gap. I applaud WizO_Paradox taking this step because it's a brave one, but I'm not terribly sure that he wants to see the responses his questions will invoke.
GothicDan 09-15-06, 01:57 PM	FR is such a carefully crafted & excellent place that folks here don't seem to feel comfortable monkeying around with the vision, as opposed to Keith Baker who encourages us to break Eberron as often as we can. There seems to be (IMO) a lot of "exploring" of the vision and sitting back as it unfolds, rather than actually getting personal ownership of the setting by tinkering with any and every aspect. Oddly enough, Ed does the same thing, in many, many of his replies. :) The difference is that since Faerun does have so much detail (and it gets increasingly more and more!), there's a lot more potential 'ripple effect' to take into consideration. I think of it like a spider web. Faerun's web (detail) is much denser and more closely tied together. Eberron's web's individual strands are much further separated. So, when you 'pluck' Faerun's web, there's innumerable reactions to take into account via all of the connected strands; when you do the same with Eberron, it's much less an issue. The lack of detail in Eberron (used as a factual statement, NOT a value judgment!) may make some people more comfortable with adding to it and altering it, because they will be able to more easily handle all of the effects doing so would have. The same cannot be said of Faerun - at least, not in general. The reason I do like FR so much is BECAUSE of the detail; it's because you can't just do whatever you want to it without considering all of the minutae of potential changes it might make. I guess that's the Chaos Theorist in me. Since I don't do any regular gaming, Eberron just isn't as appealing to me.
ClobberinTime 09-15-06, 02:27 PM	Here is what I am always tempted by in thinking about playing in eberron: I really like the openly rennaisance level technology Sharn is intriguing! The size and layout of the city are impressive. The last war theme, that the world is recovering from a cataclysm. The detailed politics, and intrigue The agnosticism on the nature of the Gods, and the fact that the religions in eberron are different and cool. No detect evil Shifters! Here is what always scares me away: The Warforged Weird desert elves, whats up with that! dinosaurs, why are there dinosaurs in D+D, out out isle of dread, you mock me. :)
Kid SixXx 09-15-06, 02:52 PM	The difference is that since Faerun does have so much detail (and it gets increasingly more and more!), there's a lot more potential 'ripple effect' to take into consideration. I think of it like a spider web. The lack of detail in Eberron (used as a factual statement, NOT a value judgment!) may make some people more comfortable with adding to it and altering it, because they will be able to more easily handle all of the effects doing so would have. The same cannot be said of Faerun - at least, not in general. I sorta disagree with your analogy, as the purpose of a spider web is to be broken and eventually built again. If there is a ripple or a break in the line, it means that the web is serving the purpose it was intended to (ie. catch prey). Then the web is fixed again in a nearly identical configuration. Good as new & ready to snare something once again. If a spider worried about the minutae of potential changes to the web, the spider would starve. It would be too worried about the aesthetics of the web that it would never use the web to serve its function. Perhaps even so terrified that the web would get messed up that it wouldn't even bother to spin a web in the first place. The proof that a web works is that the spider eats, not that it is symmetrical in shape. You say you don't game much these days, eh? ;) I apologize if my remarks seem snarky, because I am philosophically in violation of Rule One. If your philosophy provides you with enjoyment, then it is not my place to make you feel that your form of enjoyment is incorrect. If I did, then have not provided you with proper courtesy.
GothicDan 09-15-06, 03:09 PM	Notice how my remarks were on the web itself - not necessarily how it's used by the spider. ;) I'm sure a spider would be much happier if it could use its web to catch prey and NOT have to restructure it every time!
Zuj 09-15-06, 03:13 PM	I normally frequent the Eberron boards (in fact this is my first time on the FR ones), but I have been a PC in many long FR Campaigns. I own a little more than half of the 3e/3.5 FR books that are out. I think it is fantastic how much of a legacy the setting has, and the careful amount of detail put into every aspect of it. As a DM I have two players in my group that are HUGE FR buffs. They have read a very large portion of the novels between them, and can recite an intimidating amount of history of the place. For someone who doesn't keep up with the entire mythology and newer novels coming out, it can be difficult running a game for these kinds of people. With Eberron, I feel less restrained. I know a lot of this can be attributed to how new Eberron is, and how the world is in many ways still under development. Nevertheless, it is the fact that it is fresh and new that gives it some of its appeal. There are all kinds of varying nations, factions, and groups to keep any gaming group busy for a very long time (admittedly, a feature that FR shares). I think the main reason why I tend to enjoy an Eberron game more than an FR one is that in Eberron, there are WAY less epic-high level NPC's running around. I think the suspension of belief in FR can become a little stretched sometimes when an enormous threat comes to a certain land and all the other high level Heroes from the setting are "too busy" or "unable" to aid the group or deal with the threat. I'm not saying this is always the case, but in my experience it has happened that way a lot. In Eberron, there are only a handful of good-aligned, statted out NPC's that are above level 10 that I can think. I think it's great how my level 7 fighter can become the leader of an armor are become reknowned as one of the most prominent swordsmen in a nation. I just don't get this same feeling with FR. Anyway, DnD is DnD, and everyone should play in the settings they love the most. I respect everyone who plays FR's opinion, but the past year or so in the the fledgling setting that I enjoy has brought me much more enjoyment that all the time before that spent in the Realms. Given the chance, I would still play in either. And Planescape will always be my #1 favorite ;)
Kid SixXx 09-15-06, 03:34 PM	Notice how my remarks were on the web itself - not necessarily how it's used by the spider. ;) True, but the puropose of the web is not to be a web. ;) It doesn't exist for the purpose of merely existing. If it doesn't ripple and break, it's not very useful. I'm sure a spider would be much happier if it could use its web to catch prey and NOT have to restructure it every time! You're under the assumption that spiders do not enjoy being industrious. ;) And an inflexible web doesn't necessarily lend itself to properly capturing it's intended prey. You cannot make omlettes without breaking eggs. I am beginning to sound like the intro monologue for Full Metal Alchemist (The Alchemical Law of Even Exchange), so I will cut it out now. :yuck: But these variations on the them are closely related on how we seek our enjoyment from our respective settings. We do business in the manner that brings us the most satisfaction, and they don't necessarily have to be identical in order to be correct.
Euangelion 09-15-06, 04:31 PM	Over 20 years ago I bought the Greyhawk boxed set and thought it was the greatest thing in the world (even though rivers flowed uphill at times). 8 years ago FR brought me back to D&D (thank you Baldur's Gate!) 2 years ago Eberron kept me in D&D. It's different because it has to be. It's a natural thing, though, that a certain number of Eberron fans like Eberron simply because it's not FR, for better or worse. So that colors things to a certain degree on the Eberron boards. (By the way, I personally don't recall ever seeing a wild elf bind a fire elemental to a breastplate! ;) )
PoeticJustice 09-15-06, 04:37 PM	I really want to be an FR fan, I just don't know how. I think that' the problem a lot of people have. By contrast, Eberron lacks an intimidating textual legacy. You think Eberron is sort of silly and tacky? Here's a secret: I do too. All Eberron fans do. We get past it to make the game fun, and it is. My problems with Forgotten Realms design: -Even after buying the setting and reading it thoroughly, I still couldn't nail down a good place to start a level one campaign. My experience with Eberron may have impaired my ability to do this, but it's still friggen' hard to make up a relevant dungeon that isn't A)beyond the capabilities of a 1st level party, B)implausibly intact after centuries of industrious adventurers C) In contradiction of something written somewhere, that somebody will point out immediately. -I don't enjoy high level or epic play, which is something that I see as the norm for the Realms. -Statted out NPCs. For example: Manshoon, Szass Tam, and Jarlaxle (among others) all have very distinctive abilities that players expect to see. By contrast, All we know of Vol is that she's a 16 level Half-Dragon Elf Wizard, or that Mordain is a 17 level transmuter. I have more creative breathing room on Eberron than I do in the Realms.
The Ubbergeek 09-15-06, 04:51 PM	-FR is not based on high level gaing or epic. You can do low level as much as Greyhawk. -Same as Greyhawk. There is a lot of uncharted or just not much frequented place. Really, do not let the FR canon frightem you. It's an easily adaptable setting, wich offer much things. Do not let missconceptions overrules your imagination.
GothicDan 09-15-06, 05:10 PM	But these variations on the them are closely related on how we seek our enjoyment from our respective settings. We do business in the manner that brings us the most satisfaction, and they don't necessarily have to be identical in order to be correct. I believe I inferred that in my first post. :)
Dark Wizard 09-15-06, 06:34 PM	I've taken elements from several settings into my own games. Fortunately, the DMs I have played with have done so as well. I have no problems with settings cross-fertilizing each other as long as the crossovers fit. As for the supposed bad blood between the settings. I think it is entirely blown out of proportion. Most fans either don't care (carrying no emotion at all in regards to the division) or they play both, use both, borrow from both. There are only a loud and annoying few who really feel as if they must crusade to rid the world of one or the other. And I personally feel that there are more Eberron fans wishing to do that to FR than FR fans wishing to do that to Eberron. I do not believe it is an entirely biased view either. Eberron is new, most FR fans, even the diehard ones, don't have to care or acknowledge it, the most common negative response appears to be aloofness, with an extreme few skewed towards active attack mode. FR has been around far longer, and admittedly it does have numerous problems whether actual, imagined, or misrepresented (mostly the latter two) that can lead to the ardent FR hate we see sometimes. There are more bad experiences to have been had with FR than Eberron. Heavily edited novels don't help either. It's like watching a 2 hour movie that was supposed to be 4 hours, but much of the flavor and intricacies were cut out, leaving in all the parts where things blow up. And there aren't director's cuts for novels like movies have on DVD. Finally, this is not to say that Eberron is flawless and can't be argued with. I found one consistency problem in the ECS after just a cursory skim, but I'm not about to go around announcing it and using that point to make arguments to bring down Eberron. It's a fantasy setting, it's not a real world, these things happen. I don't think it detracts from the world, even if the entire atmosphere of the setting can theoretically be compromised by it. This is a game, it's supposed to be fun, but fun to some means creating in-groups and out-groups and attacking that out-group untils it's a bleeding pulp. Fortunately, as some have said, and I paraphrase, FR is a thousand pound mutant pit bull. It's going to take a lot more than a few naysayers with inflated arguments to bring it or any setting down.
DoveArrow 09-15-06, 07:32 PM	Personally, I think there are good and bad things about both settings. Forgotten Realms, I think is probably one of the easiest campaign settings to drop just about anything you want into it. You want to use a module designed for Greyhawk, no problem. Just change the names of the gods and go. You want to have samurai and shugenja, not to worry. There's a whole continent called Kara Tur with an Oriental flavor. Honestly, with all of the diverse cultures and lands that Forgotten Realms provides, there's not a lot that the world doesn't support. Nevertheless, I find that Forgotten Realms also has some fatal flaws. First of all, in spite of the fact that the world is massive, it doesnt' feel like it has a lot of room for the PCs. For example, other than the Harpers, there are few organizations that feel PC friendly. It's also a bit frustrating that the biggest city in Faerun, Waterdeep, is so human-centric that there's almost no room for any other race. Finally, it feels like with all of the epic NPCs running around, either the deeds of the PCs are inconsequential by comparison, or they're likely to affect the world in ways that so seriously alter the official campaign setting, that it might as well not even Forgotten Realms anymore. Now Eberron addresses many of the flaws that Forgotten Realms has and does so in some very ingenious ways. First, there aren't any epic heroes running around, so the accomplishments of the PCs (even 1st level PCs) feel pretty fulfilling. Second, there are the dragonmarked houses, which give PCs organizations to belong to that are very much a part of the world, without unnecessarily tying them down to a particular land or region. Finally, the world is a melting pot of races, with no one race necessarily being more prolific than another, so even if you want to play a hobgoblin, there's a place for you that doesn't feel too out of place. Nevertheless, Eberron also has its fatal flaws. First of all, while Eberron is certainly a unique setting, with flying ships, towering cities, distant gods, and blurred alignments, it's awfully hard to adapt anything that isn't tailor made for Eberron. Take, for example, modules like Return to Temple of Elemental Evil and City of the Spider Queen. Because gods are not necessarily even existent, let alone active in the world, it's very hard to adapt these classic. Meanwhile, while many praise the low level feel of Eberron, there's a feeling that the campaign setting has a kind of glass ceiling for how high a level your grunt NPCs can be (usually, it's around 9th level). Finally, while much of the setting is very unique, the gods of the Sovereign Host are very generic. So generic, that there's not a lot to entice players into playing a cleric of the Sovereign Host, let alone a cleric of Dol Arrah. As a result, players a lot of players are a lot less likely to play clerics in Eberron than they would be in other settings (a problem that is not much appreciated by DMs who have a difficult enough time trying to get their players to play clerics anyway). In any case, I think both settings are great (even with their flaws) and I think it's a little silly to try and argue over which one is 'best.' Of course, that's just my :two cents
GothicDan 09-15-06, 07:55 PM	And, of course, one of the biggest parts of 'arguing over which is best,' is that what might be a GOOD thing to one person is absolutely terrible to another! For example, all of the 'flaws' in Dove's above post about FR, I consider to be boons that make FR function more realistically as compared to Eberron. That's NOT to say that I think that Dove's opinion is 'wrong,' it's just something that I feel strongly against. I think a lot of that difference in personal gaming style is what really makes it seem like there's more antagonism between Eberron and FR fans than there actually is. It's on a more abstract, philosophical level - I prefer games in which the PCs are only one facet of a much larger whole - which is why I like Planescape and FR; Eberron feels entirely egocentric to me, which works just fine for 3E's stated gamestyle approach. So, when two people start discussing different aspects of the settings that are so intrinsic to them - BEYOND just the mechanics, which feats/monsters/PrCs are cool - that's where a lot of the heat comes from. It's more a debate of philosophies than specific campaign settings. FR and Eberron just very obviously are meant to appeal to very different crowds, or at least very different mindsets. I like chicken, you like beef. Some people also like chicken AND beef, but not everyone!
Sapp 09-15-06, 10:00 PM	Here's one perspective from one who actively participated in all the hate. I got enthusiastic about suggesting a campaign setting to a NEW DM. I felt that Eberron would be more educational for him. I truly believed that. In those kind of debates, you can't expect everyone to withhold from defending their views, even aggressively. When someone straight out tells you, "You're wrong! FR is not like that!" a lot of people, including myself, who don't mind typing long explanations for why I feel a certain way, WILL respond. I actually don't have anything against FR players. I do however enjoy picking on a few NPCs I don't like. The only thing stopping me from picking on Eberron's NPCs or other aspects I don't like is because I don't particularly like contradicting myself. (And who doesn't enjoy bashing NPCs once in a while?) Some have mentioned "Why not talk about the things you DO like about a setting instead of things you don't like?" Frankly, I think those kind of discussions don't draw intelligent opposition. If I began talking about how I liked the Lords of Dust, most of the opposition I hear, if any at all, will boil down to: "LOL, You like demon k1ttenz?! J00 r da suxx0r2!! Demogorgon pwnxors j00!" When I talk about aspects I DON'T like, I'm flooded by all sorts of good debate from elitists or others confident they can prove me wrong. If so, I learn something I haven't thought of before. Everyone benefits. It wasn't as if I wasn't expecting FR supporters to NOT defend the campaign setting they prefer. Case in point: On the "FR or Eberron?" thread, before I posted the lengthy spiel about what I didn't like about FR, and why the thread-starter should pick Eberron, were there really any constructive posts besides: "Halflings riding Dinosaurs! LOL, Eberron suxxors! I will defend FR to the END!!" (Yeah. Haha. Halflings riding dinosaurs...) "Go with Eberron! You won't be disappointed!" (Explain please?) "No! Eberron has undead worshipping elves! Don't listen to that stoopid Eberron fanboy!" (Is that so?) The thread was worthless and dying fast. I wanted a little more content than that. The thread may have been hateful later on in the thread, but at least people began writing in paragraphs and tried explaining their likes and dislikes. I firmly believe it's more difficult to argue about what you don't like than what you do like, because by default, you are an aggressor and have the inherent disadvantage associated with being the bigot in a debate. I think a lot of people are blowing the FR hate out of proportion, because from what I can see, most of it was coming from ME.
GothicDan 09-15-06, 10:16 PM	Would it be bad if I said that I actively enjoy opposition, debate, and aggressive standpoints being argued? I guess I've just been influenced by Nietzsche too much in that way. ;)
Dark Wizard 09-15-06, 10:47 PM	Personally, I think there are good and bad things about both settings. Would like to second this. First of all, in spite of the fact that the world is massive, it doesnt' feel like it has a lot of room for the PCs. For example, other than the Harpers, there are few organizations that feel PC friendly. I've heard some say there are too many groups in FR, both for good guys and bad guys. On the other hand, the lack of an organization for good PCs, could mean there is a place for PCs to build an organization. That could be a worthwhile goal. First of all, while Eberron is certainly a unique setting, with flying ships, towering cities, distant gods, and blurred alignments, it's awfully hard to adapt anything that isn't tailor made for Eberron. Take, for example, modules like Return to Temple of Elemental Evil and City of the Spider Queen. Because gods are not necessarily even existent, let alone active in the world, it's very hard to adapt these classic. Though at the same time, WotC wants to put everything into Eberron, including niche products like Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic and I'm sure eventually Tome of Battle through a web article. Meanwhile, while many praise the low level feel of Eberron, there's a feeling that the campaign setting has a kind of glass ceiling for how high a level your grunt NPCs can be (usually, it's around 9th level). I think this glass ceiling problem for Eberron and the FR problem of having so many high level characters shows that the company, whether TSR or WotC, keeps forgetting that the core rules allow for levels 1-20, with 20th being world shaking power, basically the pinnacle of mortal ability. Eberron slowly begins to unravel after level 12, when the PCs have already become undisputed heroes and masters of the world. They reach world shaking power 8 levels before the core rules actually account for. FR overcompensates by pushing the power well past ten levels into epic. For example, Elminster used to be a level 26 mage, which wasn't terribly high, but in each edition he keeps getting higher, he's now a 29th level caster with a CR somewhere in the high 30s, unnecessarily powerful. There really doesn't seem to be a middle ground for D&D, unless you count Greyhawk, but they don't publish setting books for that anymore. Finally, while much of the setting is very unique, the gods of the Sovereign Host are very generic. So generic, that there's not a lot to entice players into playing a cleric of the Sovereign Host, let alone a cleric of Dol Arrah. As a result, players a lot of players are a lot less likely to play clerics in Eberron than they would be in other settings (a problem that is not much appreciated by DMs who have a difficult enough time trying to get their players to play clerics anyway). Some really hate the FR deities (their personalities/portfolios) and also the vast number of them. They would prefer a setup similar to Eberron's. I suppose that shows once again that you can't please everyone.
GothicDan 09-15-06, 11:06 PM	There really doesn't seem to be a middle ground for D&D, unless you count Greyhawk, but they don't publish setting books for that anymore. Something I'm trying to work on in my own world. ;) The primary source of arcanists - from a unified magocratic empire - has over the course of several thousand years churned out few enough Epic casters such that each of them has effectively had a major influence on the culture as a whole. Each one has a religious cult/school of philosophy in an otherwise atheistic nation (sort of like the hero cults of Greece, only magical). I think, while it's only right that there be a greater number of archmages than other classes in a setting that's been magically established for 35,000 years, that the publishers did go overboard with FR. This may have been in large part due to TSR once again trying to 'hodge-podge' things rather than expand on and use existing lore and NPCs. "Well, we need an ancient, powerful necromancer.... Let's just make one up! *Bam, another 24th level NE lich necromancer.*" ... This sort of pattern is sort of why I'm against just plopping things down willy-nilly in ANY campaign setting without considering the overall effects it might have. :)
Sapp 09-15-06, 11:06 PM	I think this glass ceiling problem for Eberron and the FR problem of having so many high level characters shows that the company, whether TSR or WotC, keeps forgetting that the core rules allow for levels 1-20, with 20th being world shaking power, basically the pinnacle of mortal ability. Eberron slowly begins to unravel after level 12, when the PCs have already become undisputed heroes and masters of the world. They reach world shaking power 8 levels before the core rules actually account for. FR overcompensates by pushing the power well past ten levels into epic. For example, Elminster used to be a level 26 mage, which wasn't terribly high, but in each edition he keeps getting higher, he's now a 29th level caster with a CR somewhere in the high 30s, unnecessarily powerful. There really doesn't seem to be a middle ground for D&D, unless you count Greyhawk, but they don't publish setting books for that anymore. That's a common misunderstanding of Eberron because most of the material is Khorvaire-centric. The FR's world-shaking powers are on the loose. They run amok. Keith Baker worked hard to contain any possibly world-shakers... to the point where it almost feels gimmicky. Every threat that might have threatened 'normal life' on Eberron is contained, so it's up to NPCs (the DM) to release them one-by-one to scale the setting according to the PCs growth. If the PCs left Khorvaire to go to Sarlona or Xen'drik and tried to pull that "We own this place" deal they have going with Khorvaire? They'd get their asses handed to them. Similarly, if the Overlords bound in Khyber were released, would be unstoppable. Barring FR's overuse of divine intervention, the Overlords, as statted by Mr. Baker himself, would even be unstoppable in the Realms (even with Elminster and the Seven Sisters). They are literally immortal, even more so than the FR deities, who rely on worship for their power. Their imprisonment is plot related and up to the DM to decide how they could be bound. So it's not that Eberron is low powered. It simply starts off that way and scales with the PCs, rather than throwing them into a world already populated by 13th level clerics and wizards. Finally, while much of the setting is very unique, the gods of the Sovereign Host are very generic. So generic, that there's not a lot to entice players into playing a cleric of the Sovereign Host, let alone a cleric of Dol Arrah. As a result, players a lot of players are a lot less likely to play clerics in Eberron than they would be in other settings (a problem that is not much appreciated by DMs who have a difficult enough time trying to get their players to play clerics anyway).Some really hate the FR deities (their personalities/portfolios) and also the vast number of them. They would prefer a setup similar to Eberron's. I suppose that shows once again that you can't please everyone. That's another misconception. The Sovereign Host is simply the Pantheon of the most popular religion in Khorvaire. Their popularity end there. The setting simply gives players the freedom to worship whatever the Hell they want. I've seen plenty of cleric devoted to Khyber, Syberis, and Eberron itself. A cleric could literally worship Elan's "Banjo" if the player TRULY wanted to and the PC TRULY believed in it. Some people might not like that. On the FR... I for one like Shar, and hope she is successful in assassinating most of the Faerunian pantheon. Mystra, the neutral good tyrant of magic, really needs to go. It really bothered me that everytime I played an arcane caster in the FR, I had to pay my respect to a nosy, interventionist, [supposedly] Neutral Good goddess... one which I very much hated. It was especially a thorn in my side because I enjoy playing casters/manifesters. It doesn't help that she is described as allowing arcane villains to continue using magic only on her whim. Larloch HAS to benefit the PCs to garner Mystra's support. Same with Daurgothoth. The only reason Mystra's Justice League haven't opposed him yet is because he's conducting research for her. NOTE: I obviously am presenting this as an opinion. So don't take it too personally if you think Mystra is one of the best features of the Realms, Ok? I like the freedom offered by Eberron. I don't like the Host. I will not make a cleric devoted to them, and I'm glad the setting doesn't force me to. Since I DO like some of the gods of the FR, I will take them and incorporate them into Eberron when I can. It's not hard to fit Shar into the Dark Six. They were purposely left abstract with names such as "The Shadow", "The Keeper", etc. Or perhaps she is a goddess of the drow/Xen'drik.
Majorafire77 09-15-06, 11:20 PM	As to the Eberron versions of the "standard" races? Hate, hate, hate them. Far too many of them are either "I want to play an eeeevviiillll PC in an ordinary party without actually having to roleplay" or just "let's take some race, file off anything that made them interesting, and slap on some sort of generic 'opposite' to the way they usually act! AWESOME, RIGHT?!?" Well, just because alignments are more realistic in Eberron than in FR (evil people can do good things and vice versa) doesn't mean that you don't need to roleplay when you're an evil PC. That argument has nothing to do with Eberron races anyway. As for how you say Eberron slaps on an opposite to the way races usually act, I'm quite confused. Is it really that bad that orcs, goblinoids, and other "monsters" with a supposedly high intelligence aren't acting like mindless brutes on random mountaintops like they do in FR? BTW, please remind me how many subraces of elves there are in FR. I lost count a while ago. I hate, hate, hate the "drow" of Eberron. You're not drow, you're Wild Elves with black skin. Get ****ing over yourselves. So maybe drow in Eberron act like your "wild elves" with black skin. That's Eberron, not FR.
Lord Karsus 09-15-06, 11:31 PM	-Why can't we all get along, and bash on Dragonlance, or something? Nah, bashing isn't fun...
Sapp 09-15-06, 11:35 PM	As to the Eberron versions of the "standard" races? Hate, hate, hate them. Far too many of them are either "I want to play an eeeevviiillll PC in an ordinary party without actually having to roleplay" or just "let's take some race, file off anything that made them interesting, and slap on some sort of generic 'opposite' to the way they usually act! AWESOME, RIGHT?!?" That has a lot more to do with the alignment system than it does with any one setting. ... and the maturity of a playgroup, of course. If a playgroup is going into Eberron simply because they can play a lawful good cleric that randomly slaughters innocents without repercussions? Yeah. Maturity of playgroup.
The Ubbergeek 09-15-06, 11:45 PM	And there is how that kind of thread start to slide to, when fanboys come and wage war.... Personaly, I dislike Eberron's agnostism. Why it could not be interesting if the gods are there for sure but without being aloof, just leaving motals act first and all? Also, about Mystra, she have rules. Even gods are rules. If she act goody too much, AO will not be happy.
Always-Late 09-15-06, 11:46 PM	As to the Eberron versions of the "standard" races? Hate, hate, hate them. Far too many of them are either "I want to play an eeeevviiillll PC in an ordinary party without actually having to roleplay" or just "let's take some race, file off anything that made them interesting, and slap on some sort of generic 'opposite' to the way they usually act! AWESOME, RIGHT?!?"Yeah, I know! Elves that aren't the arrogant high race of uber-elder heritage! Drow that don't use a spider-dominated hierarchy of uber-dressed up assassination of everyone who has their back turned! Gnomes that are a highly deadly threat! Haflings that ride dinosaurs! Orcs and goblins who do things besides run sack towns and ravage civilizations in their free time! Dragons that don't sit in caves or meddle in the affairs mortals all day! Half-elves that really have no concept of having "no home culture!" The list of stuff that isn't identical to everything else in FR and Greyhawk goes on, and on, and on, and on and on. ITS PRETTY AWESOME!!!!! I mean, no goblin or orc was ever good aligned, and there was never a corrupt church member - or, pantheon-of-gods-for-everything help us, a non-evil red dragon! "What? You want to play an orc? You know, I really HATE people who make evil characters in good campaigns just to backstab everyone! What's that? You were actually interested in making a non-evil orc? You filthy liar! The only thing I hate more than a backstabber is a liar! GET OUT OF MY HOUSE!"
Sapp 09-15-06, 11:47 PM	BTW, please remind me how many subraces of elves there are in FR. I lost count a while ago. While I don't like the Elvish subraces, some people do, and as much as the overused saying goes ("Everything has a place in Eberron!"), not everything does. (Too often, it's misinterpreted as "Everything MUST BELONG in Eberron!") Mr. Baker, in fact, explicitly discourages too many elvish subraces. The world is only 10 million of years old or so, and the Elves actually are relatively new even in comparison to the world. They were primitive animals until tens of thousands of years ago. Elves have a millenial lifespan, so they are unlikely to evolve that much over the span of a several dozen millennia. It would be the equivalent of humans having evolved into gray humans, sun humans, wood humans, etc, etc, each with HUGE attribute differences, within the past several millennia. The most notable example is between Aerenal and Valenar elves. A lot of people argued that they should have different racial stats. Mr Baker explicitly argued that they shouldn't because the differences are cultural rather than genetic. While Mr. Baker is flexible, we can't deny that he [i]discourages rampant subraces. FR encourages them. A lot of FR players actually like that. They enjoy the free attribute bonuses. Same with a lot of things. Half-Dragons. Have fun explaining that template without being the slave to a powerful, influential Evil wyrm, or being exterminated in an instant. So Eberron isn't as 'open' as some may believe. So if mass subraces and draconic templates are what FR fans enjoy, I can't argue against them. They are difficult to incorporate into Eberron's design/history.
Sapp 09-15-06, 11:49 PM	And there is how that kind of thread start to slide to, when fanboys come and wage war.... I'm not trying to wage war. I'm addressing many of the issues raised about Eberron. I'm only mentioning FR because it happens to be something people on this forum can relate to. And here is one of the issues you raised yourself: Personaly, I dislike Eberron's agnostism. Why it could not be interesting if the gods are there for sure but without being aloof, just leaving motals act first and all? See that's the thing. If you want them to be "there but aloof" they CAN be. Your own beliefs don't have to intrude on your fellow players'. Also, about Mystra, she have rules. Even gods are rules. If she act goody too much, AO will not be happy. Not according to pretty much every book, article, and source material out there. She's goofy very often, and Ao never interferes.
Lord Karsus 09-16-06, 12:01 AM	I mean, no goblin or orc was ever good aligned, -There was that good-aligned goblin in one of RAS' short stories in the Realms of X series. and there was never a corrupt church member - -During the Time of Troubles, the Tormite high-priest of Tantras was terribly corrupt. or, pantheon-of-gods-for-everything help us, -If it is a concept, then it needs to be represented through a deity of some sort. That is the entire purpose of deities in a fantasy setting. a non-evil red dragon! -Garnet, a hero during the Weeping War, was a good Red Dragon. Mr. Baker, in fact, explicitly discourages too many elvish subraces. The world is only 10 million of years old or so, and the Elves actually are relatively new even in comparison to the world. They were primitive animals until tens of thousands of years ago. Elves have a millenial lifespan, so they are unlikely to evolve that much over the span of a several dozen millennia. It would be the equivalent of humans having evolved into gray humans, sun humans, wood humans, etc, etc, each with HUGE attribute differences, within the past several millennia. -Remember that different Elven subraces were created by different members of the Seldarine, and did not evolve. For example, Avariel were created by Aerdrie Faenya, Aquatic Elves created by Deep Saleshas, and so on. Also, though new to Toril, Elves thrived on the plane of Faerie for who knows how long. If evolution did ever happen (though I doubt that it did, due to their Elven nature), it took place on Faerie, and not Toril.
GothicDan 09-16-06, 12:05 AM	... And so now is the time for the Eberron-fans to come in and throw up sensationalistic defenses where none are really needed. Wow. To both groups: do any of you really think that you have a real knowledge of what the setting's about? I seem to see both sides stating things out of ignorance - or at least out of ignorance of the fact that other people can dislike or like something WITHOUT EITHER SIDE BEING WRONG, and it's not pretty. Alignments in FR are just as grey as they are in Eberron. What -I- don't like about Eberron races? Is them putting 'spins' on standard races. I would rather they had made only new races, rather than simply stripping the culture from existing ones and slapping on new ones. That feels way too Anti-Paladinish to me. And that's really an opinion that isn't based on my knowledge of the setting at all, other than the fact that I KNOW that the cultures of the stereotypical races there are markedly different. The very reason why I scrapped my own first campaign setting was because I felt it was hokey to just plop in elves/orcs/dwarves/etc. and try to fit them artificially with cultures they weren't designed for. That's why I've made all new ones for my current world.
Sapp 09-16-06, 12:05 AM	-Remember that different Elven subraces were created by different members of the Seldarine, and did not evolve. For example, Avariel were created by Aerdrie Faenya, Aquatic Elves created by Deep Saleshas, and so on. Also, though new to Toril, Elves thrived on the plane of Faerie for who knows how long. If evolution did ever happen (though I doubt that it did, due to their Elven nature), it took place on Faerie, and not Toril. This is where a lot of antagonism comes from. I did NOT refer to FR in that. I was explicitly mentioning Eberron's history/design. NOT FR's! So while Elvish subraces can be logical in the Realms, they are NOT so in Eberron. Please don't see that as a veiled stab against the Realms.
Lord Karsus 09-16-06, 12:13 AM	This is where a lot of antagonism comes from. I did NOT refer to FR in that. I was explicitly mentioning Eberron's history/design. NOT FR's! So while Elvish subraces can be logical in the Realms, they are NOT so in Eberron. Please don't see that as a veiled stab against the Realms. -Still fits into Eberron, though I don't know anything about the setting. Like I said before, the Elven deities created many of the Elven subraces. No need for evolution, or anything natural like that. So, for a Aquatic Elven settlers to settle somewhere in the seas of Eberronland sometime makes sense. For a group of Avariel to migrate to Eberronland from where ever again makes sense. I don't know if said subraces already exist, but to incorporate them with said theories on why they are there makes sense.
Always-Late 09-16-06, 12:15 AM	-There was that good-aligned goblin in one of RAS' short stories in the Realms of X series. -During the Time of Troubles, the Tormite high-priest of Tantras was terribly corrupt. -If it is a concept, then it needs to be represented through a deity of some sort. That is the entire purpose of deities in a fantasy setting. -Garnet, a hero during the Weeping War, was a good Red Dragon.Okay, I admit, I went over the top and demonstrated my ignorance because my experience with FR knowledge is limited to reading a couple timelines, a half-dozen novels, and a couple splatbooks. In my defense, I was replying to a guy who decided that everything in Eberron was a generic opposite of the way it was supposed to be and that the non-evil goblins and orcs were designed so that people who wanted to play evil characters in good campaigns could run in and wreck them, and then some random comment about how Eberron drow weren't drow because they weren't FR drow. Yes, just for the record, I have met kettle. ([[EDIT]] - I'd contest the diety statement, but that's a matter of taste.)
Dark Wizard 09-16-06, 12:19 AM	The FR's world-shaking powers are on the loose. They run amok. Keith Baker worked hard to contain any possibly world-shakers... to the point where it almost feels gimmicky. Every threat that might have threatened 'normal life' on Eberron is contained, so it's up to NPCs (the DM) to release them one-by-one to scale the setting according to the PCs growth. ... So it's not that Eberron is low powered. It simply starts off that way and scales with the PCs, rather than throwing them into a world already populated by 13th level clerics and wizards. Like you said, to you it's almost gimmicky. To me it's entirely gimmicky, but I don't think that's necessarily bad. It's the way the world works and it helps the DM scale the world to the world. FR is sort of the opposite, like in the real world, threats are everywhere, the characters have to scale to the various problems in the world. You could see that as gimmicky, PCs never meet anything that wipes them out, but then again that there are no guarantees that PCs will survive. Just like you said in Eberron, if PCs dig too deep into places they shouldn't be, they probably won't live to return home. NOTE: I obviously am presenting this as an opinion. So don't take it too personally if you think Mystra is one of the best features of the Realms, Ok? Honestly, I don't think many of the FR designers liked Mystra being written up as neutral Good, thus her current Ao enforced lawful neutral stance, a sloppy near retcon. Which brings up another point, Ao was added in and many don't like him either. The designers had to "undo" Ao in later sourcebooks. People have officially put a lot of junk into FR that doesn't belong there, a large reason why the current setting seems like it's all over the place. Well, just because alignments are more realistic in Eberron than in FR (evil people can do good things and vice versa) doesn't mean that you don't need to roleplay when you're an evil PC. I wouldn't say that. Though that's far too complex to get into here. The problem lies in the default D&D alignment system more than anything else. That has a lot more to do with the alignment system than it does with any one setting. ... and the maturity of a playgroup, of course. If a playgroup is going into Eberron simply because they can play a lawful good cleric that randomly slaughters innocents without repurcussions? Yeah. Maturity of playgroup. Agreed. With good players you can have a good game in just about any setting. I think the D&D alignment system needs overhauling.
Sapp 09-16-06, 12:20 AM	-Still fits into Eberron, though I don't know anything about the setting. Like I said before, the Elven deities created many of the Elven subraces. No need for evolution, or anything natural like that. So, for a Aquatic Elven settlers to settle somewhere in the seas of Eberronland sometime makes sense. For a group of Avariel to migrate to Eberronland from where ever again makes sense. I don't know if said subraces already exist, but to incorporate them with said theories on why they are there makes sense. I suppose they could. I was simply pointing out that not everything that FR has to offer can fit into Eberron. For example, slaying gods works a lot better in FR than in Eberron and Ravenloft. While I dislike that concept, I do have fond memories of 1st Edition, when players gathered around the table to roll some dice to determine which god we were going to slay next. I can understand why some people would want that. That isn't possible in Eberron because the gods are unlikely to be statted anytime soon. Sure, we can make up our own stats for the supposed gods of Eberron, but it's not as convenient as simply buying Demigods and Deities or Faiths and Pantheons, you know? Same with the winged, sun, wood, etc elves... Their ecology and history are described for you in the FR. Not so in Eberron, and it's actually a painful task if you want to incorporate them without contradicting a lot of what is already existent.
Lord Karsus 09-16-06, 12:27 AM	Sure, we can make up our own stats for the supposed gods of Eberron, but it's not as convenient as simply buying Demigods and Deities or Faiths and Pantheons, you know? -Deities shouldn't be statted, if you ask me. Because, if they are, then people start trying to kill them. It's horrible, let me tell you... Same with the winged, sun, wood, etc elves... Their ecology and history are described for you in the FR. Not so in Eberron, and it's actually a painful task if you want to incorporate them without contradicting a lot of what is already existent. -Avariel, Lythari, Sun Elves, Moon Elves, and so on, don't neccesarily have to be used. But, the idea that Elves are created somewhere else, and "move in" is what can be used. While the Realms got these Elves, Eberronland could have Desert Elves, Lunar Elves, Flaming Elves, and whatever, so long as the story about them getting there makes sense, you know?
Dark Wizard 09-16-06, 12:30 AM	A lot of FR fans have protested the published stats for the FR gods as well. The history and set up of the gods makes them impossible to slay by mortal means, unfortunately this is not reflected in the rules for FR. The Time of Troubles was an extraordinary event. In my opinion heavy handed with the whole Ao thing. There aren't as many differences between Eberron and FR as people think, especially between what the players want. FR just has far more company-side screw ups. I suppose they could. I was simply pointing out that not everything that FR has to offer can fit into Eberron. For example, slaying gods works a lot better in FR than in Eberron and Ravenloft. While I dislike that concept, I do have fond memories of 1st Edition, when players gathered around the table to roll some dice to determine which god we were going to slay next. I can understand why some people would want that. That isn't possible in Eberron because the gods are unlikely to be statted anytime soon. Sure, we can make up our own stats for the supposed gods of Eberron, but it's not as convenient as simply buying Demigods and Deities or Faiths and Pantheons, you know? Same with the winged, sun, wood, etc elves... Their ecology and history are described for you in the FR. Not so in Eberron, and it's actually a painful task if you want to incorporate them without contradicting a lot of what is already existent.
Sapp 09-16-06, 12:40 AM	Like you said, to you it's almost gimmicky. To me it's entirely gimmicky, but I don't think that's necessarily bad. It's the way the world works and it helps the DM scale the world to the world. FR is sort of the opposite, like in the real world, threats are everywhere, the characters have to scale to the various problems in the world. You could see that as gimmicky, PCs never meet anything that wipes them out, but then again that there are no guarantees that PCs will survive. Just like you said in Eberron, if PCs dig too deep into places they shouldn't be, they probably won't live to return home. Yes, they both are gimmicky in a way. I'm not trying to convert FR players or try to convince them that their setting was terrible. Note that most of my enthusiasm only came from the context of the other thread "What setting do you recommend for a new DM?" I truly believed Eberron would be superior because of the control it gives to the DM, without resorting to divine intervention. If you like having rampant gods and borderline-mortal overpowers walking among ordinary mortals, that's fine. It feels healthier for a new DM to try to ignore them, rather than have them readily available as tempting plot devices (or DMPCs). (Elminster should not be a Deus ex Machina. Neither should the gods for that matter. I encourage newer DMs to use their own creativity.) You at least understand why I'd suggest Eberron to a newer DM, right? Honestly, I don't think many of the FR designers liked Mystra being written up as neutral Good, thus her current Ao enforced lawful neutral stance, a sloppy near retcon. Which brings up another point, Ao was added in and many don't like him either. The designers had to "undo" Ao in later sourcebooks. People have officially put a lot of junk into FR that doesn't belong there, a large reason why the current setting seems like it's all over the place. Well, it's not just that she's neutral good. It's the fact that practically all of the high powered, arcane villains of the setting are mentioned in articles, sourcebooks, or novels as having some implicit deal with Mystra just so they can keep using the Weave. It's infuriating. So if I were to properly play an arcane caster, I'd be forced to pay my respects to HER? Regardless of my PCs personality? (However, your points are duly noted, and I'll not hold the rest of FR responsible for Mystra.) That said, as I said before, there are some gods I do like. Tempus and Shar, for example. War feels very Chaotic Neutral, and it helps that he looks cool. Nihilistic ninja goddesses are just cool in general.
Dark Wizard 09-16-06, 01:00 AM	Yes, they both are gimmicky in a way. I'm not trying to convert FR players or try to convince them that their setting was terrible. Note that most of my enthusiasm only came from the context of the other thread "What setting do you recommend for a new DM?" I truly believed Eberron would be superior because of the control it gives to the DM, without resorting to divine intervention. If you like having rampant gods and borderline-mortal overpowers walking among ordinary mortals, that's fine. It feels healthier for a new DM to try to ignore them, rather than have them readily available as tempting plot devices (or DMPCs). (Elminster should not be a Deus ex Machina. Neither should the gods for that matter. I encourage newer DMs to use their own creativity.) You at least understand why I'd suggest Eberron to a newer DM, right? I understand, I can even say I agree with it. Eberron seems like it would be easier for new DMs to run just from the fact that there aren't as many sourcebooks around dating back 20 years. Though all of us can see how these threads can get out of hand very easily. It is difficult for a fan of a setting to see it getting trashed without responding in some way, even if the thread and opposing answer were well meaning. Well, it's not just that she's neutral good. It's the fact that practically all of the high powered, arcane villains of the setting are mentioned in articles, sourcebooks, or novels as having some implicit deal with Mystra just so they can keep using the Weave. It's infuriating. So if I were to properly play an arcane caster, I'd be forced to pay my respects to HER? Regardless of my PCs personality? I guess I just don't see FR in that light, but that's just me. I'm prefer to see it as a necessary evil, or rather a necessary good. Just like a good aligned sailor would pray and make offerings to Umberlee before making a sea journey. The character doesn't like it, but does it to applease a force of nature, which in FR magic is. Again, I do see how some can see it as heavy handed, it's not helped by the various novels where Mystra and her follower's role is overexposed. If more of Mystra and her people were left unused, undetailed or just hinted at, it would probably be easier to work with. That said, as I said before, there are some gods I do like. Tempus and Shar, for example. War feels very Chaotic Neutral, and it helps that he looks cool. Nihilistic ninja goddesses are just cool in general. I do think Tempus doesn't get enough attention, especially for a world with so many armed conflicts. On the other hand, I think Shar lost some of her mystique with the moves and plots of hers that the designers and authors made overt. I think a nihilistic goddess of secrets is far scarier when no one knows what she's up to. It also gives the DM more space to develop things for their own games.
Sapp 09-16-06, 01:00 AM	-Deities shouldn't be statted, if you ask me. Because, if they are, then people start trying to kill them. It's horrible, let me tell you... Actually, I don't mind that they are statted. I actually like it in some ways. If my playgroup ever wants to relive 1st Edition hack-fests, the book is readily available to us. However, I still fully acknowledge what statted deities encourages: mindless [possibly fun] hack-fests. Deities will RARELY (if EVER) be run or even described to their full capacity, even by the most intelligent DMs. That a deity was ever slain in a campaign simply means that the DM threw logical, critical thinking out the window. That is why while I don't mind the stats are there, I can still see how they are detrimental to the development of a newer DM, and I'd never recommend a newer DM to buying Faiths and Pantheons, and simply encourage them to get the older editions' info on the Faerunian Pantheon.
Francius 09-16-06, 01:11 AM	Eberron is not exactly any fantasy medieval fan's first choice for a campaign world... Actually,it's not even 4th or 5th choice for that matter. Had I been in the need for a new setting besides the Forgotten Realms I'd go for Dragonlance,Planescape,Greyhawk,DarkSun, Mystara or otherwise a world with a pure medieval feeling meshed with the fantasy and mythical flavor the D&D game system provides. Eberron consists of a world somehow past medieval times and some say even past rennaisance and closer to the 16th century when compared to our own planet earth's history. It concerns works set in that past, or a world resembling that past, in which modern technological paradigms occurred earlier in history, but were accomplished via the science already present in that time period. That being said,it's much like watching wild-wild west (Smithy's pellicle) but without guns and with a middle europe feeling(thus not so west like). I hands down find the above setting's elements not adaptable to the FRealms world even if someone tries to shape them - but then they wouldn't be Eberron's elemnts,they would have a new shape. So no,it's difficult to locate some of Eberron's elements and incorporate them in a Forgotten Realms setting. I possess Eberron's campaign setting.I bought it after participating on many debates of FRealms vs the aforementioned world just to have a clearer idea when comparing the two settings.With a very few exceptions(flying ships resembling those of Halruaa among others)I didn't find anything in that book that would move my interest to run a rpg session with that world. Eberron simply doesn't stand for what I seek in a medieval campaign world.Its size is also very small compared to what I am used to.And in the speficic case of campaign worlds (and,well, concerning some other things in life too - just ask the ladies) ,you bet that SIZE MATTERS.Then go and add the amount of detail and finesse quality the FRealms do possess,it's only an understatement that Eberron failed to catch my interest. Perhaps a new setting is on the shelves of WOTC as an alternative to the established FRealms?...although I doubt any other setting will ever match its grand scope.
Sapp 09-16-06, 01:20 AM	I possess Eberron's campaign setting.I bought it after participating on many debates of FRealms vs the aforementioned world just to have a clearer idea when comparing the two settings.With a very few exceptions(flying ships resembling those of Halruaa among others)I didn't find anything in that book that would move my interest to run a rpg session with that world.WHY? Why did you buy a book JUST for a debate? Debating is fun and all, but ... oh whatever. I hope you find some use out of your purchase. Anyway, you don't have to use the setting. WizO_Paradox is advocating simply taking parts you like and incorporating into your own campaign. You should at least try, since you spent money on it. I disagreed with the idea that it's easy to incorporate ideas from another setting into your own though. It takes some thought, to say the least, to maintain consistency and coherence. So on that point, I'm probably on your side.
Imruphel 09-16-06, 01:41 AM	I want to thank quite a few of you for reminding me why I rarely read these boards. Why can't this thread be about the original topic: porting ideas from Eberron to FR?
Francius 09-16-06, 01:41 AM	WHY? Why did you buy a book JUST for a debate? Debating is fun and all, but ... oh whatever. I hope you find some use out of your purchase. First and foremost your question would be best answered by advising you to mind your own business but since I'm quite sure you 'll do,know then that I 'm a long time D&D player/collector who owns almost every D&D campaign setting book or boxed set pubblished since 2nd edition. If I hadn't bought the Eberron CS then I wouldn't know or couldn't tell if that world was interesting or not to play in or in general just what it had to offer in order to obtain some of my attention.My move of buying it was only motivated by curiosity. I didn't find much use for it, though that folgore train was indeed bizzare... Anyway, you don't have to use the setting. WizO_Paradox is advocating simply taking parts you like and incorporating into your own campaign. You should at least try, since you spent money on it.. You don't have to inform me about that,although I thank you for your suggestion. I disagreed with the idea that it's easy to incorporate ideas from another setting into your own though. It takes some thought, to say the least, to maintain consistency and coherence. So on that point, I'm probably on your side. Yeah,me too. Especially since the two campaigns in question are that much different and separated form each other by feeling,racial,interest,detail,size,qual ity,quantity,history and character story issues.
Francius 09-16-06, 01:49 AM	I want to thank quite a few of you for reminding me why I rarely read these boards. Why can't this thread be about the original topic: porting ideas from Eberron to FR? If you're a regular on some of these forums or if you happen to visit some generic forums at all sometimes,you'd then know that almost always threads flex a tad bit over their initial topic and guess what:it's only natural.It happens 9 out of 10 times. We're not at school here.This is not English composition writing time(or whatever name you give to the class during which you have to develop a given subject in written form and usually detracting your essay from it gives you an "F").
Dark Wizard 09-16-06, 02:02 AM	I want to thank quite a few of you for reminding me why I rarely read these boards. Why can't this thread be about the original topic: porting ideas from Eberron to FR? Anything that involves the terms FR and Eberron in the same thread, let alone the same post will result in a progression similar to this. Saying that, I think this has been very civil. Also if you will notice, most of the posters, despite getting caught up in the usual Eberron vs FR discussion, have express their thoughts on the original topic. I will add. I'm not a big fan of the zeppelin style airship like the type sourcebooks depict Halruaa using. That type seems like something the gnomes or the Gondsmen of Lantan would make, technology supplemented with magic. I like the elemental bounded airships of Eberron with the fiery ring. I feel it has a more "magical" design which fits the Haluraan/Netherese descendant theme. I like action points, I don't see a major problem adding them to FR. Probably makes the whole game work more like FR should with a "tilt" factor in the right spots. The item creation feats from Eberron are probably some of the most interesting I've seen in a while. Inspired me to write up a gnome wizard in FR focusing on item creation over metamagic.
Sapp 09-16-06, 02:09 AM	I like action points, I don't see a major problem adding them to FR. Probably makes the whole game work more like FR should with a "tilt" factor in the right spots. I highly recommend action points. That is one thing that has nothing to do with culture and history. It's almost 100% a game mechanic. It can easily fly from the Eberron setting into FR. It could help allay the feeling of insignifance and upstaging some players might resent. And it sets an explicit divide between the PCs ("stars of the show") and the NPCs (possibly DMPCs). The tone is also fitting. For SOME reason, despite the fact that there are so many level 10+ spellcasters running around, the PCs are still special and have a place in the world, and aren't drowned out by the madness. That reason, in game, is that they are the heroes. Outside the game, that reason is that action points sets them apart. I think it has a good psychological effect on the players.
dragonfriend 09-16-06, 03:30 AM	I'm a huge FR fan&DM, I'm also a Eberron DM. I like a lot of both setting. I used warforged as the new cityguards of Mintar at the end of my last campaign. They were created by the lich Gloran Galleos (see EotSS). I like the fact that Eberron is a known world while FR is only a continent or, at least half detailed world in 2e. long live both
wolfdog0929 09-16-06, 04:23 AM	To solve some of your problem, just use an incarnate Construct Template from the Savage Speices Book. It basically is where a wizard has breathed life into a golem for some reason and is now flesh and blood. On another note, the Red Wizards might have created the War Forged but would not have even bothered to try to make them sentient, its not in thier interest merchant wise to want free thinking beings like that around. Perfect example is them making the Wood Golem archer things, they mass produce them to sell, customers want toys that point and shoot with no chance of saying no I dont want to.
Ripe 09-16-06, 11:35 AM	So if I were to properly play an arcane caster, I'd be forced to pay my respects to HER? Regardless of my PCs personality? I'd like to point out that paying your respect to some deity and actually worshiping that deity are two different things. You'd worsip only one deity, but throughout your life you'd pay your respect to most other deities [evil deities might not be happy about that, but in general they won't activelly discourage the practice]. For example... A farmer would worship Chauntea [NG godess of agriculture], but he would still pay his respect to Beshaba [CE godess of misfortune] to ward off bad luck, Auril [NE godess of winter] so she does not send sleet that would destroy his crop, Talona [CE godess of disease] so she don't send disease to his crop, etc. A sailor would worship Valkur [CG god of sailors] but would still pay his respect to Umberlee [CE godess of oceans and seas]. Also, one of the common ritual following childbirth in FR is to pay respect to both Tymora [CG godess of luck] and Beshaba [CE godess of misfortune] so that kid would have good luck in his life. In your arcane casters case you'd probably worship Azuth [LN god of spellcasters], Savras [LN god of Diviners], or Velsharoon [NE god of Necromancers] but you'd still pay your respect to Mystra [NG godess of Magic] for letting you use her body to cast spells. [I used only Azuth, Savras and Velsharoon in the example because they are most natural selection for arcane caster, but your character could worship any other deity]. Unless of course you worship one of the deities who activelly oppose Mystra [Bane, Cyric, Shar].
Euangelion 09-16-06, 12:08 PM	To clarify a point about the agnostic nature of the deities in Eberron, it isn't that all beings worshipped as gods are distant. Certain entities that are centers of worship, are very much real and involved in the affairs of the world, namely the Silver Flame (the collective essense of thousands of coualts who sacrificed their material existence in order to bind within Khyber-Eberron's Underdark- powerful fiends with divine ranks )and the Undying Court (deathless elves who guide the nation of Aerenal). On top of that, if a DM likes their deities to be more directly involved in the affairs of the world, it makes little difference crunch-wise to have the Sovereign Host and the Dark Six to be "more real." There might be Eberron purists on the boards who shake their finger at it, but hey, they're not playing in that campaign, so who cares what they think! There was a big hubbub on the Eberron boards when the cover of Races of Eberron was changed on the Amazon pages from an "Eberron-style" cover to a "Races of-style" cover (especially when Races of Faerun was definately a FR book!). Many were upset that the book wasn't an official Eberron book. But that decision underscores WOTC's desire that the material in Eberron be available to all DMs, not just to ones running an Eberron campaign. On top of that MMIII includes the changelings, shifters, and warforged (even adding two more varieties of warforged!) In short, flexibility seems to be the name of the game for Eberron. Take what you want for your FR campaign, and if you like FR-style drow but want to run an Eberron campaign, then simply switch them in or make them another of the many different drow cultures, Lloth (she could simply be one of those fiends with divine ranks I mentioned earlier) and all, even if it makes certain Eberron fans faint from the fright of the spectacle.
DoveArrow 09-16-06, 01:09 PM	I want to thank quite a few of you for reminding me why I rarely read these boards. Why can't this thread be about the original topic: porting ideas from Eberron to FR? You know, I didn't even realize that was the original intent of the thread. My bad. :P In any case, I'm going to rectify that mistake right now. One thing that our group has translated over from Eberron into Forgotten Realms is action points. Can't get enough of them. I think it comes down to something one of my friends said about a Kishi Charger I was playing in FR. "When you're playing your character, you want to imagine that when he looks up into the tree and sees the goblin with the giant rock that he's about to drop on you, that he will deftly step to the side, draw his sword and attack, rather than tripping, getting hit with the rock and be pinned for the rest of the combat." Call it cheesy, but action points make it more likely that a character will make that death defying move and become the amazing character that the player always imagined. Now for Forgotten Realms, one thing I've thought about translating over to Eberron is a lot of the stuff about the yuan-ti from Serpent Kingdoms. I just think that book has some amazing stuff in it, like the sarrukh and the whole chapter on the yuan-ti. In fact, I think it would be very cool to take a lot of what's in that book, move it to Xen'drik and run a yuan-ti campaign. With Eberron's blurred alignments, it wouldn't even have to be an evil campaign. Just plop a neutral yuan-ti city into the middle of the jungles and away you go. Now some people in my group have thought about moving the artificer over from Eberron into Forgotten Realms. I think that's fine, if the DM wants to do it. However, my opinion is, even though it might fit into Lantan, or something like that, the artificer class has such a nineteenth century locomotive engineer feel to it, that I just don't think it fits well in Forgotten Realms. In any case, now I'm curious to hear what others think can cross over.
Sapp 09-16-06, 02:29 PM	In short, flexibility seems to be the name of the game for Eberron. Take what you want for your FR campaign, and if you like FR-style drow but want to run an Eberron campaign, then simply switch them in or make them another of the many different drow cultures, Lloth (she could simply be one of those fiends with divine ranks I mentioned earlier) and all, even if it makes certain Eberron fans faint from the fright of the spectacle. First of all, I don't faint when I hear of what others do in their campaigns. Second, I don't think Eberron is as flexible as you'd think. When it comes to alignment, monstrous personalities, religion, outsiders/gods, and other things the setting was designed to accomodate flexibility for, then yes, it's a flexible setting. That doesn't mean it'll be easy to throw something like a Balor into Khorvaire's history (within the past 1000 years at least). To keep logic afloat, you'd have to explain some things, such as why there was no mention of the Balor in the history/text. It couldn't be an onstentatious Balor. See, the Daelkyr are `only` CR 20, and they very well nearly dominated the continent (world?). There was even a short debate in the Eberron boards on what the nation of Thrane would do against a single Balor. Obviously, the nation would win, but not without massive casualties, before apprehending and destroying the fiend. Pretty much all of the more powerful inhabitants of Eberron are inactive until the adventure starts, so it's difficult to fit in some ideas. Same with elvish subraces. I suppose they would be possible, but you'd probably have to explain how and why they migrated from Syrania or Thelanis and stayed hidden in Xen'drik or Argonnessen instead of the `default continent`. It CAN work, it just doesn't feel like it fits as well. EDIT: Same with Cosmology. As the saying goes, "Everything has a place in Eberron!.. except cosmology." With that said, stuff like Lolth and other evil gods is cake. Lolth can easily be a Rakshasa Rajah. "Rajah" is just a rank after all, and they are actually referred to as "the Overlords", and from what I can see, the Overlords look NOTHING like ordinary Rakshasa. Sul Khatesh, 'Keeper of Secrets', looks like a cloaked shadow of a female surrounded by misty shadows, with a pair of extra arms (with pincers?). She has a weird glowing eye. No fur, nothing. (Though a lot of the Rakshasa do look great. I used to dislike the demonic native outsider kittens. The Eberron Rakshasa showed me how some of them can look pretty good. The Shadowsword? Nice.) The Overlords are so overpowered, that they don't just have Rakshasa serving under them, they have advanced Pit Fiends, Succubi, and other fiendish outsiders (non-native) serving them. It's not a stretch to say that Demogorgon could be an Overlord (though he'd be underpowered by 20+ CR), or that a Balor left the outerplanes to come serve him.
EytanBernstein 09-16-06, 04:32 PM	I'm slowly expanding my interest in different settings. Prior to FR, I was a big Shadowrun person, but after reading a few FR novels, I ended up reading all of them. Now, I have picked up a bunch of Dragonlance and Harry Potter Books. I'd also like to read Wheel of Time and get into some Eberron. Multiple worlds expand your mind, though it is nice to become enmeshed in a single one.
Always-Late 09-16-06, 06:47 PM	That doesn't mean it'll be easy to throw something like a Balor into Khorvaire's history (within the past 1000 years at least). To keep logic afloat, you'd have to explain some things, such as why there was no mention of the Balor in the history/text.What history/text are you talking about? Keep in mind that in Eberron, the actual history of Eberron is quite unknown. Most scholars and historians don't even know the Daeklyr War existed - yeah, there used to be a Dhakanni empire here, and it got conquered in a war, except we really can't figure out who was on the other side. Sure, the Gatekeepers know, but ask the Gatekeepers for information about Sarlona and you'll get a blank stare. It could be that one or two people (that's not many) know of the existence of a Balor, who was imprisoned thousands of years ago imprisoned on Khovaire, for some reason, by twelve (thirteen?) unique Gatekeeper seals, but this knowledge is lost to all but a select few. Gee, look what the cultists of the Dragon Below woke up...
Sapp 09-16-06, 07:42 PM	What history/text are you talking about? Keep in mind that in Eberron, the actual history of Eberron is quite unknown. Most scholars and historians don't even know the Daeklyr War existed - yeah, there used to be a Dhakanni empire here, and it got conquered in a war, except we really can't figure out who was on the other side. Sure, the Gatekeepers know, but ask the Gatekeepers for information about Sarlona and you'll get a blank stare. It could be that one or two people (that's not many) know of the existence of a Balor, who was imprisoned thousands of years ago imprisoned on Khovaire, for some reason, by twelve (thirteen?) unique Gatekeeper seals, but this knowledge is lost to all but a select few. Gee, look what the cultists of the Dragon Below woke up... Emphasis in bold. Mine. It's hard to explain why a Balor was running amok in Khorvaire. The 'two' or 'three' most powerful humanoids on the continent are pretty much level 18 (the rest are under). A Balor on the loose would have been a huge event within the past 1000 years. People don't just forget something like a Balor. While most people don't know about the Daelkyr intimately, the knowledge and history is still there in places such as the Library of Korrenberg. Also note that the Daelkyr invaded THOUSANDS of years ago. (And in fact, many people do know about them. The half-daelkyr can testify to that.) Those mere CR 20 Creator Gods of Madness have had SUCH an influence on Khorvaire's history that have lasted to this very day. They are responsible practically all aberrations on Khorvaire. They are responsible for much of the corruption. There can't be much more than 6 to 7 of them, yet they have cults dedicated to them all over the place. Mindflayers in Sharn dedicated to them. Medusas and other monstrous beings in Droaam. Humanoids who were corrupted simply by living on the same continent as them, etc. WHY wasn't there such an influence by this CR 20 Balor we're talking about? A Balor in the past thousand years would stick out like a sore thumb in Khorvaire's history and would be difficult to explain. To make things more difficult, unlike Rakshasa, Balors can't alter their form. They don't have innate arcane casting. They can't cast Cloak of Khyber or some of the other campaign specific spells that allow him to explore the world unimpeded. So how would a Balor have lived on Khorvaire for the past few millennia? Note, I mean living ON, not hiding UNDER in the depth of Khyber. Oh, and Rakshasa aren't 'Chaos and Evil' incarnate, making it a lot more acceptable in my mind that nothing 'appears' out of place with them running on the loose in and pulling strings from the Demon Wastes. In the Realms, one can always argue that a single balor is nothing, and that he'd better keep his voice down or attract some of the major organizations and/or NPCs. A balor is just not a big deal in the Realms (Heck, even Drizzt beat one). In Eberron, on the other hand... you'd need a good, convincing story about how a BALOR came down from Fernia and was kept in the wraps this whole time and why no one wrote anything about it in the past 1000 years, or why entire populations haven't been corrupted by Madness, Chaos, and Despair. (This isn't to say that a convincing story is impossible. This is just to say that you actually DO need to stop and think.) In that sense, while Eberron may have flexibility, its history is rather delicate. So is its cosmology. As the saying goes, "Everything has a place in Eberron!.. except cosmology and history." Don't get me wrong. I LIKE this design a lot, because it makes hack-and-slash more difficult. I actually have to THINK of a reason why a dozen Cornugons and a PIT FIEND suddenly decided to surface and invade Breland or some other country on Khorvaire. Then I'd have to wonder what this PIT FIEND was doing all these years. Creating an army of undead via his spell-like abilities? Wishing for more power (Inherent bonuses to attributes)? Wishing for items? Why did he suddenly surface? Preferably, it all ties back to the PCs and their actions (from earlier levels), because they are the stars of the show, after all. A lot of careful planning went into this, and it's not simple as to dismiss it by assuming that the DM can do anything and that it would still make sense. Sure the DM can do anything he wants, but you can't claim that it's easy to keep things consistent without careful thought. That's why I don't think it's such a 'simple' task of incorporating just any idea you like from one setting to the other, not unless you don't care for consistency/coherence. (It's up to you whether you care or not, of course.)
Teh_username 09-16-06, 09:23 PM	And, the Eberron fanboys rush over and make their first posts on the FR boards, conveniently attacking the first post that isn't fawning praise! Joy. Luckily, we have GothicChan (I'm never dropping that nickname, you realize? :D ) to articulate my point better than I did: What -I- don't like about Eberron races? Is them putting 'spins' on standard races. I would rather they had made only new races, rather than simply stripping the culture from existing ones and slapping on new ones. That feels way too Anti-Paladinish to me. There's nothing particularly "unique" or "cool" about a world where Race X just happens to behave in Manner Y, when they'd usually never do that because of Traditional Thing Z. It's actually particularly uninteresting; make up something NEW, damnit! then some random comment about how Eberron drow weren't drow because they weren't FR drow. If you read the FR boards, you'd know that I'm all about the drow. Thus, it would be inappropriate for me to not mention the drow of Eberron when discussing Eberron. And my problems with the "drow" of Eberron have nothing to do with them not being FR drow, and everything to do with them being wild elves who just happen to have black skin (so that the guy who always wanted to play a drow but the DM wouldn't let him will have an excuse, now). It's quite possibly the worst offender of the "race with CRAZY SPIN! on them" laziness that seems to plague Eberron. ***** As to the things I like about Eberron, well...I already covered that, didn't I? I suppose it'd be nice to find a way to integrate some of Eberron's "explorer" spirit in FR without having to go to Maztica or the like. Of course, there's always another ruin (or Chult) over the horizon, and a couple of land-masses still left undetailed, so it's not all that necessary. And to those of you who say that there's no room in FR for low-level adventuring? Not trying hard enough. Political intrigue, caravan-guarding, goblin/orc/etc. tribes...come on, it's not like Larloch is going to personally track down and kill some group of first-level adventurers because one of them is a (gasp!) LG cleric that happened to destroy a skeleton. High-level NPCs are a bit busy with high-level problems, leaving plenty for you low-level types to deal with. Hell, I'm running a game with low-level drow. They're dealing with their fellow students, the dangers of patrol (which is more anticipation and the occasional wandering monster/scout, not "and a swarm of Tanarukk kill everyone), and House politics. They're in over their head a lot (or at least think they are :D ), sure, but what low-level party isn't?
Alac Luin 09-16-06, 10:16 PM	I'm a fan of both settings, each for their strengths while accepting weaknesses in each. I will note in my opinion many of the weaknesses people perceive in either world are not always truly weaknesses or even present. 1st level characters in both worlds do menial tasks (FedEx missions/ body guard/ etc) It isn't until mid levels when characters come into their own. But I'll leave any setting bashing back in the score of other threads that deal with it. Things from Eberron that I like for the Realms.... Shifters- I never liked the idea of an entire barbarian tribe being were wolfs (Gray Wolf Uthgardt tribe), yes, this is a retcon but I'm personally more comfortable with the majority of the tribe being shifters with several full fledged werewolfs in the mix. Iron Defender- sure, it's a variety of homonculous, but it's a great low CR construct. Heck, it's even treated like a golem in the adventure in the ECS. For someone looking for new constructs this one is a natural. Living spells- Well, this one has been accepted by many Realms players. Artificers and the Deathless types- I like them, many don't. I've said most of what I can about these in the past (not that I changed the minds of the majority of the Realm's fans, heck the deathless type is almost universally hated) .
Always-Late 09-16-06, 11:39 PM	And, the Eberron fanboys rush over and make their first posts on the FR boards, conveniently attacking the first post that isn't fawning praise! Joy.And the Forgotten Realms old guard rises to the defence of their campaign setting and attempts to fend off the fanboy invasion! (Which, unless I'm mistaken, consists one person who also happens to be me.) There's nothing particularly "unique" or "cool" about a world where Race X just happens to behave in Manner Y, when they'd usually never do that because of Traditional Thing Z. It's actually particularly uninteresting; make up something NEW, damnit!I think that it was laid out in the design requirements that the setting contain all PHB races. In any case, why is the campaign setting somehow bad because it's elves running around doing the whole ancestral-warrior schtick and not, I dunno, Thri-Kreen? Is it just because "normal elves don't do Ridiculous Thing Y?" It's not interesting when all they do is Traditional Thing Z all day, either. Also, Eberron's "selling point" is not "Look! Everything you know has been overturned!" It's a setting that, along with some redefined race relations, offers quite a lot more. When we talk of FR ports, we don't mean, "make elves act such and such, and gnomes act such and such," or "lets kill off all the high-level NPCs because they make the game boring" because it probably won't fit in Faerun. But there are the less setting-critical things like the noir aspect of the game, action point system, attitude of frontier exploring or conspiracy, certain organizations or races, etc, etc. And airships. Any campaign can use airships. :P And my problems with the "drow" of Eberron have nothing to do with them not being FR drow, and everything to do with them being wild elves who just happen to have black skin (so that the guy who always wanted to play a drow but the DM wouldn't let him will have an excuse, now). It's quite possibly the worst offender of the "race with CRAZY SPIN! on them" laziness that seems to plague Eberron.Can you name some of these CRAZY SPINS that smack of laziness? Maybe it looks like it to you, but I don't believe Eberron race niches made to flout tradition; they're just, uh, different. In addition, Eberron is not really a race-driven society, a Valenar elf's identity is not really based around his being an elf, it's being part of Valenar. Step 1: Gee, what are some things that elves don't do? Run around killing people, mess around with undead, act like savages. Step 2: Got some! Lets put these anti-elves all over the map? We've got Valenar here, and hmm, we can stick the aerenal elves here. Oh, wild elves! Lets make them drow, and stick them on my handy lost continent. Done! Gnomes are next. Hmm... I see it more like, What are some interesting cultures and concepts? How can I flesh out the aspects of this culture? What race can I use for this culture? How would this culture/nation be affected by it's long lifespan or central tenets? Why are they here, what formed them, what role did they play in the recent history, what foreign relations do they have, etc, etc, etc. I won't argue the drow point, because Eberron drow really doesn't have much to do with "normal" drow. They don't play a major role in too much either, but they're not at the "center" of the campaign because the drow are not that much of a major force in Eberron. And they do seem, and I suspect that this is what you're getting at, "just randomly there." Until you decide to do something with them, of course.
Teh_username 09-16-06, 11:52 PM	And airships. Any campaign can use airships. :P I will concede that point.
Sapp 09-17-06, 12:57 AM	My thoughts on the "Crazy Spin". Now, some of us might not like it, but let's try to appreciate the practical reasons WHY the crazy spins are there. When I first heard of Eberron's design, I just wondered to myself, "Why Rakshasas?" "Those weak kittens? Rule a world? The ancient dragons had trouble with THOSE?!" The way they were presented made me think twice about them. Not only do they LOOK good (the 'Shadowsword' is simply smokin'), but they are described in such a way that it's easly to accept how a single advanced Rakshasa could have worried even an Elder Wyrm. Especially the Overlords, which are unique, and look nothing like ordinary Rakshasa (the way the Archfiends look nothing like ordinary fiends). Before, I've always viewed them as fragile manipulators. Now they are manipulators, champions, and Overpowers. Why didn't Eberron simply use traditionally powerful Demons, Devils, and/or Yugoloths? Rakshasas are native outsiders. And I finally see them as more such. You feel it everytime you kill one, and it comes back to like in a few days (less if it's an Overlord). The way Eberron introduced them made me realize how interesting and USEFUL they could be. Traditional Demons and Devils, as much as I like them, don't make good manipulators. How many of them actually have change shape (su) besides the Succubus? It's no worse than the Sarrukh or the Phaerimm, at least. The same applies to the rest. Halflings that ride dinosaurs. Now instead of making fun of the concept, and shouting deafly and blindly, "Dinosaurs don't belong to D&D!" let's take a step back, and remember the Sarrukh or the Saurians. Ok, now looks at the practicalities. Halflings on clawfoots are medium sized. They are more maneuverable on mount than humans on horses/warhorses. Halflings stand to benefit more from a clawfoot's speed than a human does from a horse's speed (humans have 30 ft speed anyways). Those dinosaur mounts are BRUTAL. You can even obtain flying mounts relatively easy. Glidewings aren't rare mounts. What kind of useful mounts could halflings get without dinosaurs? You tell me. Anyone who's played a halfling who specializes with mounted combat would know how powerful they can be. Moving hundreds of feet per round in tight cave settings. Making 90 degree turns. Charging with a lance every single round. Halflings haven't ever looked so powerful to me, or so mobile. They can still be the goofy, super-curious halflings we've always loved, but they don't have to be. That's why Eberron feels a lot more accomodating. They can be fierce as Hell, and their culture and history can actually support that. I've seen mature adults roll off to see who gets to play the halfling. Same with gnomes. How many games have you seen where people actually wanted to play a gnome? Do we really miss having gnomes being kicked into the background? And elves... Elves, elves, elves... With all of the elvish subraces available, there is simply so much less incentive to play a "regular elf". Remember those? The ones described in the PHB. The Aerenal and the Valenar exist to show that Elves CAN have vastly different cultures and ecology and yet still be vanilla "elves" with the same racial stats from the PHB. And the Hobgoblins. Wow, were they a mundane race before. In Eberron, ancient civilizations were developed and controlled by them. They, along with orcs, fought off a planar, nightmarish invasion. Rather than just being incompetent villains all of the time, they are HEROES and have saved the world once. Isn't that at least refreshing to hear? That humans and drow aren't the only heroes in history? What Eberron does to the drow is nothing. Not all Drow in Xen'drik are like wild elves. It's up to the DM to decide. Besides that, I have no sympathy for them because they are popular enough already and don't need the support. It's all a matter dividing up the amount of support we think each race/monster needs, and Drow just don't need that much more than they already have. See, Mr Baker wasn't intentionally trying to corrupt your precious races and monsters. He changed some races and monsters that most people really didn't give a rat's ass about anyway into useful and attractive things. You might not 'like it', but at least you can 'respect' what the designers were trying to do. It has a purpose besides "putting a Crazy Spin on things for a shock effect!" It's nice to see more of the PHB and Monster Manual in use.
Thanqol 09-17-06, 01:16 AM	Incidently, this quote from the "What Bothers you about FR" thread really, really distressed me: Then it won't be FR. It may be almost the same, but it won't be FR That's really, really sad. That there's no elbow room to get rid of the gods you don't like, remove the NPCs you hate, and adapting the cultures you want to without preventing it from being FR. In Eberron I could, I don't know, remove the nation of Thrane and replace it with an entirely different human culture, boost up the small-scale Boromar Clan to be the manipulators behind Breland and controlling poor Boranel like a puppet, and have the Mourning caused by House Valdis. And it'd still be Eberron, as it was ment to be played. So I'm more likely to port things from FR into Eberron (If I wanted to, I could replace Aundair with Thay, for example) rather than vice-versa.
ORC_Paradox 09-17-06, 02:41 AM	Well, yeah. The point of the thread is to see what can be imported from Eberron to the Realms. I've often used other world materials for an unspecified home campaign, but it's nice to have a world that's been aroud a while so I don't have to explain everything to the players, and import other things from elsewhere. I was never a big Dark Sun campaign fan, but I liked the halfling, and the idea of preservers and defilers. And wouldn't evil dragons on Faerun think of corrupting good dragon eggs, similar to Dragonlance's main plot line?
The Ubbergeek 09-17-06, 02:55 AM	Well, I do have myself a pet idea with Anchorome the continent north of Maztica and Greyhawk links....
Sapp 09-17-06, 03:09 AM	Here's a NOVEL idea! How about importing the free-thinking Eberron dragons into Faerun? I never understood how some of the wisest most intelligent creatures in the universe should be slaves of genetics. They're not outsiders. They are free-thinking, flesh-and-blood beings! Has an Elder Wyrm Gold Dragon ever wondered? "You know what? Could it be that my thoughts, feelings, attitude are affected by genetics? How is it that I don't hear of EVIL metallic dragons? How is it that I rarely hear of rowdy freedom-fighting (chaotic) Gold Dragons?" Has an Elder Wyrm Blue Dragon ever wondered? "You know... Why IS IT that Blue Dragons have to all be so Evil? I'm getting old. I have a lot of treasure. I'm not being threatened. I might as well make FRIENDS instead of ENEMIES. I'm kind of getting tired of having to worry about my hoard 24/7 anyway." Have the dragons EVER wondered about that in your campaigns?! And it's not a huge change anyway. It's not even "importing" from Eberron. It's just the idea that the Alignment System (which many people are skeptical about anyway) can be challenged. I think it's a positive change, because it encourages people to think of dragons as intelligent beings as they are represented in D&D. Dragons are some of the most underplayed monsters in D&D.
BadCatMan 09-17-06, 04:27 AM	Gosh! You mean, actually considering the motivations, personalities and histories of intelligent NPCs? Gasp! I thought that was - - bleeding obvious, actually. Maybe its because I started out as a wannabe writer rather than a wannabe DM, that I always try to make my stories and plots make sense as proper narratives. Hence, every one of my NPCs has consistent motivations other than "he's evil because he is." The Red Dragon won't be Evil simply because, he'll be Evil because Red Dragon culture currently encourages and supports such behaviour, it was drummed into him from an early age, and he continues it because he seeks to maintain his image amongst other Red Dragons. If it was a Good Red Dragon, then I'd consider why he's gone against his culture. Maybe that's just me though. Do many other DMs do the same? There's certainly a place for the standard fare of the Evil Dragon doing the Evil thing - nothing wrong with that - but I would wish more people would consider more of what makes a story work well. When I read the bit about creatures in Eberron not necessarily acting according to their typical alignments, I could just hear the less mature DMs going "Random encounter! A gold dragon attacks! Raargh!", and I wondered "Why?" *** For the record on fuzzy alignments and creatures acting out of type: * A classic CE Red Dragon rules Chessenta, is worshipped as hero and saviour, and will usher in a golden age for his people. * A classic LG Silver Dragon rules Iltkazar, and runs the place into the ground through inaction. And need I mention a certain Drow Ranger? :D
Sapp 09-17-06, 04:44 AM	I actually don't mind Drizzt acting out of alignment, unlike most haters. I dislike Drizzt for his popularity though, and do like to poke fun at him as others do, for being emo. No serious harm done. For the record on fuzzy alignments and creatures acting out of type: * A classic CE Red Dragon rules Chessenta, is worshipped as hero and saviour, and will usher in a golden age for his people. * A classic LG Silver Dragon rules Iltkazar, and runs the place into the ground through inaction. The Sceptenar of Cimbar may be an effective ruler... but so was Ghenghis Khan. Tchazzar is undeniably evil and power hungry. When it comes down to it, he is still like every stereotypical Red Dragon, even so proud and arrogant as to ignoring credit to the Goddess that resurrected him. He is, in fact, so ingrateful that he refuses to even call to attention the fact that he operates at her whim. When I read the bit about creatures in Eberron not necessarily acting according to their typical alignments, I could just hear the less mature DMs going "Random encounter! A gold dragon attacks! Raargh!", and I wondered "Why?" Why do you wonder about those kinds of scarce or even non-existant people? Have you ever tried considering that not all Eberron DMs are raving lunatics? The concept of Evil metallics and Good chromatics itself is not inherently bad. In fact, it's inherently good, because it encourages people to think about exactly WHY this metallic is evil or WHY this chromatic is good. It encourages them to think about HOW they fought, and beat, their genetic tendencies. Perhaps it was a clash of Nature vs Nurture. The thing is, I'd like to think that Intelligence and Wisdom have at least some effect on a man's control or at least understanding of his genetic tendencies. An instinctive animal might behave predictably, but an intelligent human? Probably not. A super-genius Dragon that could put Immanuel Kant to shame? No way. Could the super-genius dragon not have formulated untainted thoughts of his own to counter nature and/or nurture? Also, what kind of Red Dragon culture are you referring to? They are as [supposedly] Chaotic as they are Evil. Should they care what other Red Dragons think of them? Maybe they should for practical purposes, but wouldn't those dragons be more Lawful? The very thought of an ALWAYS Chaotic aligned creature strictly ALWAYS being Evil or ALWAYS being Good seems counterintuitive. What happened to freedom of thought? Individuality? It's a problem with the alignment system. It's best just to be lax about it. Good Red Dragons shouldn't be some sort of super-rare one-out-of-a-million occurence. They can think for themselves, and they can think very well at that. They aren't addicts, and even if they were, that's what their ridiculously high will save is for.
BadCatMan 09-17-06, 04:44 AM	I like what Eberron did with the core races, especially the Gnomes, Orcs and Goblinoids. Heck, to my mind, it didn't go too far enough.* I still don't get Elves. (* In my own pet campaign setting I started in prehistory and wondered what kind of environment, evolution, history and culture would produce each race's stats. Thus they nearly all get turned on their head, with plains-dwelling Elves, Goblins ranging from Mongol-like hordes on the steppes to haughty cavalry types, and tree-climbing Halflings, and more.) Thus I would consider incorporating elements on Eberron Gnome, Orc and Goblinoid culture into the Realms, especially when these are so scarcely detailed already.
BadCatMan 09-17-06, 04:54 AM	Why do you wonder about those kinds of scarce or even non-existant people? Have you ever tried considering that not all Eberron DMs are raving lunatics? Of course I don't think that. But there will be some silly DMs in Eberron (I know I heard one spout a similar line on the boards once), just as there are some silly DMs in the Realms. And there are silly people the world over. Also, what kind of Red Dragon culture are you referring to? They are as [supposedly] Chaotic as they are Evil. Should they care what other Red Dragons think of them? Maybe they should for practical purposes, but wouldn't those dragons be more Lawful? You don't think they have a culture? Fine then, whatever Mummy Red Dragon taught her hatchlings about what a good Red Dragon should do, likely hoarding gold and being tough and strong, being the alpha-male dragon.
Sapp 09-17-06, 05:00 AM	You don't think they have a culture? Fine then, whatever Mummy Red Dragon taught her hatchlings about what a good Red Dragon should do, likely hoarding gold and being tough and strong, being the alpha-male dragon. They can have a culture, but I'd hope that their intelligence and wisdom would be handy for SOMETHING besides casting spells and skillpoints, you know? Non-thinkers will absorb media and let it control them. Thinkers will observe media and try to analyze the effects it may have on their behaviour, because they know the media was designed to influence them. And no, not even if it came from his precious mama should an Elder Wyrm Red Dragon always behave as expected of him. He is a free thinker. He can apply what experiences and advice work and what doesn't work for himself. He's not a blasted idiot. He won't listen to B. Spears simply because every other Red Dragon is listening to it. He's not controlled by culture. He can be influenced, but not controlled by it. Also, you are pretty much ignoring every other point I made simply to counter something that's been taken piecemeal and out-of-context. Not very sporting.
Sapp 09-17-06, 05:19 AM	Of course I don't think that. But there will be some silly DMs in Eberron (I know I heard one spout a similar line on the boards once), just as there are some silly DMs in the Realms. And there are silly people the world over. More commonly I see silly DMs that play dragons as mindless animals with no self-concern besides "killing adventurers" and "amassing more wealth". You'd think that casting a preparatory spell was some kind of intellectual feat for these people. More commonly I see silly players that brag about how their level 10-15 Core PCs slew an Elder Wyrm or two. You'd think they actually had to work hard on their accomplishment. It has nothing to do with Eberron's fuzzy alignment philosophy. Silly DMs and silly players will be silly no matter what setting they used. At least, a gradual decrease in reliance on alignment encourages critical thinking. I'm not advocating complete abolishment of alignment ('old-schoolers', take a breath, I'm one of you. I know how you feel). I'm talking about lax alignment restrictions. It doesn't hurt to think for yourself how a dragon should behave once in a while instead of being dictated "always chaotic evil", does it?
BadCatMan 09-17-06, 06:22 AM	And no, not even if it came from his precious mama should an Elder Wyrm Red Dragon always behave as expected of him. He is a free thinker. He can apply what experiences and advice work and what doesn't work for himself. He's not a blasted idiot. He won't listen to B. Spears simply because every other Red Dragon is listening to it. He's not controlled by culture. He can be influenced, but not controlled by it. If every Dragon is to be atypical, then there shall be nothing typical left, and thus nothing to be atypical from. There has to be a norm for some creatures to not be normal. I think we're arguing the same thing here. Every intelligent creature, even a Dragon, has a culture, upbringing, history and personality that will combine to form the motivation for that creature within the plot, and whatever it's motivation, the DM/writer should consider that. That's my point, and yours too it seems. It seems, Mr Sapp, that you just like to argue. Good luck with that. :p Also, you are pretty much ignoring every other point I made simply to counter something that's been taken piecemeal and out-of-context. Not very sporting. Look, not everything you say is worth responding to. Fact of life. Especially when we're agreeing on the matter. If I have to live with being ignored every now and then, then so should you. Ah, and you've gone back and edited your posts to throw in more supposed points. Very clever. I'm outta here.
Sapp 09-17-06, 06:31 AM	If every Dragon is to be atypical, then there shall be nothing typical left, and thus nothing to be atypical from. There has to be a norm for some creatures to not be normal. I think we're arguing the same thing here. Every intelligent creature, even a Dragon, has a culture, upbringing, history and personality that will combine to form the motivation for that creature within the plot, and whatever it's motivation, the DM/writer should consider that. That's my point, and yours too it seems. It seems, Mr Sapp, that you just like to argue. Good luck with that. :p I don't think we're arguing the same thing. This is why I think you are either misinterpreting or ignoring a huge chunk of my points. Not every dragon has to be atypical. I feel that intelligent individuals would be the ones less susceptible to be influenced by their culture. While the rest of us 'ordinary humans' let culture and genetics dictate our lives for us, intelligent individuals rise above. Not "every intelligent creature, even a Dragon, has a culture, upbringing, history, and personality that will combine to form the motivation for that creature within the plot." Intelligent, wise dragons would be AWARE of the societal and genetic influences on their decisions. You are making it sound like a dragon is simply the product of society and genetics. What, then, is the purpose of philosophy? EDIT: That's even acknowledging that these societal influences exist. Why are all red dragon societies chaotic evil? And if they ARE 'chaotic' evil red dragon societies, how is that societal influence so strong as to prevent some from choosing to be good? I can understand there being a "genetic tendency/predisposition" for a Red Dragon's Chaotic Evil alignment. I just disagree that this predisposition overrides their freedom of thought, their massive potential for individuality. Do you agree that Good chromatic dragons (at least the mature ones) and Evil metallic dragons should be more common than they are in most settings? Look, not everything you say is worth responding to. Fact of life. Especially when we're agreeing on the matter. If I have to live with being ignored every now and then, then so should you. Ah, and you've gone back and edited your posts to throw in more supposed points. Very clever. I'm outta here. We obviously are not agreeing with each other. There must be a huge misunderstanding on your part, because I certainly don't agree with what you've been saying, and nothing you've said has changed. If you read back on the times of each post, yours at 54 past the hour, my edit at at 52 past the hour, it's clear that I didn't edit mine in response to yours. I don't see what's so "clever" (or, implied, "devious") about adding in more points that just came to mind.
GothicDan 09-17-06, 12:11 PM	Basically, it seems to boil down to: "Yay, something different!" Sorry, not appealing to me. I'm more impressed by things that are interesting while working within an existing framework. As John Frost put it, writing poetry without rules is like playing tennis without a net. And note that, in FR, Dragons ARE inherently tied to their alignments, which is why the Good Red Dragon Garnet required massively powerful spells to be worked over him while in the egg in order to come out not-evil. But, lots of people don't seem to like elements of inherent culture. I do.
gaerfindel 09-17-06, 02:00 PM	My two greens... First off: Yes, i am an Eberron fanboy. (Casts flame shield.) What drew me to Eberron was a simple little thing, I came in at the ground floor. FR has absolutely huge amounts of published material to be referenced dealing with the enormous plethorae of historical acounts, gods, kingdoms, heroes, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. While this is not necessarily a "bad thing", it does make it difficult for me to play catch-up. In some ways, FR is *too* big for me to comfortably absorb in the moments snatched between work and home. That's why I prefer Eberron, right now; I can grow along side it, instead of feeling lost in the mire. Sourcebook-wise, FR *does* have a number of things to offer the Eberron fan. I've had my eyes on Underdark and Serpent Kingdoms for some time now, as both provide cool material & mechanics that I plan to use in my own (eventual) campaign. I'm also toying with the idea presented in FR of having rangers apply thier favoured enemy bonus to organizations. And yes, I *did* read the entire Drizzt-series by R.A. Salvatore. I liked them then, and I still do.
Sapp 09-17-06, 02:01 PM	Basically, it seems to boil down to: "Yay, something different!" Sorry, not appealing to me. I'm more impressed by things that are interesting while working within an existing framework. As John Frost put it, writing poetry without rules is like playing tennis without a net. And note that, in FR, Dragons ARE inherently tied to their alignments, which is why the Good Red Dragon Garnet required massively powerful spells to be worked over him while in the egg in order to come out not-evil. But, lots of people don't seem to like elements of inherent culture. I do. I don't buy that something in the FR setting explicitly forces dragons to be one alignment or another. I don't buy this inherent culture either. Nothing was stopping Drizzt from choosing to be Good. His blood didn't start to boil, and he didn't go through physical pain. Mental anguish? Maybe. Now, if you were talking about OUTSIDERs, then I could understand why they'd be tied to their alignment. They are practically physical manifestations of their alignment. They could potentially devolve by changing alignment... I could buy that... ... but then we have Malkizid, the "Branded King", the Evil Solar whose body simply changed a bit. His feet and hands turned into claws. Not much else prevented him from changing alignment. Apparently, an angel can think freely, but dragons can't. (I'm not saying you're WRONG for liking inherent culture. I'm just saying that it's not a good reason that "dragons can't break free of the genetic/cultural enforcement of their alignment." They aren't ordinary beings. Great Wyrm Reds and Golds are, in fact, wiser and more intelligent than Solars.) Writing poetry without rules is its own form of poetry. And a tennis net serves a logical purpose.
GothicDan 09-17-06, 02:13 PM	In previous editions, Solars were practically considered Demigods, and their Intelligence and Wisdom surpassed that of Great Wyrms. And I like inherent culture, to a point. I do. I feel that, when one talks about mythology, and one references the Dwarves of Norse culture, that they are INHERENTLY the way they are. And you can buy it, or you can't, but the point is, in FR, it exists. It may not be all-powerful, but it's certainly there. I like a mixture of the two. Because there's to little inherent about the Eberron setting, and it's all basically real-world Earth with different races and a different history, it doesn't feel very 'fantastic' to me. EDIT: Of course, I DO like some parts about it, too. But just because I like something doesn't mean I want to include it in something else. I MIGHT, mind you, but not without a heck of a lot of thought, planning, and consideration!
Sapp 09-17-06, 02:43 PM	I understand. If you don't like such an idea/change that's fine. I think there may be a bit of misunderstanding. I'm not trying to force anyone to change. I presented an idea that I thought would naturally flow over into the FR setting. I truly believe that dragons could [and should] be any alignment, regardless of setting. I only started arguing over it because someone argued against the idea. You can't expect me not to defend the purpose or reason behind an idea, especially when implications are being thrown that they are there simply to put "a Crazy Spin!" on things... or just so lunatics can start randomly slaying Evil Metallics. "Random encounter! Gold Dragon! Raaaarrgh!!" I was simply pointing out that things that may seem "RANDOM!" actually have some logic behind them, and dismissing them as thus, random, isn't giving the concepts/ideas enough thought and/or credit.
GothicDan 09-17-06, 02:47 PM	Despite the fact that some things about Eberron DO interest me, the fact is that they were made SPECIFICALLY to be different. There's nothing hidden about that fact. So, uh, those implications are perfectly valid. Just like it's valid to say that the entire point behind the Dragonlance setting was to be all about Dragons!.
Sapp 09-17-06, 02:50 PM	Yes, they are meant to be different. However, I'm sure you and I can both see the clear difference in the context in which YOU use the term "different" and the context in which many others do. What I argue is the implication of Eberron being "different without meaning or purpose". "Halfings riding dinosaurs! Hahah!" "Gold Dragons as random encounters?! WTH?!" The setting isn't different JUST for the purpose of shock value. It's not THAT cheap. The Difference, the "Spin", has a lot of logical purpose to it that is being ignored completely. I wont say it's narrowminded (oops), but I will say that it's definitely unfair.
GothicDan 09-17-06, 03:00 PM	Hm. I'd feel more inclined to believe you about the purpose of the setting if it hadn't used the standard races. As it is, they just seem to be, more than anything else, changing the standard races for sheer shock value and "uniqueness" rather than for any realistic purpose. If the races had come from other worlds and populated Eberron, and there were IN-GAME reasons how they had evolved differently, then I would see it. Or, as I pointed out before, if they were totally new races, then that'd be cool too. But, as it is, everything feels terribly like Drizzt clones to me. Different just to be different, because different is cool! You pointed out that you think the open call for the campaign setting specified that all of the major PHB races had to have a place in the new setting. Okay. I think that was a fault on the part of WotC, not necessarily Eberron. I'd much rather the races had been different, perhaps with inspiration from the core races. That's one of the reasons I dislike the Drow in general, too. But I REALLY like the Melniboneans. They're different enough so that they just don't seem like "Elves." Also, it's the same reason why I dislike Antipaladins, and the thoughts of Evil Clerics just being warped versions of Good Clerics. The Knights of Takhisis on the other hand, I like a lot - much more than Antipaladins/Blackguards. That's because they had a specific in-game reason to be the way they are. I hope it's obvious that I'm not picking on *Eberron,* but rather pointing out certain design methodologies I do not like, which are used in Eberron. As I pointed out above, it's been used elsewhere, too, in previous editions and in most campaign settings at one point or another. (I don't like the Princes of Shade, either, for this reason.)
Sapp 09-17-06, 03:15 PM	Out-of-game, there are plenty of reasons the races are different. Enormous changes are unfriendly to newer gamers. What's the point of even reading through the Core races if none of them will be used? The designers probably could have included more brand-spanking-new races than the two or three present, but they didn't. I don't see anything wrong about sticking to the core races. Perhaps that's just me. In-game, which is where you seem to be confused and asking about, they also have reasons they evolved differently. Different history than the FR. Different culture. Different set of environmental factors. The noticeable absense of Gods... the bleak afterlife. They all have a psychological and even physical impact on the lives of mortals in Eberron. The races aren't trying to be warped versions of the PHB races or "anti-races". Just as FR's gods and NPCs aren't trying to be effective DMPCs or anti-PCs. They have their own cultures, motivations, and reason for being who they are. Besides that, Eberron has its own set of "gods" (monsters). Although no explicit Gods (created from Deities and Demigods), they have monsters of deific level that affect the very terrain they live in, and overtime, affect the populations to their own ends. If FR's reason for its countless sub-races, "divine intervention", is enough for you, then I'm sure that reason is valid as well. I don't see where the Drizzt clones are.
GothicDan 09-17-06, 03:32 PM	Well, the majority of Demihuman races were specifically created by their racial Gods. They did not evolve. Thus, there's no reason for them to exist in other worlds in which those deities did not create them. So, the fact that they're in Eberron, and their deities are not, and they have vastly different cultures, means that they have truly no reason to be there. If I was playing in Eberron? I'd rewrite the races completely, to make them not simply shells that LOOKED vaguely like standard races, filled up with something different. Again, that's why I trashed my own original world. The races were the same, even though they had vastly different cultures. I see no point in 'calling' something an Elf, just because it looks like one, if it doesn't act like one, too. In math and physics, one of my professors likes to use a little analogy for differential equations. "If it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, then we'll consider it a duck." In this case, the Eberron-races don't act much like ducks - they just look like them. So why call them ducks?
Sapp 09-17-06, 04:05 PM	Well, the majority of Demihuman races were specifically created by their racial Gods. They did not evolve. Thus, there's no reason for them to exist in other worlds in which those deities did not create them. So, the fact that they're in Eberron, and their deities are not, and they have vastly different cultures, means that they have truly no reason to be there. I can see where this might go. You are saying that without "Intelligent Design" races can't exist the way they are. That's ONE belief, but I'll respect it anyway. FR uses the reason "divine intervention" to create the races (and subraces) out of thin air. That may be the reason you accept them in that setting. You can also assume for Eberron that some divine tampering did take place for the existence of humans, elves, gnomes, etc. The fact of the matter is Eberron's 'ancient' history is blurry enough that you, as a DM, can design your own events on what happened. You make your own explanations of why certain races exist. In fact, perhaps in your campaign, the gods DO exist. They are simply aloof and above daily mortal thoughts and events. The history may be more fragile in 'recent' times, but tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago? It's practically a blank canvas. Go wild. If I was playing in Eberron? I'd rewrite the races completely, to make them not simply shells that LOOKED vaguely like standard races, filled up with something different. If I were playing in FR? I'd rewrite the NPCs and Faerunian Pantheon completely. Make them actually respectable. And their stat blocks wouldn't have to take over pages of what could have been useful material. FR fans have told me to look past those, and I do now. You can change what you want. It just takes time and effort. No one's forcing you to change them, but I do think you're making mountains out of molehills. I already explained how, both in-game AND out-of-game, there are many reasons why some of the races act slightly different to how we'd normally expect them to. It's not something revolutionary anyway. FR's been doing it. Even Greyhawk, "default D&D", has been doing it. (And what's up with "Suel Liches"?! You're just liches without phylacteries that have a harder time surviving as you get more powerful! Get over yourselves!) Again, that's why I trashed my own original world. The races were the same, even though they had vastly different cultures. I see no point in 'calling' something an Elf, just because it looks like one, if it doesn't act like one, too. In math and physics, one of my professors likes to use a little analogy for differential equations. "If it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, then we'll consider it a duck." In this case, the Eberron-races don't act much like ducks - they just look like them. So why call them ducks? Do what you will. You don't have to like it, but at least you understand why the differences between Eberron and other settings aren't 'arbitrary', right?
GothicDan 09-17-06, 04:12 PM	It all depends on how one defines arbitrary. The decision to do so in the first place? Arbitrary. But after that, while the races aren't as fleshed out culturally as those of FR, I do not think that they were designed without logic.
Dark Wizard 09-17-06, 07:45 PM	The different views on alignment for FR and Eberron appear similar to the Dwarven Wizard argument that crops up on these boards every now and again. This discussion was centered on the 2e vs. 3e stance on racial limitations for classes. Since FR was first formulated as a D&D setting in the 1e/2e days when there were racial limitations for classes, FR has virtually no precedent for Dwarven wizards outside of a footnote on dwarven wizards, one NPC example, and some shreds of lore on a dwarven wizard college during the day of Delzoun (or was it Ammarindar?). The new edition of D&D comes along and removes all racial limitations for the core classes. Suddenly, Dwarven wizards should technically be a lot more prevalent, where as in previous edition, they were rare exceptions. The alignment issue is similar. FR uses the old alignment rules (although it is far more flexible than in the Core). Eberron uses its own modified alignment rules, which are very much in the spirit of 3e, everything is possible. Neither is necessarily worst off, both being a product of the rules set they were formulated under. FR has its own fixes for the alignment dilemma. The setting's history contains examples of good (or neutral) beings committing actions that they believe are good but end up doing great harm, actions that could be interpreted as evil. I believe one of the now deceased good metallic dragons in Dragons of Faerun caused create turmoil because of his unbending belief that his ideals were correct when they were tyrannical. Champions of Ruin also has a feat (Touch of Benevolence?) that allows evil characters to commit many good acts without shifting alignments and losing all the abilities tied to their evil alignment. Finally, there are the numerous examples of beings with unusual alignments for their race/type, drow being one of the major examples. This approach of a hardwired alignment with specific exceptions has the advantage of making such exceptions truly special and significant. The disadvantage lies in the difficulty achieving exceptional status. Eberron has a broader approach; just build the exception concept into the setting rules. I see this as a quick and somewhat crude fix for the alignment system. Both the advantage and disadvantage is that the exception is easy to work in. While anything and everyone could have a fuzzy alignment, this allows for easier abuse. It is far too easy to just say "You guys are facing an evil gold dragon, roll initiative." Experienced roleplayers and DMs would have backgrounds prepared for this situation, but newcomers might not. This becomes particularly troublesome when the alignment flexibility is tested by PCs. FR forces players and DMs to come up with a back-story, reasons for my an exception exists. There are no exceptions for not explaining alignment exceptions. Eberron allows fuzzy alignment, but it is not often clear that a good deal of roleplay should be involved in an unusual alignment. Certain players will do it, others won't, but it allows more elbow room for alignment issues. With FR, exceptions are controlled by the DM, which could be a problem itself when everyone wants to play a CG drow ranger. Neither system is perfect. The flaw is with the D&D take on alignment; both settings have their mechanisms to deal with it. It comes down to opinion again I guess.
Teh_username 09-17-06, 08:25 PM	The new edition of D&D comes along and removes all racial limitations for the core classes. Suddenly, Dwarven wizards should technically be a lot more prevalent, where as in previous edition, they were rare exceptions. Why? Just because they can exist now under RAW doesn't mean that millenia of cultural and racial traditions disappear overnight. Like most of the "changes" from 2e to 3e, it's only stupid if you play it that way. Wizards now can wear armor (but they're untrained and their spells won't work very often), but most of them won't have any more reason to now than they used to; elves can be paladins, but since none of the elven pantheon sponsors them, only the rare exceptions (who would have been statted up as the "rare exception" in 2e or as a Fighter/Cleric anyway) will; that sort of thing.
Sapp 09-17-06, 08:45 PM	Damn, you'd think I was criticizing the FR... again. I'm simply presenting an idea. A suggestion. In my mind, free-thinking dragons are far more important to me than warforged. I couldn't care less if warforged disappeared and Eberron's history had "very weak sentient golems" instead. Sure, I could just reverberate all of the other non-offensive suggestions, "Warforged can be awakened constructs in the realms." "Halflings could be riding really dumb saurians." "Daelkyr can be thrown into the lower Underdark." Etc. It's an idea. You don't have to like it. No one put down the suggestion of putting warforged in Faerun. I did feel strongly enough about lax alignment restrictions to support it. We are, after all, discussing positive aspects of settings we can 'import' into others. This idea, I thought, would be particularly easy for the FR setting to adopt. My defense of the idea was in response to veiled ridicule. Albeit my original post of the topic had a sardonic tone to it, that is just how I write all of the time. I guess I was wrong that it's a likable change. I don't care. You can say you don't like it, that's fine. But I will respond if you start criticizing it as a completely unnecessary and/or illogical change, because I disagree with that.
Dark Wizard 09-17-06, 09:12 PM	Under the current rules it's logical for there to be more dwarven wizards, there are absolutely no physical rules to limit them. Then we have to ask, why not, other than a general tendency noted in their culture. Where as in previous editions, dwarves possessed a physical inability to practice arcane magic, now they can just pick up the wizard class without any penalty. There are dwarven wizards in Greyhawk, in Eberron, and probably in most homebrew worlds formulated after 3e's premier. It leads players to question, why not in FR. There used to be several reasons why, amongst them, a physical resistence AND culture, now it's just culture. One less reason against dwarven wizards is one more reason for there to be dwarven wizards. There are outliers and eccentric individuals in every society. In the past there might have been 100 unusual dwarves who wanted to become wizards but due to their resistence to arcane magic, only 1 dwarf managed to become one. Now, without the physical resistence, all of those 100 dwarves can now be wizards. I'm not saying there should definitely be, but now there is more of a reason for a dwarven wizard's existence. As for wizards casting in armor, they still have arcane spell failure to deter them. A single classed wizard also has no proficiencies in armor, so they take the armor check penalty to their attack. Elven paladins still technically have the lack of a suitable elven deity to make becoming an actual elven paladin a more difficult route. There are still rules based reasons to support the culture/lore based reasons.
Dark Wizard 09-17-06, 09:20 PM	Damn, you'd think I was criticizing the FR... again. ... I guess I was wrong that it's a likable change. I don't care. You can say you don't like it, that's fine. But I will respond if you start criticizing it as a completely unnecessary and/or illogical change, because I disagree with that. My post was aimed at mostly criticizing TSR/WotC/General D&D for having the problematic alignment system. The two settings (both claiming to have strong moral grays) have to create two separate systems to make the alignment system work within each setting, this shows just how inflexible and unrealistic the basic D&D alignment system actually is.
Sapp 09-17-06, 09:33 PM	Eberron has a broader approach; just build the exception concept into the setting rules. I see this as a quick and somewhat crude fix for the alignment system. Both the advantage and disadvantage is that the exception is easy to work in. While anything and everyone could have a fuzzy alignment, this allows for easier abuse. It is far too easy to just say "You guys are facing an evil gold dragon, roll initiative." Experienced roleplayers and DMs would have backgrounds prepared for this situation, but newcomers might not. This becomes particularly troublesome when the alignment flexibility is tested by PCs. I keep hearing how the system is flawed, because it somehow encourages idiotic play. More freedom doesn't encourage idiocy. I was lectured to about that from FR fans themselves. Again, let me point out that the ones more likely to blandly say, "You are fighting an evil gold dragon, roll initiative," , are also the ones more likely to blandly say, "You defeated a Pit Fiend... at level 13, that gives you each 10,000,000 XP." Or "You are fighting 20 Balors. Roll initiative." Or "A solar comes down to kill you all because you are acting Evil. Roll initiative." Every dragon you read about in the sourcebooks has a reason to be what alignment he or she is. Tyrass the Learned is a Lawful Neutral gold dragon. Why is he not Lawful Good? He was. Over a period of many centuries, he simply got tired of meddling with lower species. He had research to do, uninterrupted. His research is much more important than the constant whining of mortals that can't take care of himself. He TRIED to be reasonable and nice, but overtime, he stopped being Lawful Good. It makes sense that he isn't lawful good anymore. Those lesser species are annoying, damnit! He has a history behind him. He didn't go through tremendous physical pain when becoming Lawful Neutral. I don't know about the rest of you, but I actually have faith that not every D&D player is devoid of critical thought and ability. If they often say, "You are fighting a gold dragon, roll initiative," then they probably have a good reason for it. Granted D&D players CAN think for themselves, HOW is fuzzier alignment detrimental to experienced OR newer gamers? Assuming we're talking about a mature group of players (is that too much to ask?), what really is the purpose of binding Great Wyrm dragons to their alignment? It's not a HUGE deal to make alignment slightly less restrictive in the FR I think. The setting would barely notice. EDIT: Ok, never mind the question "Why?" because I think I already know some of the reasons. I just don't particularly like that one reason that goes, "So mindless players get to fight evil metallics!! $#$*!!" Because from my point of view, free-thinking dragons are a positive thing. I could make the same ridiculous criticism against FR: While anything and everyone could be an Epic NPC or a God, this allows for easier abuse. It is far too easy to just say "You guys are facing Elminster and the Seven Sisters... with Mystra backing them up, roll initiative." Experienced roleplayers and DMs would have backgrounds prepared for this situation, but newcomers might not.
Sapp 09-17-06, 10:12 PM	My post was aimed at mostly criticizing TSR/WotC/General D&D for having the problematic alignment system. The two settings (both claiming to have strong moral grays) have to create two separate systems to make the alignment system work within each setting, this shows just how inflexible and unrealistic the basic D&D alignment system actually is. Yes. I suppose so. However, I don't think 4th Edition will be coming around any time soon, and even if it does, there's no guaranteed the Alignment System will be altered/changed/fixed. Baby steps... Haha. And about Dwarven Wizards. Why not? It's an idea. Perhaps not a very fitting idea. I understand how racial stereotypes might not be as seamless as alignment, since its a physical/cultural change rather than a metaphysical one... but the Realms are large enough. And perhaps the Dwarf was raised in Halruaa.
The Ubbergeek 09-18-06, 12:20 AM	As I said, it is posisble indeed, but rare among NPC (like my Shadowrun coboarders at Dumpshock say, PC are by default oddballs and/or cream of the crop, so it do not apply to them really0.
Dark Wizard 09-18-06, 01:08 AM	I guess you're thinking I'm criticizing the Eberron approach to alignment, I'm not, I criticized both and supported both. Basically all I meant was they were slightly differing takes on the same thing. It's more of a preferrence. This alignment topic between the settings is definitely worth discussing. I quote a few bits below to facilitate constructive discussion, hopefully. "2. Tone and attitude. ... Alignments are relative gauges of a character or creature's viewpoint, and not absolute barometers of affiliation and action; nothing is exactly as it seems. Alignments are blurred, so that it's possible to encounter an evil silver dragon or a good vampire. Traditionally good-aligned creatures may wind up opposed to the heroes, while well-known agents of evil might provide assisstance when it's least expected. ... " I find nothing in that statement that cannot or does not already apply to the Forgotten Realms, even for the more alignment determined types like clerics, paladins and outsiders. There are numerous examples of characters that defy their typical racial or type alignment. I cannot explain why there dragons vary so little in alignment. They are the creatures I expect to vary quite a bit as well. Where as we have a few notable examples of celestials and gods drastically changing alignments, which would seem like even rarer beings to do so. Alignment: This line in a monster entry gives the alignment that the creature is most likely to have. Every entry includes a qualifier that indicates how broadly that alignment applies to all monsters of that kind. Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a heriditary predisposition to the alignment of come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individual to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions. Dragons are listed in the Always [Alignment] category. Apparently in the core, they aren't as free thinking as we believe they are. The Monster Manual alignment guidelines provides for "rare exceptions," the Realms has made use of that clause. Certainly deciding when and how to implement an exception could use some elaboration by the setting, but the possibilities are there and used by the setting. I could make the same ridiculous criticism against FR: While anything and everyone could be an Epic NPC or a God, this allows for easier abuse. It is far too easy to just say "You guys are facing Elminster and the Seven Sisters... with Mystra backing them up, roll initiative." Experienced roleplayers and DMs would have backgrounds prepared for this situation, but newcomers might not. That's actually not a bad point you bring up. You've seen first hand how prevalent such a view on FR is, even when the setting's history and tone does not support it, but the setting holds such a possibility. FR has many mechanically detailed epic NPCs that opened up a can of worms to many. Now you can see why having the extremely flexible alignment system can lead to misrepresentation of Eberron's true history and atmosphere. The general alignment rules already provide for exceptions. I agree, Eberron does take the time to explain and emphasize the exceptions, but that can be seen as opening up its own set of problems. As for Dwarven Wizards, I rather like the idea. I wish there was more space for them in FR sourcebooks. Of course, PCs being special would be the most likely candidates for Dwarven Wizards. I can understand the official sources keeping them low in numbers due to Dwarven culture, since Dwarven biology apparently is no longer a factor.
Raelan_Harpell 09-18-06, 01:17 AM	And about Dwarven Wizards. Why not? It's an idea. Perhaps not a very fitting idea. I understand how racial stereotypes might not be as seamless as alignment, since its a physical/cultural change rather than a metaphysical one... but the Realms are large enough. And perhaps the Dwarf was raised in Halruaa. As far as dwarven wizards go, I'd say that dwarves as Moradin created them have no natural talent for wizardry or sorcery. This is backed up by previous Realms history (i.e. there were no naturally-born dwarves capable of wizardry in the Forgotten Realms as of 1st and 2nd Edition). However... Since some dwarven clans have taken to intermarrying with humans to increase their failing numbers (see Dwarves Deep--when dwarves crossbreed with humans, the result it a dwarf), I'd say it's quite possible that those dwarves with human blood may have inherited the magical potential of their human parent, thus allowing them the chance to take the wizard or sorcerer class. This could also make for some interesting backstory for a such a character. For instance, how did that person's clanmates treat him or her for having, in part, human blood? How did they react when the person chose to become a mage? Was the character shunned, accepted with open arms, or did it come down to individual reactions? How did this affect how the character's personality developed? Just food for thought....
Sapp 09-18-06, 01:56 AM	That's actually not a bad point you bring up. You've seen first hand how prevalent such a view on FR is, even when the setting's history and tone does not support it, but the setting holds such a possibility. FR has many mechanically detailed epic NPCs that opened up a can of worms to many. Now you can see why having the extremely flexible alignment system can lead to misrepresentation of Eberron's true history and atmosphere. The general alignment rules already provide for exceptions. I agree, Eberron does take the time to explain and emphasize the exceptions, but that can be seen as opening up its own set of problems. Heh. The waste of space on Epic NPCs in the FRCS, I did feel, encourage DMs to use them as early villains, DMPC, and deus ex machinas. You feel that since the alignment system already allows for exceptions, and that Eberron seems to support MORE exceptions that it feels like the setting is encouraging complete ignorance of the history of a dragon's struggle with his/her genetics and culture. That's fair enough. At least you are being consistent. I guess you're thinking I'm criticizing the Eberron approach to alignment, I'm not, I criticized both and supported both. Basically all I meant was they were slightly differing takes on the same thing. It's more of a preferrence. This alignment topic between the settings is definitely worth discussing. I quote a few bits below to facilitate constructive discussion, hopefully. I find nothing in that statement that cannot or does not already apply to the Forgotten Realms, even for the more alignment determined types like clerics, paladins and outsiders. There are numerous examples of characters that defy their typical racial or type alignment. I cannot explain why there dragons vary so little in alignment. They are the creatures I expect to vary quite a bit as well. Where as we have a few notable examples of celestials and gods drastically changing alignments, which would seem like even rarer beings to do so. No. I don't think you are directly criticizing anything. However, the tone was set in such a way that just by mentioning "random" encounters with gold dragons, you [unintentionally] support a false notion. You simply threw a snowball in the right direction into a larger one already in motion. Although I had nothing against you, I felt the need to point out that nothing is inherently or immediately wrong with giving dragons freedom, because people could have easily misinterpreting your intentions, especially with the momentum of the thread. Tone and attitude. ... Alignments are relative gauges of a character or creature's viewpoint, and not absolute barometers of affiliation and action; nothing is exactly as it seems. Alignments are blurred, so that it's possible to encounter an evil silver dragon or a good vampire. Traditionally good-aligned creatures may wind up opposed to the heroes, while well-known agents of evil might provide assisstance when it's least expected. ... " I completely agree with you on the statement that "nothing in that statement cannot or does not already apply to the Forgotten Realms." It can totally apply to the FR if it doesn't already, which was why I brought it up: If everyone isn't already applying some thought on the matter, due to some dogmatic feeling of duty towards the Monster Manual. "It says ALWAYS Lawful Good! I can't make him Lawful Neutral! It'll make me look like a whimsical DM!" The MM is not a straight jacket. It's a guideline. A set of heuristics. You may think that it's a trivial point for me to make, but far too many people actually need to be told that they can think for themselves (we've all been around the boards long enough to know that). "This individual here? He doesn't have to be Chaotic Evil if he doesn't want to be. In fact, maybe he WON'T break his truce with that Lawful Good party, despite his race/species being labeled as 'Always Chaotic'. He's a super-wise, super-genius individual. He'll make the best decision possible. He's not a slave to alignment." I change plenty of things about the MM monsters already anyway. Alignment is nothing. For example, if I was making a Blood War Pit Fiend general, I would get rid of the feat Quickened SLA (Fireball), because fireball is not particularly useful against the most powerful Demons. The weaker demons aren't worth the time. A Pit Fiend clearing up groups of Dretches is terribly inefficient. Quickened SLA (greater dispel magic or greater teleport) would be a smarter choice. A Pit Fiend general is highly likely to make smart choices. (Of course, this is just a minor change compared to the many others I make.)
Dark Wizard 09-18-06, 02:44 AM	I see what you mean. Of course players and DMs shouldn't be underestimated to just have random thoughtless encounters consisting of "Evil Gold Dragon, FIGHT!" That doesn't mean a setting should let the alignment issue hang, better be safe than sorry. The way that Eberron states it in the ECS, even if FR uses a different guideline, is immensely helpful to establish the overall atmosphere and ethical/moral dynamics of the setting. A lot of people in general have criticized FR for having a standard black and white, unrealistic, uninteresting take on alignment when that isn't the case, but FR doesn't help itself by not stating this flexibility more clearly. The variable alignment concept has gotten lost in all the talk of Faerun's vast history, many shining heroes and countless ancient evils. It doesn't help that the Players Guide to Faerun was "wasted" in a 3e to 3.5e update, when this sort of topic would have been perfect for a book of such a name. I feel FR needs to say more about its tone to help people get a handle of the setting. Histories and details are great, but FR has a lot of that already, which can make the setting seem difficult to approach without at least a rough guide to what elements are more or less universal (or just most common) in it. One cue I think FR could definitely take from Eberron, though players and DMs can't do much about it, is to have an art direction for the sourcebooks. Eberron books seem to have a more consistent look that helps tie the setting together and shows off a bit of that setting atmosphere. FR books tend to be a bit more hodge podge, which only adds fuel to the fire of another criticism that it's just a collection of random regions and subsettings. The chapter intro art for Eberron with the comic panel set up and the short text explanation or teaser does wonders for giving people an immediate feel for the setting, or at least whatever aspect of the setting that chapter is about. While I'm not advocating the same exact thing for FR, better coordinated and more relevant book art would be nice.
Sapp 09-18-06, 03:22 AM	I don't think the FR has "a standard black and white, unrealistic, uninteresting take on alignment." It's take on alignment is whatever Greyhawk's is. It's because of its "vast history, many shining heroes and countless ancient evils", as you pointed out, however, that I feel it is even MORE necessary for gamers of the setting to be reminded to take a step back once in a while, and complement the setting with a little more critical thinking on behalf of the NPCs/monsters rather than using alignment as a crutch or guideline. Stuff like that are actually forgotten, which is understandable, because as you implied yourself, people can be overwhelmed with all of the other details already fed to them. This doesn't mean anyone HAS to defy the alignment system just to make a point, but at least we should remember or be reminded that as intelligent and wise beings, some of these monsters can very easily resist their genetic and cultural tendencies... and that what we are using are simply metagame heuristics meant for our own convenience rather than being part of some concrete internal logic. We all know the running joke: "Dragons... Color-coded for the casual adventurer's convenience!" Sometimes the line between 'practicality' or 'convenience' becomes confused with 'logic'. If it's convenient for certain gamers to ignore all of the philosophy and metaphysics associated with transcendent consciousness and intelligence, that's fine. If certain gamers just don't like it for no particular reason besides taste, that's fine. I'm not going to force anyone to change. But I am going to argue against the claim that logic actually prevents FR from allowing free-thinking dragons (or other flesh-n-blood transcendent entities), which was precisely what some people seemed to be claiming. I think the setting CAN logically support such a change, more easily than a change involving 'warforged' or 'halflings riding dinos' or 'daelkyr'. ... and much, much easier than changing the art of FR to make it more consistent, unless any of us happen to be part of the R&D team (and/or artists). But if I were to think of any unifying art for the FR, it would probably be artwork reminiscent of the Greeks and Romans, as a statement. Or, for less political intent, maybe something more modern, but with a lot of pastel or water colors. Instead of Eberron's sharp lines and colors, I'd probably go for very soft colors. Make it look dreamier. And focus on 'traditional fantasy', as that seems to be FR's selling point (most of FR's fans on a certain other thread couldn't stop mentioning it). Blurry, colorful, and chaotic. But that's an "IF". I don't think any specific artwork fits the entirety of the Realms because it is undeniably broken. How does Waterdeep feel similar to Halruaa? Sword Coast to the Underdark? The artwork of Eberron wasn't a particular selling point for me. If anything, I dislike the artwork for it.
ORC_Paradox 09-18-06, 09:02 AM	As someone earlier pointed out, all campaigns could use airships. :) And the setting definately can be adapted and changed. (Hence the suggestion that Eberron elements can be imported.) A daelkyr invasion, for example. Dragon and Dungeon ran an invasion of Gith a while back. Why not have daelkyr invade the Silver Marches? How would the Shadovars view the situation? Would they join them, or side with the world "This is OUR turf!" How about Cyric? Daelkyr are of the realm of madness, but this world belongs to Cyric. (Or so he would believe.)
ClobberinTime 09-18-06, 02:07 PM	I think the 2 settings have a really different feel, FR is way more high fantasy, and Ebberon is trying to be more dark and mysterious. That being said, the key to any FR campaign is to start it in the beginning, i.e. buy two 2e produces- The old grey box and the Ruins of Myth Drannor, and run a campaign in the dales during and after Lashmire's attempted unification centered around the PCs as the triumphant Knights of Myth Drannor. The idea of a beautifull, destroyed Elven city in the heart of a deep and mythical wood, with the elves sadly leaving, is the defining image of the Forgotten Realms! It's a great plot hook, and can generate a sense of real wonder. One thing I like about FR is its high level nature, A 15th level wizard will look at the Mythal, and all the permanent magic effects in Myth Drannor, and go 'Well, how the heck did they do that'. Also you gotta use Elminster the way he was intended, 1, no one in shadowdale thinks him to be anything other than an old kook that lives in a windmill! 2, He is retired, if you go to bug him about something he is likely to say, yes I could help but, that would delay me baking this wonderfull pie I am making, and that cannot happen, If I could get it done, I might help, so do me a favor, I need a chimera's tail, a dragon's scale, and a fire giant's finger, don't ask about the last one. So getting his help can be the point of an epic adventure.
Dark Wizard 09-18-06, 05:21 PM	A setting statement on how alignments are officially treated would be good. Something along the lines of the Eberron method towards alignment is applicable. Even if the Eberron method isn't how the Realms have officially handled alignment, it's not that far off. I guess the situation would be similar to Dwarven Wizards again. There already are Dwarven Wizards in the Realms, a few more shouldn't change much, since the cultural restriction is already in place. The same with alternate alignment Dragons or any beings, there are already exceptions but also a tradition of those exceptions being rare in the Realms. The possibility is just opened up for the gamers. As for the art, I'm neutral towards Eberron's art myself. I just think an attempt to have a basic underlying style could be helpful in conveying a theme to the reader. It's similar to Tony DiTerlizzi's work on Planescape or what WotC tried to do with 3e using Todd Lockwood and Sam Wise. When the art started to vary greatly in later books, I thought it was just too difficult for WotC to maintain a schedule of commissions for regular artists. Then again, they seemed to manage just fine for Eberron, so it shouldn't be a problem at all. Of course no single style could encompass the entire Realms, just as no style can do the same for Eberron, but the sharp lines and darker colors one often sees in Eberron art does carry across a rough atmosphere through. Maybe for the Realms each region could internally have a similar style, that might make the task easier. But this is all futile, its not something we can directly control like borrowing from other settings.
Dexter_Blacktyde 09-18-06, 06:04 PM	It's similar to Tony DiTerlizzi's work on Planescape or what WotC tried to do with 3e using Todd Lockwood and Sam Wise. Oh yes, if only they had kept Lockwood and Wood. (At least Lockwood still gets irregular one-shot assignments, but nowhere near enough if you ask me.) Of course, second- and third-tier artists are less expensive, but I guess diTerlizzi was pretty expensive, too, as were Elmore, Parkinson, Caldwell and Easley who did almost all the covers. I think visual identity is a strong selling point, but sadly, WotC isn't the only company to disregard this as of late. (Tim Bradstreet, Jeff Laubenstein, Janet Aulisio, Jim Nelson were the hallmarks of Shadowrun, and where are they now? I guess the same would've happened to Earthdawn.) When the art started to vary greatly in later books, I thought it was just too difficult for WotC to maintain a schedule of commissions for regular artists. Then again, they seemed to manage just fine for Eberron, so it shouldn't be a problem at all. I expect WotC to give Prescott, Jones & Co. the boot soon. "The visual identity is established. Thanks, guys, cheaper artists will take over. Have a nice career." Oh, the blessings of free market economy... DB
lavekkia 09-18-06, 07:06 PM	I'll try to bring the thread a bit on its original purpouse (feel free to insult me in every manner you think about): NOTE: i will not discuss about warforged/psiforged and artificers/psionic artificers Let's start with... Artifact Spells (from Secrets Of Xen Drik): I would place them in old Sarrukh and Imaskari cities but NOT in old Netherese sites. Also some undersea sites hailing from batrachi empire could be good. Elemental Binding: uhm... tough one. I would say no because of amount of reworking of magical traditions and history. I would allow a different form based on outsiders binding (devils, demons and also angels and guardinals and eladrins) made by Narfell priests and wizards; but nothing so powerful like airships and such. airships: we already have them; in halruua. Lightning rail: no. storm ships: uhm... maybe; but not based on elemental binding so the point is moot. Changelings and shifters: a very few individuals for the first race and for the second race i would propose isolated groups descended from Black Blood Cultists and from selunite lycanthropes (waging an unseen war). Kalashtar: it would require a change in the cosmology (but i'm not sure; correct me if i'm wrong) so i would say no. Deathless: definitely not; we already have baelnors savage drow on the surface: we already have vhaeraun worshiping drow on the surface :P Maybe on anchorome... for now i can't think of anything more. as i have already said feel free to insult me... that always makes me laugh ;)
The Ubbergeek 09-18-06, 07:40 PM	Oh yes, if only they had kept Lockwood and Wood. (At least Lockwood still gets irregular one-shot assignments, but nowhere near enough if you ask me.) Of course, second- and third-tier artists are less expensive, but I guess diTerlizzi was pretty expensive, too, as were Elmore, Parkinson, Caldwell and Easley who did almost all the covers. I think visual identity is a strong selling point, but sadly, WotC isn't the only company to disregard this as of late. (Tim Bradstreet, Jeff Laubenstein, Janet Aulisio, Jim Nelson were the hallmarks of Shadowrun, and where are they now? I guess the same would've happened to Earthdawn.) I expect WotC to give Prescott, Jones & Co. the boot soon. "The visual identity is established. Thanks, guys, cheaper artists will take over. Have a nice career." Oh, the blessings of free market economy... DB Honestly, I think the emphasis on art is a bit overblown. Art is secondary to the game itself, I say.
Dark Wizard 09-18-06, 07:48 PM	Honestly, I think the emphasis on art is a bit overblown. Art is secondary to the game itself, I say. As you say, it's secondary, that means it still supplements the material. It still has a part in portraying the setting, as much as the text on places, characters and rules. It's also a more immediate way of conveying ideas. Art plays an important role, might not be the most important, but it's there.
Alac Luin 09-18-06, 10:11 PM	As you say, it's secondary, that means it still supplements the material. It still has a part in portraying the setting, as much as the text on places, characters and rules. It's also a more immediate way of conveying ideas. Art plays an important role, might not be the most important, but it's there. I believe a large portion of the hatred to the star elves was caused by the light bulb tiaras they wore in the artwork. And I can also mention the comic like renderings of the chitine race that pop up now and then.
ORC_Paradox 09-19-06, 01:16 AM	I'll try to bring the thread a bit on its original purpouse (feel free to insult me in every manner you think about) Actually, we're not here for insulting each other. For whatever reason people always believe there's a this or that choice when it comes to various game worlds, forgetting it's still D&D at it's core. I started this thread in hopes of finding ways to bridge that gap, reduce the strong emotions and bring in some cool ideas from another world as a source rather than "this world is better than that world" type of argument that always pop up.
The Ubbergeek 09-19-06, 01:26 AM	I believe a large portion of the hatred to the star elves was caused by the light bulb tiaras they wore in the artwork. And I can also mention the comic like renderings of the chitine race that pop up now and then. Now, I admit some art pieces where a bit :rolleyes: But some where great. By example, i loved those planetouched in Race of Faerun (was that it?). And that dancer/priestress in Waterdeep.... <3
ClobberinTime 09-19-06, 01:17 PM	I imagine that if they were going to limit the art in the FR supplements to just one or two artist's that it would become those artist's full time and only job, which its doubtfull they would go for. I think people groaned and bashed the star elves as a throwback, when TSR made FR the official setting, they had to pile every monster, character class etc... into it, and sometimes being everything, is well the same as being nothing. The late days of TSR were crazy gimmicky, look at the monsters from Ruins of Myth Drannor, these are as ridiculous as dinosaurs. Thinking about the issue of levels and character impact, this should be a non-issue, i.e. it is just as mysterious that the king (12th level fighter) left the 5th level PCs to save the kingdom as it is that 25th level Alustriel, left the saving of the world to the 17th level player characters. The answer is the same in both cases, they (the king and alustriel) have their fingers in the levy and can't take them out to stop another hole because the levy will break from the one their finger is in.
The Ubbergeek 09-19-06, 02:12 PM	Hey, dinosaurs can be cool.... Some of those beasts where fearsome. Think what you want, but created monsters often don't hold a candle up to our rl myths or even prehistoric life in variety and creativity. ;)
Sapp 09-19-06, 02:14 PM	Thinking about the issue of levels and character impact, this should be a non-issue, i.e. it is just as mysterious that the king (12th level fighter) left the 5th level PCs to save the kingdom as it is that 25th level Alustriel, left the saving of the world to the 17th level player characters. The answer is the same in both cases, they (the king and alustriel) have their fingers in the levy and can't take them out to stop another hole because the levy will break from the one their finger is in. I don't think relativity applies to this situation. Let's take your argument to the extreme. A level 13 King recruits the 5th level party to save the kingdom by recovering an artifact. The party goes off to discover where it is, and fight to retrieve it. A level 108 Wizard-God recruits the 100th level party to save the multiverse by recovering an artifact. The party starts massive Epic rituals to dispel/disjoin hundreds of wards and safeguards from a safe distance, and then cast an Epic remote teleport object to bring the artifact into their hands. The dynamics are completely different for gaming. One situation is more tedious and difficult to control for the DM than the other.
Renvale999 09-19-06, 04:39 PM	I think that taking things from one setting and putting them into another is a bad idea...please allow me to explain before you flame me to hell(sorry I've just been flamed alot lately on these boards, not really sure why) Both settings have their merits and flaws, that's for certain. But each one has it's own unique style and flavor. I think by taking something from one setting and cramming into another is... A. Too much work for your average DM. Most of us older guys work 9-5 and have very little time to ourselves when we get home. It makes it extremely difficult to transfer something over to another campaign setting and be able to put some backround story onto it instead of saying "Poof, warforged exist FR and the Red Wizards control them!" If you got the time, great, go for it but I'm sure as hell not able too. B. By taking something special from one setting and putting into another, you take away some of the flavor from the campaign setting. To me, if you add warforged to FR, you make the next time you play Eberron less special because now warforged exist in FR too, instead of just Eberron. I don't know, maybe I'm an idiot(probably true), but I like playing campaign settings with their own UNIQUE hooks...it's just makes the campaign setting special. I play Eberron to have warforged and Psiforged...I play FR to have the Harpers and Avariel Elves. Both Eberron and FR are great campaign settings, I've run both and I'm curreny running a Eberron game, but I've got a FR campaign in the works. I believe that both settings are wonderful and I hope neither of them ever die.
The Ubbergeek 09-19-06, 05:36 PM	But what if we are not interested to play in setting X and/or want to put a new twist, to add something to settting Y?
Fanatic66 09-19-06, 08:19 PM	But what if we are not interested to play in setting X and/or want to put a new twist, to add something to settting Y? I totally agree with you, Ubbergeek. Thought I like Eberron more, both settings have something unique. Taking elements from certain Eberron and adding them to Forgotten Realms can be a good thing, and vice versa. Let's just all be friends.:D -Fanatic66
GothicDan 09-19-06, 09:11 PM	Doing this sort of thing is what made FR into its current mess of randomly-thrown together monsters, cultures, real-life analogies, and the like. The only way, nowadays, to get an idea of what FR was originally meant to be about, is extensive reading of Ed's answers over at Candlekeep. Some cross-polination is cool, but if there's too much - what's the point in having separate settings at all? That was the thinking that led TSR to toss in Kara-Tur, Maztica, etc.
Alac Luin 09-19-06, 10:23 PM	Now, I admit some art pieces where a bit :rolleyes: But some where great. By example, i loved those planetouched in Race of Faerun (was that it?). And that dancer/priestress in Waterdeep.... <3 True, there is some excellent artwork. (far left) http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ud_gallery/52106_CN.jpg Then there is passable. http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mof_gallery/MonFaePG26.jpg Then there is some that are eewww. http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ud_gallery/52069_CN.jpg If all I ever saw of a chitine was the third one, I'd be like are you serious? These things were created by drow? What do they have a (sp) to cast Hideous Llaughter? Wait, that should be an Extraordinary ability. Just saying, the artwork can influence ones perseption a bit.
The Ubbergeek 09-19-06, 11:47 PM	Doing this sort of thing is what made FR into its current mess of randomly-thrown together monsters, cultures, real-life analogies, and the like. The only way, nowadays, to get an idea of what FR was originally meant to be about, is extensive reading of Ed's answers over at Candlekeep. Some cross-polination is cool, but if there's too much - what's the point in having separate settings at all? That was the thinking that led TSR to toss in Kara-Tur, Maztica, etc. Well, it;s not a bad thing in itself. Ed's realms are a bit... Social experiment in feeling, I don't know... More for art than for gaming, maybe.
ORC_Paradox 09-20-06, 01:28 AM	You don't HAVE to do it, but everyone always looks for new material. By importing stuff from Eberron, you're able to get new content for the Realms every month.
Dexter_Blacktyde 09-20-06, 07:18 AM	It's also a matter of where your shame threshold lies. When we were kids, we started out with an RPG we disliked parts of, so we shamelessly imported a bit of a movie here, a bit of another RPG there, and so on, until we managed to completely destroy the feel of the setting. Every inclusion of foreign material was logical, we made sure of that, but the feel was gone. It wasn't that we included features that were out of place in our setting, it was just too much overall. Since then we change as little as possible. Of course we have to change things which don't make sense (and that's a lot already) and things we hate (that's even more), but we seldom include something only for being "cool". 1984 the German RPG, DSA, was single-handedly created by one man, and until his untimely death he kept creative control over it. Every contribution of other authors had to get his approval, and the beancounters were clever enough to not meddle in creative decisions but give him free rein, for better and for worse. It's by far the most successful German RPG today, and you can tell it's grown organically, it's despite its unbelievable complexity the most coherent living, breathing setting I know. (Considering all the incompatible ideas that formed its basis and had to be reconciled, that's no small feat.) It's true what they say: Too many cooks spoil the broth. Of course Ed is kind enough to praise the efforts of all the other authors who have contributed to the Realms in the past 20 years, and he never hesitates to point out that we have to make the Realms our own; but I highly doubt that he likes more than 50% of the incoherent mess of ideas that is the Realms today, probably far less if he was free to speak his mind. It would be interesting to give Ed a whole lotta money, the rights to FR and the assignment to redesign it from scratch the way he envisions it without having to keep an eye on what would sell and what wouldn't. Honestly, I think the emphasis on art is a bit overblown. Art is secondary to the game itself, I say. A picture says more than thousand words, and it can even decide the success of the idea it's supposed to convey. The art of Myranor was quite good overall when it was released, but next to some sub-par pictures one stuck out like a sore thumb: the shingwa burglar. It looked so silly, it's meanwhile even become legendary. The second print run – not the second edition, the second print run – sported a different picture while the rest remained, but the damage was done. All who know it make fun of it, but no one wants to play one. Too some people art may be more important than to others, but I think at least on a subconscious level it affects us all. It's very hard to get across the feel of a setting in words, but if the art direction is good, it can achieve just that. The first and second Shadowrun editions and Earthdawn are my favorite examples here. When a book leaves me no choice than to buy it after leafing through it at the store, it may later turn out that the setting just sucks, but the art direction has done its job. Interestingly, no WotC product after the release of the FRCS has achieved that. DB
ClobberinTime 09-20-06, 10:18 AM	I don't think relativity applies to this situation. Let's take your argument to the extreme. A level 13 King recruits the 5th level party to save the kingdom by recovering an artifact. The party goes off to discover where it is, and fight to retrieve it. A level 108 Wizard-God recruits the 100th level party to save the multiverse by recovering an artifact. The party starts massive Epic rituals to dispel/disjoin hundreds of wards and safeguards from a safe distance, and then cast an Epic remote teleport object to bring the artifact into their hands. The dynamics are completely different for gaming. One situation is more tedious and difficult to control for the DM than the other. I think that you are getting lost in the mechanical differnences. Think about it this way, regardless of what world you play in, there is always going to be some NPC/Angel/God/Dragon/force of nature, which is more powerfull than your players and more able to defeat threat x, y or z. This is a problem for any DM to solve regardless of the campaign world. Now at some point as the characters advance they become high enough level to be amongst the most powerfull creatures on their world. The only difference between Eberron and FR is where this occurs. I'm guessing in Eberron this happens around 12th level, and in FR it happens around levels 24 or 25. i.e. the two cases you list up top are in fact the same, the 12th level king is better at killing orcs than the PCs, and the 108th level wizard has a higher spellcraft skill than any of the PCs.
The Ubbergeek 09-20-06, 11:45 AM	Of course Ed is kind enough to praise the efforts of all the other authors who have contributed to the Realms in the past 20 years, and he never hesitates to point out that we have to make the Realms our own; but I highly doubt that he likes more than 50% of the incoherent mess of ideas that is the Realms today, probably far less if he was free to speak his mind. It would be interesting to give Ed a whole lotta money, the rights to FR and the assignment to redesign it from scratch the way he envisions it without having to keep an eye on what would sell and what wouldn't. A picture says more than thousand words, and it can even decide the success of the idea it's supposed to convey. The art of Myranor was quite good overall when it was released, but next to some sub-par pictures one stuck out like a sore thumb: the shingwa burglar. It looked so silly, it's meanwhile even become legendary. The second print run – not the second edition, the second print run – sported a different picture while the rest remained, but the damage was done. All who know it make fun of it, but no one wants to play one. Too some people art may be more important than to others, but I think at least on a subconscious level it affects us all. It's very hard to get across the feel of a setting in words, but if the art direction is good, it can achieve just that. The first and second Shadowrun editions and Earthdawn are my favorite examples here. When a book leaves me no choice than to buy it after leafing through it at the store, it may later turn out that the setting just sucks, but the art direction has done its job. Interestingly, no WotC product after the release of the FRCS has achieved that. DB Sorry,. but Ed is not all and everything in FR. A world setting is not a serie of novels, it do not belong just to the creator - that kind of elitism always annoiy me, like the 'Gygax only' greyhawkians. I look at his original vision, and frankly, it is not as original as though... It's nearly a liberal (in the USA sense of the word) revisiting of medieval world (and in this sense, not so different frrom a few classic sf and fantasy writters), if you look at it and read between lines, and I hope it was not a conscious decision in his mind.... In any case, I prefer the so arrogantly called 'mess' than Ed's not so original vision. And arts is ok, but peoples need something - imagination. You can not always have pics in a book.
Dexter_Blacktyde 09-20-06, 12:20 PM	Sorry,. but Ed is not all and everything in FR. Oh, I didn't mean to come across as a Greenwood devotee, 'cause I'm not. Let me rephrase my train of thought: I think it would be interesting to see what Ed would do (or would have done) with the setting if given free rein. I have no doubt that it would be more coherent, all parts smoothly intertwining, instead of the patchwork that resembles my first augmented-to-death setting. Sure, much of it wouldn't be the reinvention of the wheel, but what I personally dislike about Eberron, for example, is the originality-for-originality's-sake vibe I get from it. "See? I'm totally different!" (Whether I'm right or wrong about that isn't important right now.) The Dalelands aren't original, far from it. But they have something much more important: charm. (I know, nobody can prove charm, but I hope you get the idea.) Mulhorand hasn't even a semblance of charm and is the perfect example of dumb copy-and-paste without a hint of creativity, which I would've been spared if Ed had had his way. By the way, that doesn't exclude other authors' input; but what it would have been is one man's vision, for better and for worse. And arts is ok, but peoples need something - imagination. You can not always have pics in a book. Why can't I? DB
Fabius Maximus 09-20-06, 12:52 PM	1984 the German RPG, DSA, was single-handedly created by one man, and until his untimely death he kept creative control over it. Every contribution of other authors had to get his approval, and the beancounters were clever enough to not meddle in creative decisions but give him free rein, for better and for worse. It's by far the most successful German RPG today, and you can tell it's grown organically, it's despite its unbelievable complexity the most coherent living, breathing setting I know. (Considering all the incompatible ideas that formed its basis and had to be reconciled, that's no small feat.) It's true what they say: Too many cooks spoil the broth.I always felt that DSA was more limited than other campaign worlds. Especially after what they did with the metaplot. The world is just too small. The expression "DSA = Die Schlechtere Alternative"* doesn't come from anywhere. ;) This is the down hand with campaign setting that are designed by few people or only one person that they can be rather narrow. Take Dragonlance, for instance. The novels are a nice read, but as an RPG setting, it feels limited because the novel characters solve all the problems. Eberron actually is an exeption to the rule. While it generally was designed by two people, it has a lot possibilities, and even better yet: No Metaplot! And it helped that they involved other designers later. Not everything they did is good, but the setting has expanded significiantly. *Roughly translated as "The Worse Alternative"
Dexter_Blacktyde 09-20-06, 01:56 PM	I always felt that DSA was more limited than other campaign worlds. Especially after what they did with the metaplot. The world is just too small. The expression "DSA = Die Schlechtere Alternative"* doesn't come from anywhere. ;) Believe it or not, but I've never heard that before :rofl: The last time I played DSA was... 1992, I believe - just so you know that I'm not advertising it -, but since then I've always kept an eye on it, thanks to free review copies. It's true that because it's so meticulously described to the tiniest detail, a GM has a harder time to write something for it. But what impresses me is the believability of a setting that's ridiculously unbelievable to begin with. DSA had its share of real-life copies analogies, but where the Realms' copies remained copies, DSA absorbed them over the years and turned them into something of their own. The pro- and antagonists feel as real as the goings-on; in the FR you have quite one-dimensional superheroes and -villains who fight and bring about world-shattering events respectively, the n-th invasion of alien aberrations, gods walking the Earth and vampiric Halfdragon-Ilithids fighting celestial Seelie Half-Dire-Badger-Half-Fey on a daily basis. It's comic book vs. sophisticated novel. What's eminently more: DSA strongly encourages roleplaying and complex and believable plots that feel real. Sadly, D&D does neither. That the metaplot is so strongly enforced is a small price to pay. Oh, what I'd give for a Forgotten Realms feeling like DSA *sigh* Disclaimer: I don't even like DSA, it's too renaissance and too - how shall I put it? - pushy in regard to its being German for my tastes. But if I was asked which one I thought was the objectively better setting, DSA would win hands down. It's the kind of roleplaying setting I'd want everybody new to the hobby to come across first. DB
GothicDan 09-20-06, 01:58 PM	I guess one of the reasons why I do tend to prefer Ed's Realms to the current one is the same one that Dexter pointed out: cogency. While it's true that one area of Faerun can be vastly different from the rest, it's rarely that way without cultural and historical connections or magical anomolies. Things are explained. That's also why I really, really liked Dragonlance. Planescape may be my favorite campaign setting, though, and many people have felt the same way that many of us feel about Eberron - that it's unique for its own sake. Well, the thing is, Planescape still has a sense of consistency in that it revolves around a few key themes: 1. Faith is power. 2. Nothing's always the way it seems. 3. There's always someone bigger out there. The very nature of Planescape - primarily focusing on the Outer Planes, where perception and strength of conviction shape reality - makes it infinitely more open to 'new' things and the breaking of stereotypes than any Prime setting. When I talk about my preferences for something, they ALWAYS apply to the campaign setting being discussed. I would be a much more liberal DM, in almost all ways, in a PS game than an FR or DL or GH one. Just because I personally enjoy something, to me, doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to include it in a given campaign, unless it fits the overall theme of the world.
Sapp 09-20-06, 03:06 PM	I think that you are getting lost in the mechanical differnences. Think about it this way, regardless of what world you play in, there is always going to be some NPC/Angel/God/Dragon/force of nature, which is more powerfull than your players and more able to defeat threat x, y or z. This is a problem for any DM to solve regardless of the campaign world. Now at some point as the characters advance they become high enough level to be amongst the most powerfull creatures on their world. The only difference between Eberron and FR is where this occurs. I'm guessing in Eberron this happens around 12th level, and in FR it happens around levels 24 or 25. i.e. the two cases you list up top are in fact the same, the 12th level king is better at killing orcs than the PCs, and the 108th level wizard has a higher spellcraft skill than any of the PCs. Unfortunately, the mechanics are too important to ignore. "Getting lost in mechanical differences" is actually better than ignoring them with the current D20 System. The 13th level King is MUCH better at killing orcs than the 5th level PCs. The 108th level Wizard may have more ranks in spellcraft, but the PCs can ritual their Epic spells, so the slightly higher spellcraft skill is moot. (EDIT: And also, keep in mind that to have a higher spellcraft check, you'll need to completely design this wizard-king with full equipment and treasure, more than standard NPC wealth. You'll probably need to design some Epic wizard lackeys for him too, so he can abuse Epic rituals as much as the PCs can. It's a lot more work than just "a level 13 King", unless you just want to railroad.) D&D spells and effects aren't scaled linearly. You don't get a weak teleport that gets better and better as you level. You get from level 1 to level 9 and then you suddenly get teleport, and the dynamics of the game changes completely. It changes even more once you suddenly get greater teleport... and then changes even more when you get spells, such as ethereal jaunt, xorn movement, polymorph... that allow you to potentially skip through entire adventures. This makes the DM's job more difficult to design adventures without railroading as the levels increase. Unless you ban literally hundreds of spells, abilities, and interactions, by the time the players get close to level 20, they can change the world. They are designing their own demiplanes. They can have infinite strength. They can get as many wishes as they want. And on and on... So what if there's a more powerful God/Celestial/NPC higher level than you that still needs your services. The dynamics of the game have changed, and it's much more time consuming to design a high-level adventure that doesn't involve a super-epic, control-freak NPC that will kill the PCs unless they do something a certain way, or make up scenarios impromptu that weren't prepared for (aka "railroading"). PCs: Ok. Divinations to find the quest-item. DM: You can't. Aside: Mordy's Private Sanctum... I'm so clever. PCs: Discern Location should bypass anything short of mindblank or divine intervention... DM: Oh... um... ok, you know where it is. PCs: Greater Teleport. DM: Can't. PCs: Let's research where the place is and teleport there, and dispel whatever is warding the place. Nezza, you have a high enough spellcraft to tell what the ward is? Nezza: *Rolls 40*. I'm guessing it might be dimensional lock or forbiddance. More likely forbiddance because it covers more ground and is cheaper and actually lasts. DM: Um... no. It's not forbiddance. Nezza: I have permanent detect magic on. What aura is it radiating? DM: Um... It's overwhelming abjuration. Aside: I guess I'll make it Epic and design it later. Nezza: What's the strength of the Aura? Can't I just disjoin it? Disjunction works on Epic spells, does it not? DM: Um... Yeah... I guess... Nezza: Ok, we do that. Then use divinations, greater teleport in, grab onto the object and contingent teleport out before anything happens. DM: :tantrum: (NOTE: The PCs would actually be much more careful, of course, but I don't want to write a 5-6 paged dialog.) Sure, "This is a problem for any DM to solve regardless of the campaign world." The difference is, however, that some worlds are meant to scale with the PCs while the FRCS calibrates the legendary level to 20+. Unless you've banned or changed tons of material (from FR sourcebooks themselves), there's a clear dichotomy between the levels that the FRCS suggests the players affect the world, and what the rest of D&D seems to suggest is the level PCs begin affecting the world. Then the PCs also must wonder why the Epic NPCs don't all have their own demiplanes, rather than living on Faerun in mundane physical fortresses. (It doesn't help that a lot of them don't have mindblank either.) So I think, for someone like me, the Epic NPCs HAVE to be killed, or bound in the depth of Khyb--I mean, the Underdark. Otherwise, I really get no peace of mind. ("I'm shattering and reshaping the world at level 17-20, and these dorks at level 30+ have trouble figuring out what to do with their power?!") ... maybe I'm just aversive to the idea of railroading.
Sapp 09-20-06, 03:39 PM	I guess one of the reasons why I do tend to prefer Ed's Realms to the current one is the same one that Dexter pointed out: cogency. While it's true that one area of Faerun can be vastly different from the rest, it's rarely that way without cultural and historical connections or magical anomolies. Things are explained. That's also why I really, really liked Dragonlance. Planescape may be my favorite campaign setting, though, and many people have felt the same way that many of us feel about Eberron - that it's unique for its own sake. Well, the thing is, Planescape still has a sense of consistency in that it revolves around a few key themes: 1. Faith is power. 2. Nothing's always the way it seems. 3. There's always someone bigger out there. The very nature of Planescape - primarily focusing on the Outer Planes, where perception and strength of conviction shape reality - makes it infinitely more open to 'new' things and the breaking of stereotypes than any Prime setting. When I talk about my preferences for something, they ALWAYS apply to the campaign setting being discussed. I would be a much more liberal DM, in almost all ways, in a PS game than an FR or DL or GH one. Just because I personally enjoy something, to me, doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to include it in a given campaign, unless it fits the overall theme of the world. I think all settings, are cogent in their own way. It's not just limited to Planescape, Dragonlance, and the Forgotten Realms, as you make it sound like it is. Don't get me wrong, I like Planescape, but the points you listed for it can all be applied to Eberron. Faith IS power. Nothing really is the way it seems. And there IS always something bigger out there (but the option to release those bigger things rests with the DM). Same with the cogency deal. Eberron's cogency is there. It's harder to see because there are so few novels. But the setting ties very nicely together, despite the "crazy spin!" criticisms. They can all be explained in-game (through either corruption, wide use of magic, manifest zones, planar orbits, and so on) and have mechanical values as well (playability, practicality, etc). Balance-wise though, with more sourcebooks coming out, it's slipping into FR territory. Planar Shepherd will be Eberron's Cheater of Mystra or Twice-Betrayer of Shar. I agree with the statement that "Just because I personally enjoy something, to me, doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to include it in a given campaign, unless it fits the overall theme of the world."
Ripe 09-20-06, 04:02 PM	... PCs: Ok. Divinations to find the quest-item. DM: You can't. Aside: Mordy's Private Sanctum... I'm so clever. PCs: Discern Location should bypass anything short of mindblank or divine intervention... DM: Oh... um... ok, you know where it is. PCs: Greater Teleport. DM: Can't. PCs: Let's research where the place is and teleport there, and dispel whatever is warding the place. Nezza, you have a high enough spellcraft to tell what the ward is? Nezza: *Rolls 40*. I'm guessing it might be dimensional lock or forbiddance. More likely forbiddance because it covers more ground and is cheaper and actually lasts. DM: Um... no. It's not forbiddance. Nezza: I have permanent detect magic on. What aura is it radiating? DM: Um... It's overwhelming abjuration. Aside: I guess I'll make it Epic and design it later. Nezza: What's the strength of the Aura? Can't I just disjoin it? Disjunction works on Epic spells, does it not? DM: Um... Yeah... I guess... Nezza: Ok, we do that. Then use divinations, greater teleport in, grab onto the object and contingent teleport out before anything happens. DM: :tantrum: (NOTE: The PCs would actually be much more careful, of course, but I don't want to write a 5-6 paged dialog.) Sure, "This is a problem for any DM to solve regardless of the campaign world." The difference is, however, that some worlds are meant to scale with the PCs while the FRCS calibrates the legendary level to 20+. Unless you've banned or changed tons of material (from FR sourcebooks themselves), there's a clear dichotomy between the levels that the FRCS suggests the players affect the world, and what the rest of D&D seems to suggest is the level PCs begin affecting the world. ... The problem presented here lies in the fact that teleport spell is completely broken and unlogical. Allowing characters to teleport to a location that he/she had seen only via scrying effect is... well, stupid. Which is why I allways, in every game setting I play Rule 0 teleport spell to allow teleport only to a location you personally visited. So, you see, you don't need to "ban or change tons of material", all you must do [to make any setting logical] is rewrite one spell.
Ripe 09-20-06, 04:16 PM	...Balance-wise though, with more sourcebooks coming out, it's slipping into FR territory. Planar Shepherd will be Eberron's Cheater of Mystra or Twice-Betrayer of Shar. Except for the fact that both of them are not legal build within FR. Why? Because both of those builds use WE version of Dweomerkeeper and that version is not legal within FR [and it never was, but powergamers on CO boards keep ignoring that fact]. The only legal version is the one in Faiths & Pantheons. Which require completely different build. So while Planar Shepherd might be Eberron's, Cheater of Mystra or Twice-Betrayer of Shar are deffinatelly not FR's. Greyhawk's maybe, but not FR's.
Sapp 09-20-06, 04:16 PM	The problem presented here lies in the fact that teleport spell is completely broken and unlogical. Allowing characters to teleport to a location that he/she had seen only via scrying effect is... well, stupid. Which is why I allways, in every game setting I play Rule 0 teleport spell to allow teleport only to a location you personally visited. So, you see, you don't need to "ban or change tons of material", all you must do [to make any setting logical] is rewrite one spell. That's true. Greater Teleport is rather monumental of a change. It busts my nuts everytime I DM or guest-DM to wonder why a high-level enemy wizard who has seen and/or fought the PCs doesn't just greater scry on a familiar, a mount, or someone equally unlikely to be mindblanked, then greater teleport in when the PCs are at their weakest, and annihilate them... I make it a point not to introduce high-level casters unless I'm sure someone has divert teleport or anticipate teleport. That said, it's the shear versatility that PCs get at higher levels, not just one spell. Scry doesn't work on objects, I believe. They'd need to use Discern Location or clairvoyance or other divinations. The PCs can still use regular teleport to get to the general area. Then use either discern location or multiple lesser divinations to triangulate and then use Dimension Door. Unlike teleport series, dim door just needs a stated direction and distance. Dim door in, then teleport as a swift action out. If that doesn't work, something else will. The PCs literally have the power, given time to do anything they want. The only way to enforce a time-limit is by railroading at such levels. Literally. I don't mean weeks of time. I literally mean hours. Given hours. They can do anything they want. It leaves you wondering why Epic NPCs haven't done the same things the PCs have done at level 17 onwards... ... unless they were imprisoned long ago in the depth of the Underdark by ancient benevolent beings who knew what horrors the future would face if these bastardly Epic NPCs were to roam freely!
Ripe 09-20-06, 05:03 PM	That's true. Greater Teleport is rather monumental of a change. It busts my nuts everytime I DM or guest-DM to wonder why a high-level enemy wizard who has seen and/or fought the PCs doesn't just greater scry on a familiar, a mount, or someone equally unlikely to be mindblanked, then greater teleport in when the PCs are at their weakest, and annihilate them... I make it a point not to introduce high-level casters unless I'm sure someone has divert teleport or anticipate teleport. That said, it's the shear versatility that PCs get at higher levels, not just one spell. Scry doesn't work on objects, I believe. They'd need to use Discern Location or clairvoyance or other divinations. The PCs can still use regular teleport to get to the general area. Then use either discern location or multiple lesser divinations to triangulate and then use Dimension Door. Unlike teleport series, dim door just needs a stated direction and distance. Dim door in, then teleport as a swift action out. If that doesn't work, something else will. The PCs literally have the power, given time to do anything they want. The only way to enforce a time-limit is by railroading at such levels. Literally. I don't mean weeks of time. I literally mean hours. Given hours. They can do anything they want. It leaves you wondering why Epic NPCs haven't done the same things the PCs have done at level 17 onwards... ... unless they were imprisoned long ago in the depth of the Underdark by ancient benevolent beings who knew what horrors the future would face if these bastardly Epic NPCs were to roam freely! No, I'm not talking about greater teleport. I'm talking about regular 5th level version of the spell. That version is broken, stupid and unlogical and that is the version I rewrite in every single campaign. And since greater teleport work just like teleport, rewriting minor spell also change greater version [and it also change teleportation circle and teleport object]. What I do to teleport spell is that I change familiarity categories like this: - Very familiar --> Family property or visited daily - Studied carefully --> Visited at least once a weak/tenday - Seen casually --> Visited more than once - Viewed once --> Visited once Greater teleport work just like it said in PHB [replacing any Viewed reference with Visited of course] except that person suplying detailed description must be Very familiar with destination. So yes, it is just one spell. And discerning location of something still does not help since PC casting teleport spell still is still required to have personaly visited location to which he plan to teleport. Not to mention that Dimension door is potentially very dangerous spell to use blindly.
Fabius Maximus 09-20-06, 05:05 PM	3. There's always someone bigger out there. There is someone bigger than the Lady? :eek:
Sapp 09-20-06, 05:13 PM	So yes, it is just one spell. And discerning location of something still does not help since PC casting teleport spell still is still required to have personaly visited location to which he plan to teleport. Not to mention that Dimension door is potentially very dangerous spell to use blindly. I said teleporting to the general vicinity. They could simply overland flight to the general vicinity. Or even travel there. Anything to get in range to use dimension door. Or xorn movement. Or Passwall. Or ethereal jaunt... anything, in fact, that works for the occasion, depending on how the DM planned his adventure. At that kind of level, the precision, care, and preparation a DM needs is incomparably higher than what is needed for lower levels... without railroading. Dimension Door doesn't have to be dangerous if you know the exact location. It doesn't have a chance for error unlike teleport. It can shunt you if you specify and distance and direction that place you into a solid object, however.
Ripe 09-21-06, 03:11 AM	I said teleporting to the general vicinity. They could simply overland flight to the general vicinity. Or even travel there. Anything to get in range to use dimension door. Or xorn movement. Or Passwall. Or ethereal jaunt... anything, in fact, that works for the occasion, depending on how the DM planned his adventure. At that kind of level, the precision, care, and preparation a DM needs is incomparably higher than what is needed for lower levels... without railroading. True, all those spells are option Xorn movement, where is that one from?]. But the point is that in my campaigns wizard casting teleport had to visited even that general vicinity for spell to work. And overland flight or simple travel take time [which I believe is main reason why whole teleport thing is problem], not to mention opportunity for villain to try and stop PC's. And bear in mind that 20th level wizards dimension door range is only 1200 feet [which is little less than 400 meters if my math is good] and that etheral jaunt give him only 20 rounds of movement at half speed. So that general vicinity should be real close. Passwall would be good but it's too easy to counter [since you can't pass through metal]. And any villain of that level who does not protect his stronghold against it deserve what will happen to him. Dimension Door doesn't have to be dangerous if you know the exact location. It doesn't have a chance for error unlike teleport. It can shunt you if you specify and distance and direction that place you into a solid object, however. That is what I meant. And that shunting deal damage if I remember corectly [not much, but still]. But still, that problem is present in any game setting. It might be a bit more obvious in FR, but that does not mean that it do not exist in Eberron [there are NPC wizards capable of casting teleport, dimension door or passwall there, right?].
Solarious 09-21-06, 03:47 PM	There is someone bigger than the Lady? :eek: I take it you've never met Pun-Pun before? ;) But still, that problem is present in any game setting. It might be a bit more obvious in FR, but that does not mean that it do not exist in Eberron [there are NPC wizards capable of casting teleport, dimension door or passwall there, right?]. Yes, but not really. There are maybe 10-20 Wizards capable of casting anything beyond 4th level spells, and they're all either the top agents of a country, or the top innovaters of a Dragonmarked House. Both have tremendous duties and demands, by virtue of the fact there are about 10-20 of them. ;) And these are public, non-villian NPCs. Everyone else in that range is probably a BBEG out doing evil things that you'd rather not have happening, or a manipulator who is trying to get you to do something specific for their own reasons. :devil: There are other NPCs who can pull off a Teleport, but they're likely Expert/DragonmarkedHeirs(Passage) who are less than useful in combat, have this annoying habit of being purely apolitical, and lack Passwall entirely.
Euangelion 09-21-06, 09:04 PM	On the other hand, Eberron has these nifty magic items called minor schemas, which are basically 1/day spell trigger items that can hold up to 6th level spells, usable by anyone with the spell on their spell list. They might be expensive, but you only have to make one once, and you've got that spell forever.
Dark Wizard 09-21-06, 11:21 PM	On the other hand, Eberron has these nifty magic items called minor schemas, which are basically 1/day spell trigger items that can hold up to 6th level spells, usable by anyone with the spell on their spell list. They might be expensive, but you only have to make one once, and you've got that spell forever. Those sound pretty cool.
Fabius Maximus 09-22-06, 07:04 AM	I take it you've never met Pun-Pun before? ;) Not personaly, no. ;) But how does Pun-Pun get out of a time loop? :D
Euangelion 09-22-06, 08:44 AM	Those sound pretty cool. I probably should also mention that they are created using the Etch Schema item creation feat, rather than the Craft Wondrous Item feat.
Solarious 09-22-06, 02:07 PM	Not personaly, no. ;) But how does Pun-Pun get out of a time loop? :D The traditional way. He regresses time until you're out of it, and then Pun-Pun obliterates it in the manner of your choosing. Mind you, he has access to every material that happens to exist, including all divine and Epic abilities, as well as infinite everything (and by everything, I mean stats, HD, manifester level, caster level, spells, Epic spells, skills, and so on), so he has a lot of choice. :P In the meanwhile, we have a non-broken version of the Sarruk in Eberron, except they aren't scalyfolk, they're insane madmen from the Far RealmsXoriat, the plane of madness. They create new species from existing ones, but this involves years of screaming and experimenting, plus the process itself has no rules. ;) While we're on this thread, Eberron also has Eldritch Machines, which are explicitly stated as plot devices capable of reproducing a narrow, specialized version of Wish. No longer do you need to wait until at least the mid or high levels to save the city/country/world! A mad 5'th level villian can create a contraption capable of raising zombies and skeletons from the dead in a 5 mile radius, even from a destroyed undead's remains, and your PCs are the only ones with enough information to stop her before the largest city in Khorvaire becomes a necropolis! :D On the other hand, Eberron has these nifty magic items called minor schemas, which are basically 1/day spell trigger items that can hold up to 6th level spells, usable by anyone with the spell on their spell list. They might be expensive, but you only have to make one once, and you've got that spell forever. Yep. Now, all you have to do is to convince the Dragonmarked houses to give it to you (Ha), steal it from them without them knowing who stole it (Double ha), or make one of your own. Of course, by the time you get to the last bit, the tone of the campaign changes a little. :)
Sapp 09-22-06, 06:08 PM	I actually don't like to use Eldritch Machines. I feel that they are simply ways for DMs to feel fine about rule zeroing a lot of things.
Fabius Maximus 09-22-06, 06:48 PM	The traditional way. He regresses time until you're out of it, and then Pun-Pun obliterates it in the manner of your choosing. Mind you, he has access to every material that happens to exist, including all divine and Epic abilities, as well as infinite everything (and by everything, I mean stats, HD, manifester level, caster level, spells, Epic spells, skills, and so on), so he has a lot of choice. :P Damn! I always kind of try to forget that. ;) In the meanwhile, we have a non-broken version of the Sarruk in Eberron, except they aren't scalyfolk, they're insane madmen from the Far RealmsXoriat, the plane of madness. They create new species from existing ones, but this involves years of screaming and experimenting, plus the process itself has no rules. ;) And they have a CR of 20 instead of 17. Aaaand they look a lot better. :D
Fanatic66 09-22-06, 07:52 PM	I actually don't like to use Eldritch Machines. I feel that they are simply ways for DMs to feel fine about rule zeroing a lot of things. I actually like the idea of Eldritch Machines. They remind me of WMD with Eberron-like flavor, "The doomsday machines of Eberron.":devil: