What is Dal Quor? I see reference to it in the kalashtar information but what is it, if I'm playing a kalashtar I think my character should know where or what this place is. Is it a city, a region, or another plane, to be honest from the text it reads like it could be any of those.
What happens to my character if he goes into the mournlands? This ought to be common knowledge if it has forced an entire country to become refugees shouldn't it?
What exactly are the rules for dragonmarks? How big are they? Where on the body do they usually appear? Can they be covered by clothing by mundane means given that you have a ritual to conceal them magically? These are things that are kinda necessary to use dragonmarks aren't they? Why weren't they included?
And thats only the start, I could come up with dozens of other questions that a player should know in this setting that one wouldn't know reading this book. I expect better out of a book even if its a player's version, we kinda need to know how the elements work and what they generally are, it looks like the book was half done and leaning heavily on what is expected to be "common" knowledge of the setting which to be frank not everyone has.
I should not have to be asking these questions on the forums, they should be in the book and thats my issue with it.
The full Campaign Setting book comes out next month. ;)
Now is your concern that it's two separate books instead of all being published together? I think the reason for that is because some people just want the mechanical stuff and have no interest in the campaign setting at all. I know I'll never run an Eberron game, but I do still like Warforged and Kalashtar and Artificers and stuff.
The Eberron Players Guide presents everything a Dungeons & Dragons player needs to create and run a character in the 4th edition eberron campaign setting
My problem is that it does not. It doesn't even cover all the mechanics. Look at my 3 example questions, two of them are mechanics based. What are the mechanical consequences of entering the morunlands? You won't find that there. What are the mechanical rules for dragonmarks? This is very neccessary, very very vital to alot of the setting, but none of the questions in I listed in my original post are answered in the book. Have you even looked through it yourself crimson? It seems to be missing alot even on the mechanics side of things. Sure it covers the artificer and races well enough, but not much mechanical for the setting is covered at all, even things that are very relevent to players.
While your average 3.5 player might know what happens when you enter the Mournlands, your average 1st level character certainly does not. More importantly, its vital that the book doesn't ruin the anxiety and mystery of the Mournlands when no one but the DM determines/knows what happens when you go there. Its the same reason Strahd's stat block isnt stuck in the PHB for all the players to see just what his abilities are. These things are left vague to players on purpose and for good reason.
When it comes to dragonmarks, i figure its left vague because its up to you as a player to do whatever you want with them. Want a giant tribal on your face? Sure. Are you going for a big Cannith tramp-stamp? Feel free. Do you want a little thing on your shoulder? Why not? Its just for RP anyway.
Now when it comes to Dal Quor, i can see where that is problematic. Its hard to believe that there is not even a brief description of it at all through out the entire book.
As for Dal Quor, no there is no discription of any kind other than that the Kalashtar came from there, in fact outside the write up for the kalashtar there is no mention of it what so ever.
And back to dragonmarks. Even if they did intend you do what ever, there are still things needed to know. Can you conceal them under clothing or would they shine or glow through making the ritual the only way to hide them. If they can be concealed mundanely why even have the ritual save for very rare occurrences where your being strip searched. Do they shine or glow or emit light in any way while we are on that subject? None of this is answered in any way and I find that as a rather glaring omission.
Things should be more player friendly... heck, even the forgotten realms book is a little off...
they should have made them a little more player friendly... and I am like you, havent played since 2e either... I have no clue about that setting, I thought it was Eragon
You do have some point ghoststepper, however should I make a character with the background from the mournlands, that character even at 1st level would know. So once again needed information.
As for Dal Quor, no there is no discription of any kind other than that the Kalashtar came from there, in fact outside the write up for the kalashtar there is no mention of it what so ever.
And back to dragonmarks. Even if they did intend you do what ever, there are still things needed to know. Can you conceal them under clothing or would they shine or glow through making the ritual the only way to hide them. If they can be concealed mundanely why even have the ritual save for very rare occurrences where your being strip searched. Do they shine or glow or emit light in any way while we are on that subject? None of this is answered in any way and I find that as a rather glaring omission.
Oooo. I didn't realize there was a Mournland background. Thats kinda cool. The Dal Quor thing seems bizarre to me, but i think im really going to have to reserve further judgment until i get my hands on the book.
I have no clue about that setting, I thought it was Eragon
Actually thats Dragonlance. It may be coming out next year. ;)
The Character background information on The Mournland (Cyre) states, in the second paragraph:
No PC's live in the Mournland. The associated skills are available to PCs who were born in Cyre before the Day of Mourning and who have struggled to survive elsewhere for years.
Eberron Player's Guide, pg. 129
Therefore, no, there are no characters who actually grew up in the Mournland, and thus have no knowledge of its effects.
Dragonmarks are very much about roleplaying, as was previously said. It doesn't matter where you have it, just that you do in fact have one. They are marks that appear on the skin, so opaque clothing conceals them just fine, no ritual needed.
Dragonmarks are very much about roleplaying, as was previously said. It doesn't matter where you have it, just that you do in fact have one. They are marks that appear on the skin, so opaque clothing conceals them just fine, no ritual needed.
But there's a ritual if you need it, just in case. :D
(Check the rituals section. It's there.)
I think it's perfectly reasonable for players to say to their DM, "Hey, I'm making an X, what do I need to know about the world for the purposes of my backstory?" It makes it much easier, for example, for the DM to mod the world and change key elements in order to preserve the sense of mystery.
On the other hand, this isn't homebrew, it's a published product, and at the very least it sounds like it's confusingly marketed. It should probably say, "For players who are already familiar with the Eberron world - everything you need to know to make and play Eberron characters! (Consult the campaign guide for more detail on the exciting world of Eberron.)"
It actually DOES say what Dal Quor is, but it is all the way in the planes section, which is inconvenient if you haven't been scouring the book as I have.
The Mournland, on the other hand, I believe ought to be left out for this reason: the citizens of Khorvaire really DON'T know what happens when you go into the Mournland. Most people don't come back from there, and the tales of those who have are many and contridictory. I believe this is actually a feature, and I'm glad that they left it out.
There are many instances where I felt more information was needed, and MANY other instances where I was glad that they left pertinent information out.
Frankly, if someone were not to know the setting well, he or she would have a difficult time distinguishing that. However, I do agree with the OP that the book should be more clear on things that it has purposely left out so that players do not go looking for things that should be mysteries.
Yours,
Lord Dreadman
In 3e and earlier, campaign settings required only one book to have both mechanical and fluff. But 4E is not going this route. I bet you that if WOTC reprinted every 3e Eberron books into the 4E version with minimal content changes (as the seting is quite young), there would be an even bigger outcry from the fans.
It all comes down to money. They'd need to expend more money for more pages and art. Price of book vs Reprinted content.
If you're clueless about Eberron, here's the place to go.http://eberron.wikia.com/wiki/Eberron_Wiki
The Character background information on The Mournland (Cyre) states, in the second paragraph:No PC's live in the Mournland. The associated skills are available to PCs who were born in Cyre before the Day of Mourning and who have struggled to survive elsewhere for years.
Eberron Player's Guide, pg. 129
So it's actually more equivalent to the regional background choice Cyre (Displaced) from the old 3.5 ECS. In this case I personally like the old terminology better, as Cyre and the Mournlands are in many ways two entirely different places that just happen to share the same geographical location.
Therefore, no, there are no characters who actually grew up in the Mournland, and thus have no knowledge of its effects.
Mostly true, though there are at least two active groups of warforged that live within the Mournlands. The first are the followers of the lord of blades, so not particularly PC appropriate. The second, however, is a a group of cultists dedicated to wondering the countryside and looking for war refuse which they intend to use in the creation of a construct god, while a little off-beat there is some PC potential there.
There is also the community of Stillwater Station (introduced in Dragon 368), which is made up of a group of folks trying their best to reclaim the Mournlands. The community is still young so no one has "grown-up" Mournlands yet, but they certainly do live there.
The campaign guide isn't just for DMs. It's for everybody.
This is blatantly untrue. The author of the ECG has said multiple times its intended to be read only by DMs.
If you want to know more, ask your DM? Is it annoying they've included so little lore? Sure. But I'd prefer they not include enough versus 3.5e's book where it had too much and there was no mystery for players about certain things they shouldn't have known.
If you want to know more, ask your DM? Is it annoying they've included so little lore? Sure. But I'd prefer they not include enough versus 3.5e's book where it had too much and there was no mystery for players about certain things they shouldn't have known.
Agreed. In my old Eberron campaign the party's out-of-game knowledge probably unduly influenced their actions when they met Merrix d'Cannith. I won't say any more, so as not to spoil any secrets for the new generation of Eberron players. Still, I can't help but wounder how that scene would have played out if the players hadn't knowm things about him that their PCs probably shouldn't.
Having no knowledge of 3.5 Eberron I'm only guessing though and I suppose unless they state specifically it's up to the DM.
The Mournland has a note about all the player is likely to know: anything other than undead and warforged/constructs get the life sucked out of them if they enter the Mournlands. The Cyre background as stated refers to people born before the Day of Mourning in Cyre and now living elsewhere.
Dal Quor is referenced in a few places and mentioned as the Plane of Dreams where the Quori souls of the Kalashtar come from, and where the agents of the Dark Dreaming who hunt them come from as well.
Personally I felt that it gave a fairly good overview for players and I'd feel comfortable making a character in Eberron with what's in the EPG. I'm actually glad they didn't go into detail about areas outside the Five Nations very much since it sounds like most campaigns in Eberron will start in the Five Nations and the characters are likely to know very little of other places.
As for Drow it sounds like unlike FR the Drow are pretty exclusively evil, xenophobic, and not PC-friendly as a race.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eberron
Wiki is useless for serious research, but it's great for hobby geekery. There's page after page of Eberron stuff there. Go read up on the setting to your heart's content.
Hey, OP? You listening? The internet is your friend.
I didn't pay for a product to have to spend hours scouring the internet to find out what should be in the product, thats not how its supposed to work.
As far as Crye or the mournlands goes, I see it as playing out one of two ways and I am not sure which, not knowing what the mournlands does. From what I can gather from the book you have a mist or fog of some sort thats spreading (how fast and whether or not its still spreading I don't know, they are kinda mum as to that). Now the fog apparently does bad things to people, whether these bad things happen quickly or slowly I don't know. Now no one is going to just run away from any fog so clearly one of these two happened:
A) the fog kills or effects people quickly in which case my displaced (I agree with whoever said that was a better term) character witnessed what the fog did to him and kept running until out of the country, in which case my displaced cryan character would know at least visibly what it does, or
B) the fog kills or effects people slowly in which case after some time of actually living in the fog everyone started getting sick or something to that extent and the healthy people fled, in which case my displaced cryan character would also know at least visibly what the effects are.
Either way if I literally fled from the fog or mist as the writeup on the background suggests, I'd know what it does, or at least all logic says I would. And even still few of you are commenting on the lack of information on dragonmarks, someone said they could be covered by opaque clothing, that would have been a nice line to throw into the book, wouldn't it?
I agree it is ridiculous for new players to have to seek out ancillary materials to make use of a product claiming to contain "everything a Dungeons & Dragons player needs to create and run a character." I understand fitting that much information into a single book is difficult at best (and more likely impossible) but if that is the case Wizards of the Coast should abandon the three book spread concept and produce regional books like they did in 3.x. Conversely, this is what we get for decrying the profusion of 3.x publications as only a money making scheme; WotC listened to us and now we are getting a set number of books with condensed and trimmed content.
On the other hand, this trend towards ‘big crunch taste with a splash of fluff’ is not new or unexpected (at least to me). It has been clear since the core rulebooks were released that this is the direction WotC wants to take D&D 4E in and if you own these books you should have had a pretty good idea of what to expect from a new release.
It doesn't even cover all the mechanics. Look at my 3 example questions, two of them are mechanics based. What are the mechanical consequences of entering the morunlands? You won't find that there.
You are right, it does not cover all the mechanics, and it should not. There is no reason a player should know in advance what the mechanical consequences of entering the Mournlands will be. This is metagaming.
I think the most important thing already said here (which is why it deserves repeating) is that while the Eberron Player’s Guide is designed to give the player all the relevant information the most important source of information in your game should be your DM, who will have the Eberron Campaign Guide and thus will be able to answer any questions the Eberron Player’s Guide does not.
Wiki is useless for serious research
You know, this is a terribly unfair assessment. Given that Wikipedia not only has citation standards as rigorous as any academic journal, has an extensive peer review community, and actually provides avenues for discussion and debate about the validity of facts presented in its articles (show me a journal that has as much!), it's actually a very useful research tool. Unfortunately, the fact that it used to not have these things makes serious researchers leery of it - which doesn't stop those of us who actually recognize its value from using it, and citing the sources it cites when we need to provide evidence.
But I digress.
And even still few of you are commenting on the lack of information on dragonmarks, someone said they could be covered by opaque clothing, that would have been a nice line to throw into the book, wouldn't it?
Does the description of them include any mention of glowing or in any other way differing from a normal birthmark or tattoo (I'm going to assume the answer is no, because they didn't before)? Then why should it even cross your mind that they couldn't be covered up? Having a ritual to conceal them would still be useful because there are some places on the body that it is very difficult to cover up (for instance, it is considered inappropriate to wear a hood up indoors, if your dragonmark is on your forehead or some such).
I didn't pay for a product to have to spend hours scouring the internet to find out what should be in the product, thats not how its supposed to work.
As far as Crye or the mournlands goes, I see it as playing out one of two ways and I am not sure which, not knowing what the mournlands does. From what I can gather from the book you have a mist or fog of some sort thats spreading (how fast and whether or not its still spreading I don't know, they are kinda mum as to that). Now the fog apparently does bad things to people, whether these bad things happen quickly or slowly I don't know. Now no one is going to just run away from any fog so clearly one of these two happened:
A) the fog kills or effects people quickly in which case my displaced (I agree with whoever said that was a better term) character witnessed what the fog did to him and kept running until out of the country, in which case my displaced cryan character would know at least visibly what it does, or
B) the fog kills or effects people slowly in which case after some time of actually living in the fog everyone started getting sick or something to that extent and the healthy people fled, in which case my displaced cryan character would also know at least visibly what the effects are.
Either way if I literally fled from the fog or mist as the writeup on the background suggests, I'd know what it does, or at least all logic says I would. And even still few of you are commenting on the lack of information on dragonmarks, someone said they could be covered by opaque clothing, that would have been a nice line to throw into the book, wouldn't it?
You do know that:
A) you bought the player's guide and that it specifically said there are no PC's from the Mournland, hence you don't need to know "out of game" what happens there.
B) the Mournland is a mystery to everyone and that it is up to the DM (not you) and not the player (you) to decide before gametime what goes on there, as a PC it is possible that your quest is to figure out what happened on the Day of Mourning and by telling you anything ahead of time would ruin the suspence, fear and mystery (there's that word again) that your character should have before setting out on an adventure there. Any information you may want to know can be learned in game from interaction with NPC's.
Does the description of them include any mention of glowing or in any other way differing from a normal birthmark or tattoo (I'm going to assume the answer is no, because they didn't before)? Then why should it even cross your mind that they couldn't be covered up? Having a ritual to conceal them would still be useful because there are some places on the body that it is very difficult to cover up (for instance, it is considered inappropriate to wear a hood up indoors, if your dragonmark is on your forehead or some such).
I'd be inclined to agree if they said that a dragon mark was like a birthmark or tattoo in any way, which it does not. They merely say it is a mark on the skin. Nothing more, however many of the dipictions show it as glowing, they never specify what size it is or where it has to appear on the body, they don't say much about the mark itself at all. Thats the issue.
A) the fog kills or effects people quickly in which case my displaced (I agree with whoever said that was a better term) character witnessed what the fog did to him and kept running until out of the country, in which case my displaced cryan character would know at least visibly what it does, or
B) the fog kills or effects people slowly in which case after some time of actually living in the fog everyone started getting sick or something to that extent and the healthy people fled, in which case my displaced cryan character would also know at least visibly what the effects are.
I don't know if anyone in Cyre was there when the Day of Mourning happened and then escaped after the Mournland was created. Im pretty sure if you got caught up in the destruction then you were toast. I think the idea is that displaced Cyreans were in other countries when the event occurred and would not know about what happens in the Mournland.
I didn't pay for a product to have to spend hours scouring the internet to find out what should be in the product, thats not how its supposed to work.
As far as Crye or the mournlands goes, I see it as playing out one of two ways and I am not sure which, not knowing what the mournlands does. From what I can gather from the book you have a mist or fog of some sort thats spreading (how fast and whether or not its still spreading I don't know, they are kinda mum as to that). Now the fog apparently does bad things to people, whether these bad things happen quickly or slowly I don't know. Now no one is going to just run away from any fog so clearly one of these two happened:
A) the fog kills or effects people quickly in which case my displaced (I agree with whoever said that was a better term) character witnessed what the fog did to him and kept running until out of the country, in which case my displaced cryan character would know at least visibly what it does, or
B) the fog kills or effects people slowly in which case after some time of actually living in the fog everyone started getting sick or something to that extent and the healthy people fled, in which case my displaced cryan character would also know at least visibly what the effects are.
Either way if I literally fled from the fog or mist as the writeup on the background suggests, I'd know what it does, or at least all logic says I would. And even still few of you are commenting on the lack of information on dragonmarks, someone said they could be covered by opaque clothing, that would have been a nice line to throw into the book, wouldn't it?
Or these could explain it.
C) As you see the one-hundred foot tall wall of rolling mist approach, you hear screams of terror and agony. You lead others away to saftey instead of standing around waiting for the terror to overcome you.
D)Messages travel fast, it's a good thing your friends and family were able to escape Cyre before the effects of the Mourning reached you all.
Clearly some people did run away from the fog, there were survivors. This was a fast moving wall of grey mist which fell like a curtain. This wasn't just some natural fog. Eberron is a world where magic is everyday, it's in everyone's life. It's described as a foul grey mist, not average fog, at the least people should have assumed it was a spell. If you see a spell effect coming your way, you run.
I'd be inclined to agree if they said that a dragon mark was like a birthmark or tattoo in any way, which it does not. They merely say it is a mark on the skin.
That sounds like the definition of birthmark or tattoo to me. If they fail to provide more relevant information, that's because there is no more information they considered relevant to provide.
they never specify what size it is or where it has to appear on the body
Because these things are cosmetic and vary from person to person. Everything cosmetic in this game is 100% the prerogative of the players. Beyond the mechanical effects that the mark provides, as far as the game is concerned it's no different from an ordinary tattoo (well... an ordinary tattoo that marks the bearer as touched by Prophecy, and which if amputated will reappear on a different part of the body within a few days...)
This is blatantly untrue. The author of the ECG has said multiple times its intended to be read only by DMs.
So it's false because that's what you heard from this one guy?
Listen dear, authors often don't know what they're talking about. The Eberron Campaign Setting is for DM and Player alike whether its author realizes that or not.
So it's false because that's what you heard from this one guy?
Listen dear, authors often don't know what they're talking about. The Eberron Campaign Setting is for DM and Player alike whether its author realizes that or not.
Actually he's right. 4E makes a clear delineation between PC books and DM books. This delineation occasionally gets a little blurry (Manual of the Planes being the most prominent example), but the lines are there. Saying that the Campaign Setting books are for both players and DMs would be like saying the same of Draconomicon or Open Grave. All of those books are full of information that might be appropriate for PCs, but it's the purview of the DM to decide when and if a PC learns that kind of stuff.
Saying that the Campaign Setting books are for both players and DMs would be like saying the same of Draconomicon or Open Grave.
I do say the same of Draconomicon and Open Grave.
All of those books are full of information that might be appropriate for PCs, but it's the purview of the DM to decide when and if a PC learns that kind of stuff.
But it's not the purview of the DM to decide when and if the players learn that kind of stuff.
But it's not the purview of the DM to decide when and if the players learn that kind of stuff.
Do you tell your players all the secrets of your world or plot up front so they don't ever have the chance to be surprised?
Do you tell your players all the secrets of your world or plot up front so they don't ever have the chance to be surprised?
Of course not, but that's completely irrelevant when it comes to published settings and stories, because in such cases, players may easily know more about the setting than the DM does. Further, consider that most DMs aren't always just DMs and some players aren't always just players. You can't be upset at somebody who DMed an Eberron game being a player and knowing things that other players may not about the setting, even though he never uses this knowledge in game if it's something his character shouldn't know. This is the kind of reason I don't DM published settings (and prefer not to play in them when that can be avoided).
But really, if the most interesting thing about your campaign's plot is something I can look up in a campaign setting book, then your plot isn't really very original or interesting, and you should feel bad about that. :P
EDIT: Oh, and I also think I'm going to go ahead and add that I'm perfectly okay with players reading the MM so they know how monsters work and reading the DMG so they know how encounters, disease, poisons, mounts, and everything else covered in there works too.
But it's not the purview of the DM to decide when and if the players learn that kind of stuff.
According to you, which is perfectly fine in your games. The developers, per their own statements, intend the players to use the Player's Guide and the DM to use the Campaign Guide and setting-specific adventure. You may disagree with that WotC decision all you want, but please do not tell me how to run my own games.
By the way, I think we have accidently threadjacked the OP.
...please do not tell me how to run my own games.
All right, but if you're doing something wrong, then I'm going to try to correct you, because that's just the sort of helpful person that I am. :D
EDIT: Actually, a better response would have been:
"I'm not trying to tell you how to run your games. I'm trying to tell you not to tell your friends what they are and aren't allowed to read. What do you think I do? Tell me friends NOT to watch this one movie because I'm thinking of running a plot like that and don't want them to know the twist before hand? That would be completely unreasonable or me."
Page 10, second column, second paragraph. "The Coils of Eberron is the world most creatures know; including Khorvaire, Xen'drik, and the other continents. The Coils also embrace the Shadowfell (Dolurrh), the Feywild (Thelanis), and Dal Quor, the enigmatic Region of Dreams.
Published or not, PC's should be learning as they go for most things, that's how they advance levels. If they know everything ahead of time, it's all too easy to metegame and metegaming is boring as hell, takes all the fun out of it which is why I don't allow it at my table. Not only is it frustrating as a DM who puts a crapload of work into an adventure to have the PC's breeze through it because they read the DMG or MM, but as a player it takes out all the challenge, makes the mosters practically chained to the floor where they can run up and hit it over and over until it's dead. Thankfully, my group heavily discourages having knowledge beyond their character's level and, even if they do know something extra, they "forget" it for the sake of the game.
Of course not, but that's completely irrelevant when it comes to published settings and stories, because in such cases, players may easily know more about the setting than the DM does. Further, consider that most DMs aren't always just DMs and some players aren't always just players. You can't be upset at somebody who DMed an Eberron game being a player and knowing things that other players may not about the setting, even though he never uses this knowledge in game if it's something his character shouldn't know. This is the kind of reason I don't DM published settings (and prefer not to play in them when that can be avoided).
This is true, however, by having books clearly delineated between PC resource and DM resource it becomes easier for players that switch roles to keep the information straight.
[INDENT]Is it in the player's guide? Cool that means it's common knowledge that anyone living in the setting should know.
Is it only in the campaign guide? Probably a good idea segregate that little tidbit to the DM half of my brain and do my best to pretend that my PC half can't look at it.[/INDENT]
Another way of looking at would be that the Eberron Player's Guide is a primer, it's there to give the basic rundown of the setting without giving away any thing a DM might want to keep secret. The Eberron Campaign Setting has all the juicy details, but no spoiler protection, so reader beware if you're not the DM.
Of course not, but that's completely irrelevant when it comes to published settings and stories, because in such cases, players may easily know more about the setting than the DM does.
Yet just as many players don't know a thing about the setting (such as the OP). For them, a comprehensive book containing campaign secrets intended to be DM knowledge would spoil some the fun of discovery. Take the example of the earlier poster who has players that ran into Merrix D'canith and acted a certain way because they all metagamed. If they were new to 4E and knew nothing about Merrix D'cannith, the encounter might have been as surprising to the players as it would be their PCs.
Players don't need to know about what roams in the Mournland since their PCs don't know. Players don't need to know about Merrix D'canith's secret thing he is working on because the characters have no clue. The players don't need to know about King Kaius's secret because its a secret. The player's guide is for what players need to know, and there are some things they don't need to know to run a character.
EDIT: Oh, and I also think I'm going to go ahead and add that I'm perfectly okay with players reading the MM so they know how monsters work and reading the DMG so they know how encounters, disease, poisons, mounts, and everything else covered in there works too.
While its inevitable that some players are going to read the MM if they are to DM, ive found games are more fun if the players don't know all the monsters front to back. I have to go out of my way to reflavor and shuffle powers around in order to keep things fresh and when ever i use something out of a book no one uses, everyone is surprised.
This is true, however, by having books clearly delineated between PC resource and DM resource it becomes easier for players that switch roles to keep the information straight.
But of course even that depends on what type of game is being run. Some DMs may expect players to know more about the campaign setting than it discussed in the Player's Guide. What if the game starts at levels higher than 1? What if it starts at level 10? Of level 20? Or level 30 even? These PCs must surely know things of the world that level 1 characters may not. Heck, some DMs might even expect level 1 characters to know a lot about the world! In the end it really just depends on what kind of game is being run, so it's not fair to suggest that the Campaign Setting book is TOTALLY DM ONLY!!!11!
No, it should be completely fine for a player to read the campaign setting guide. If then the DM decides that the PCs may not have such extensive knowledge, then the players will do best not to metagame. Likewise, I read all the way through Lords of Madness, but if I'm a player, I'm not going to pretend my PC knows every little thing about Mind Flayers, and I'm just not going to bring any of my knowledge up at the table at all.
EDIT: Actually, a better response would have been:
"I'm not trying to tell you how to run your games. I'm trying to tell you not to tell your friends what they are and aren't allowed to read. What do you think I do? Tell me friends NOT to watch this one movie because I'm thinking of running a plot like that and don't want them to know the twist before hand? That would be completely unreasonable or me."
I cannot really argue with that, but I think we have a misunderstanding. If a DM forbade me from reading something I would turn into this guy:
As a DM I have been known to politely ask my players to avoid perusal of specific sections of rulebooks, though. For example, I plan on asking my players to avoid reading past the "Overview" section of "Faerûn and Beyond" in the FRCG because I will be providing edited and expanded regional descriptions to the group as necessary. They do not have to listen to me (it is not as if I will kick them out if they violate my immutable law or somesuch nonsense), but they know I have their best interests in mind and think the game would be more enjoyable if they let me describe the world instead of a dry text.There have also been times when, as a player, I have been grateful the DM did not grant me access to certain materials because I know, in retrospect, it would have prevented genuine surprise. For example, it is more difficult to covertly to penalize a planar traveller with a bag of holding for packratting everything not nailed down if they can recognize egarus.
To partially support the OP, the 4E Forgotten Realms books are light on some pretty import background information as well. The Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide so much so that if I have not had experience with a region I need to peruse the 3.x Forgotten Realm Campaign Setting before letting my players travel there.
That was actually the entire point. Well, not making you go to the 3e book, but it being sparse int he first place.
The campaign guides are intentionally being written with a lack of full concrete details in order to encourage the DMs to make crap up on their own and make the setting their own. Publishing every little detail defeats that purpose.
Yet just as many players don't know a thing about the setting (such as the OP). For them, a comprehensive book containing campaign secrets intended to be DM knowledge would spoil some the fun of discovery.
But then again, if the most interesting thing about your campaign's plot is something I can look up in a campaign setting book, then your plot isn't really very original or interesting, and you should feel bad about that. :P
Take the example of the earlier poster who has players that ran into Merrix D'canith and acted a certain way because they all metagamed. If they were new to 4E and knew nothing about Merrix D'cannith, the encounter might have been as surprising to the players as it would be their PCs.
And I agree that meta-gaming like that is bad.
Players don't need to know about what roams in the Mournland since their PCs don't know. Players don't need to know about Merrix D'canith's secret thing he is working on because the characters have no clue. The players don't need to know about King Kaius's secret because its a secret. The player's guide is for what players need to know, and there are some things they don't need to know to run a character.
But there's nothing wrong with them wanting to know and then taking steps to find out so long as they don't use that knowledge to meta-game. To suggest that it's wrong for a player to want to know what roams the Mournland is ridiculous.
While its inevitable that some players are going to read the MM if they are to DM, ive found games are more fun if the players don't know all the monsters front to back. I have to go out of my way to reflavor and shuffle powers around in order to keep things fresh and when ever i use something out of a book no one uses, everyone is surprised.
Agreed on all counts. I fail to see a problem.
No, it should be completely fine for a player to read the campaign setting guide. If then the DM decides that the PCs may not have such extensive knowledge, then the players will do best not to metagame. Likewise, I read all the way through Lords of Madness, but if I'm a player, I'm not going to pretend my PC knows every little thing about Mind Flayers, and I'm just not going to bring any of my knowledge up at the table at all.
Again true, but that doesn't change the fact that some books are written from a "for the DM's eyes only" perspective. Will some players read the book, probably. Is it okay if they do, probably. Could it spoil things that are meant as surprises, definitely.
Some DMs are fine with players reading any and every resource available, and may even expect the players to bring that kind of knowledge to the table. Other DMs prefer to be the sole lore keeper, and discourage players from reading non-player oriented resources (or at least to play down any meta-game knowledge they might have acquired). The books are written with the latter kind of group in mind, because it's easy for those in former variety to just ignore the arbitrary boundaries.
Some DMs are fine with players reading any and every resource available, and may even expect the players to bring that kind of knowledge to the table. Other DMs prefer to be the sole lore keeper, and discourage players from reading non-player oriented resources (or at least to play down any meta-game knowledge they might have acquired). The books are written with the latter kind of group in mind, because it's easy for those in former variety to just ignore the arbitrary boundaries.
I suppose that's reasonable, but then it's still no problem for a player to read the campaign setting guide if their DM isn't that sort of jerk.
That was actually the entire point. Well, not making you go to the 3e book, but it being sparse int he first place.
The campaign guides are intentionally being written with a lack of full concrete details in order to encourage the DMs to make crap up on their own and make the setting their own. Publishing every little detail defeats that purpose.
I understand, and that was done in response to numerous people claiming The Forgotten Realms was too complex and detailed a setting to start fresh in. "There is no room to create new things," and, "There is too much history; I want a setting, not a textbook," are the two complaints I remember most from 3rd Edition.
I think the 'clearing out' was done too severely. I now know this is not the case, but when I read the FRCG cover to cover for the first time I put it down and thought, "There is more in here describing what happened between editions than there is describing what is actually in the setting now." Having had more time to appreciate the book I recognize the previous statement as an overdramatic exaggeration, but I should never have been able to get that impression in the first place.
I have not picked up my Eberron Player's Guide yet and obviously have no idea what the Eberron Campaign Guide will look like, but with WotC's history of listening to their customers (for good and ill) I am looking forward to improvements on the detail/space ratio.
EDIT: I think room in a setting is great, but if there is already content available it should not be discarded because people like the setting flavor but would prefer to homebrew. WotC did a great job making lots of room by introducing the Points of Light theme.
I suppose that's reasonable, but then it's still no problem for a player to read the campaign setting guide if their DM isn't that sort of jerk.
Jerk is a strong term. Some DMs might take that approach because they are over zealous control freaks, but others might just be trying to present a experience where players don't have to consciously suppress metagame knowledge. Nothing is inherently wrong with players reading DM exclusive material, the world wont explode/implode because of it, but that doesn't meant that the segregation is wrong or mean spirited.
When running a homebrew game I trust you wouldn't want players reading your personal campaign notes. Well the published campaign guide is basically just an official version of a DM's personal notes.
Jerk is a strong term. Some DMs might take that approach because they are over zealous control freaks, but others might just be trying to present a experience where players don't have to consciously suppress metagame knowledge. Nothing is inherently wrong with players reading DM exclusive material, the world wont explode/implode because of it, but that doesn't meant that the segregation is wrong or mean spirited.
You're right, maybe I've just had bad experiences because every DM I've had who did restrict material in that way WAS a mean-spirited and overly zealous control freak. :P
You're right, maybe I've just had bad experiences because every DM I've had who did restrict material in that way WAS a mean-spirited and overly zealous control freak. :P
See, I knew there was a reason you're such a brooding complainer.
See, I knew there was a reason you're such a brooding complainer.
Well, that and I hate everybody. :D
I'm a huge Eberron fan. I'll risk sounding like an ass by claiming encyclopedic knowledge of Eberron. I don't claim to know it all, in this regard, but nearly. I say that to preface this:
Even with all my knowledge of the setting, I was struck with how sparse, or lacking, the EPG is. If one puts aside knowledge carried over from previous experience with the setting, I think they'll find this supplement ill-fitted to the task of providing players with "all they will need" to create fitting Eberron PCs.
If you can't tell, I was hugely disappointed with this book, for a plethora of reasons. The choices of artwork seemed strange and often incongruous. The layout was drab. Information you might expect to find in one location/discussion is instead spread throughout the book in a somewhat puzzling fashion. I have to say, I think the FRPG is far superior in almost every respect, and especially in layout. I can't think of a single thing I like better in the EPG, other than the map. That surprises me, since I strongly prefer Eberron to FR.
If I weren't already a huge Eberron fan, this book would've convinced me that Eberron had nothing special to offer my game. That's sad, and I hope others new to the setting don't come to the same conclusion. Perhaps the ECG will fill in all the gaps, hopefully improving the esteem in which I hold the EPG. I have faith that ECG will be great with Keith Baker and James Wyatt working on it, but my faith is mildly shaken by this EPG.
I have to agree with the OP that this Player's Guide is a bit of a failure. That's just my opinion, of course, but I felt strongly enough to share it.
Bel
I have to say, I think the FRPG is far superior in almost every respect, and especially in layout. I can't think of a single thing I like better in the EPG, other than the map.
But the maps are better? Then I am sold.
Could someone please tell me who is credited for Cartography?
Either way if I literally fled from the fog or mist as the writeup on the background suggests, I'd know what it does, or at least all logic says I would. And even still few of you are commenting on the lack of information on dragonmarks, someone said they could be covered by opaque clothing, that would have been a nice line to throw into the book, wouldn't it?
As to the mournland, perhaps logic isn't a factor of it. People are afraid of things - especially magic things. People didn't get to flee the mournland, the mornland just showed up. The survivors are those people outside of the country when the mourning took place. They know their country was destroyed, they don't know by what. Rumours are going to spread, and get exaggerated. There is an ominous fog, those that go into which are never seen again. Perhaps many people in the world are not being rational about the mourning, they are being superstitious about it.
So perhaps the only way to know about what the mournland does is to experience it. Unfortunately doing that will prevent you from telling others, as you'll be dead, so there is no common knowledge about the effects. Or hearsay and rumours.
As to the dragonmarks, perhaps they left some information out, that is a shame, but at the same time must you be told everything your character can do? I mean, nowhere in the rules does it say that my character wears pants. Does that mean I can't wear pants?
But the maps are better? Then I am sold.
Could someone please tell me who is credited for Cartography?
Lee Moyer is that man. According to an interview with James Wyatt, Lee and Keith Baker are friends, and Lee actually did the original cartography when Keith first submitted the Eberron idea. So, he's come full circle.
This map is by far the most beautiful I've ever seen in a gaming supplement, or for real life usage, for that matter. It's very nice. It also seems to be much more detailed than the maps of the ECS. I can't wait to get my hands on the large copy provided in the ECG!
Well, at least they're consistent! The FRPG was sparse in detail and had several gaps in the area of character backgound info also.
Bel
I felt those gaps, as well. Yet, at least the FRPG had a well-organized and appealing layout. The EPG is a chore to look at, in my opinion. It's unfortunate that I feel this way, since Eberron's my favorite setting.
Oh, well. I'm not going to keep slamming it. It is what it is, as they say ( and whatever the heck that's supposed to mean :P ). I'll still use it, no doubt.
and which if amputated will reappear on a different part of the body within a few days...
Well thats a nice thing to know, this I'd like to state was not in the book so having only read the EPG I would be forced to assume this does NOT happen. This is my point there is a lot of info like this that people knowledgeable about the setting know like you, but those like me not familiar would not know at all. This is the complaint I have.
Well thats a nice thing to know, this I'd like to state was not in the book so having only read the EPG I would be forced to assume this does NOT happen.
That info wasn't even in the original campaign setting guide. It was part of extended information on the history of excoriation which appeared in the Dragonmarked book (one of the last books released for the 3e line).
But since PCs don't lose limbs very often, it's hardly essential information to include in the opening release. Besides, I understand that it's rather popular to have marks on some part of the head, and if you lose that, you're not really going to be worrying about your mark rematerializing
Characters are not supposed to know everything about the setting, guys. The 3.5 sourcebook was terrible in this regard, giving away all the mysteries to everyone. DM content in DM books.
More so the 3.5 guide was just terribly organized. It was difficult for DMs to let the players have free reign to read any sections of it.
Even seemingly harmless things like okaying a player reading the section on their homeland ran the risk of dumping information that shouldn't be common knowledge, like the class/level/alignment of major NPCs, onto the player (Karnath was one of the greatest offenders).
Still, the EPG should still allow us to roll up some PCs and start gaming next week (especially since I can fill in the 'world' with the 3.5 ECS I bought a few years back and never took the opportunity to dive into; not everyone has that advantage however). I'd guess we'll get the full picture when I finally have both the EPG and the ECS for 4e.
Still, the EPG should still allow us to roll up some PCs and start gaming next week (especially since I can fill in the 'world' with the 3.5 ECS I bought a few years back and never took the opportunity to dive into; not everyone has that advantage however). I'd guess we'll get the full picture when I finally have both the EPG and the ECS for 4e.
Another good resource, especially for players new to the setting, would be the old Player's Guide to Eberron. Unlike the old campaign setting it doesn't give away any major secrets. Also, it's 99% fluff, so highly edition proof. I'd highly recommend that any group planing to run Eberron pick up a copy.
Another good resource, especially for players new to the setting, would be the old Player's Guide to Eberron. Unlike the old campaign setting it doesn't give away any major secrets. Also, it's 99% fluff, so highly edition proof. I'd highly recommend that any group planing to run Eberron pick up a copy.
Thanks for the heads up. That definitely look like something that would be useful. Gotta try to get it 'like new' though ;).
On the subject of giving away major secrets, that's one reason why I never dug into the 3.5 Campaign Setting book; as a player, I really wanted to be surprised. Still do but I'm gonna be the DM this time, so I gotta set the stage ;). I think Eberron will be a fun (and hopefully long running) campaign for us; we're all excited enough.
Well thats a nice thing to know, this I'd like to state was not in the book so having only read the EPG I would be forced to assume this does NOT happen. This is my point there is a lot of info like this that people knowledgeable about the setting know like you, but those like me not familiar would not know at all. This is the complaint I have.
Actually, I would note that the ruleset that said you can't loose your dragonmark... didn't have a retraining rule.
Sure, it might be a LITTLE overkill, but they DO say it's REALLY hard to retrain...
As for Dal Quor, no there is no discription of any kind other than that the Kalashtar came from there, in fact outside the write up for the kalashtar there is no mention of it what so ever.
I know nothing about Eberron either, and I just perused the EPG today at the local Borders and I'm pretty sure it mentions somewhere in there that Dal Quor is the Plane of Dreams. I think, and I'm paraphrasing here, that there is a section either at the beginning or the end of the book where it's talking about the world that a certain sect of 67 or so monks joined with the Kalashtar and I believe it describes Dal Quor there as being the Dream Plane or Eberron's equivalent of such.
Actually, I would note that the ruleset that said you can't loose your dragonmark... didn't have a retraining rule.
Sure, it might be a LITTLE overkill, but they DO say it's REALLY hard to retrain...
Player's Handbook 2 had retraining. By the time Dragonmarked came out, retraining had been there for a while.
Player's Handbook 2 had retraining. By the time Dragonmarked came out, retraining had been there for a while.
Only if you were using an optional supplement that came out relatively late in 3.5's lifespan.
Only if you were using an optional supplement that came out relatively late in 3.5's lifespan.
And didn't PHB2 come out after the ECS?
Only if you were using an optional supplement that came out relatively late in 3.5's lifespan.
To be fair, Dragonmarked itself is an optional supplement that came out relatively late in 3.5's lifespan. ;)
And didn't PHB2 come out after the ECS?
Yes, but before Dragonmarked, which is where the migrating-dragonmark idea comes from.
To be fair, Dragonmarked itself is an optional supplement that came out relatively late in 3.5's lifespan. ;)
And your point?
And your point?
The book Dragonmarked states that if you lose the limb holding your dragonmark, it comes back somewhere else.
You said that it doesn't happen that way in 4e because 3e had no retraining.
I said that PHB2 introduced retraining.
You said it didn't really have retraining, because PHB2 was optional and came late.
I'm saying that that doesn't matter, because the book that started this line of conversation is also optional and also came late.
Thus, as was my original point (though I could have probably stated it more obviously), it doesn't matter what the relative differences are between 3e and 4e retraining-wise are, because if you didn't use retraining you probably wouldn't be using migrating dragonmarks in the first place.
You said that it doesn't happen that way in 4e because 3e had no retraining.
I never said that. I'm pretty sure that was an earlier poster. I was just pointing out that retraining was not core in 3.x, as it is in 4e.
I never said that. I'm pretty sure that was an earlier poster. I was just pointing out that retraining was not core in 3.x, as it is in 4e.
My mistake, it indeed was someone else. Regardless, the post that started this tangent said:
Actually, I would note that the ruleset that said you can't loose your dragonmark... didn't have a retraining rule.
Whether you consider PHB2 extended core, a supplement, extraneous, stupid, or whatever, the fact remains that there was retraining in 3e by the time Dragonmarked came out, core or not.
(The OP shouldn't have to Wiki everything he wants to know for his beginning character; not only is Wikipedia full of spoilers, but it's also vulnerable to major inaccuracies and even falsehoods thanks to overzealous editors, raging grogNerds, and well-meaning-but-ignorant fanbois.)
Crimson_Concerto: Nope, the Eberron Campaign Guide is intended for DMs only. Players shouldn't -- and shouldn't need to -- look in their for info.
I'm glad they didn't change much for 4E Eberron, but I admit this is the first book I felt left out too much. (Speaking as a huge Eberron fan.) The crunch is awesome, and the important parts of the setting are there, and I can still hope for the best bits to appear in the ECG -- as a DM -- but it still seems quite white-washed. On the plus side, I still have my collection of 3.5E Eberron stuff, and nearly all of the fluff in those is compatible with 4E's Eberron.
Crimson_Concerto: Nope, the Eberron Campaign Guide is intended for DMs only. Players shouldn't -- and shouldn't need to -- look in their for info.
Intent and reality are often not the same. The intent may have been that it be DM-only. The reality is that it's not.
(The OP shouldn't have to Wiki everything he wants to know for his beginning character; not only is Wikipedia full of spoilers, but it's also vulnerable to major inaccuracies and even falsehoods thanks to overzealous editors, raging grogNerds, and well-meaning-but-ignorant fanbois.)
I agree but your statement, but the manner in which you made it lacks tact. This is no place to debate the merits and flaws of the Wiki information database structure(so I won't), but please refrain from making generalized statements--you never know who may belong to the group you are maligning.
Intent and reality are often not the same. The intent may have been that it be DM-only. The reality is that it's not.
No, the reality is that it is meant as a DM only source book. Whether or not any particular play group decides to treat it that way can't change that fact.
When I create a new character in an Eberron campaign, I'll look in the Player's Guide for the mechanics (in conjunction with the other releases like PHB, of course) and for the flavor for my background. If I find the PG to be lacking in details that might pertain to my concept (how might the personality of a dragonborn from Argonessen differ from that of a dragonborn from Q'Barra or one born in Breland, for example), then I might be able to find that information in the Campaign Setting book, but I don't feel obligated to buy that book because I have another resource -- shockingly, I can just ask my DM! He's bound to have a firmer grasp of the flavor of the setting, and can certainly help guide me in creating a memorable PC without telling me everything ahead of time.
Seriously, if there's something about Eberron that you feel you absolutely MUST know before playing, and it's not in the PG, ask your DM. He or she may even have made a few tweaks and/or outright changes that alter or invalidate some of what's in the published books, so you should at least consult them anyway.
To be honest, I am a little exhausted by the comments (from the polite disagreements to the screaming rants) about how WotC "left out X" or "didn't explain how Y works." As long as the info they left out isn't major (a class ability, a racial modifier, or things of that level), then I frankly don't care for a few reasons.
First, I have always believe in the power of what is unwritten in a rulebook rather than what is written. Sure, there are no official rules for creating a power for a cleric that worships a nature god that lets him or her fly or manipulate the weather--but that does no prevent me as a DM from working with my players to make one, and really I have had more fun tweaking and bending the RAW to better fit my campaign and my players' needs than many other aspects of being a DM. Thus, when someone says "WotC left out X" I would respond "Great!" Now I can tailor fit it to my campaign.
For the examples given by the OP, I don't want WotC to constrict me to what might happen when I go into the Mournland when I as the DM might have a better idea to fit into my setting. So WotC doesn't tell me exactly how dragonmarks work--figure it out with your players, or go on a case-by-case basis. Maybe one of your players has a particularly strong connection to his dragonmark and it shines through his clothing, or maybe it's something the PC is ashamed of or doesn't want and so it is duller and can be hidden easily. These are the customized details and tweaks that have made my campaign--a campaign that has gone on for over 6 years with the same PCs in the same setting--so enjoyable.
The second reason why I think the vagueness about detail may be a good thing is because we have to realize that because the mechanics of the game have changed, there has to be an in-game reason for things to change (similar to the Spellplague in FR).
Again, I see this as an opportunity for the DM to custom-fit the information provided in the published material to his or her world. The holes that have been left can be used to explain the edition change in-game.
In essence, I repeat that the power of the unwritten is the best opportunity for both DMs and players to customize a world--even a published campaign setting--to best suit the gaming group and their characters.
I leave you with a short story from my campaign. My one player has a halfling cleric of Pelor who, at high levels, read the Book of Exalted Deeds and found out fundamental truths about my world--and that great beings called Eternals existed even before the gods who have since "fallen asleep." The player then asked me, "Can I worship one?"
With a few percentage dice and a rulebook or two he and I spent the next few hours detailing the things his character would have to do in order to draw power from this Eternal. Long story short, in doing so he gained the use of some Wizard powers to represent his connection to a being that goes beyond "divine" magic.
Are there official rules to do something like this? No--and if WotC would have had rules for it I am sure it would not have worked out as well as it did. Did this unbalance the game? Not really, and I am blessed with players who work together and know one another well enough to not care if another character might have a few extra tricks up his sleeve.
Because who's to say that my Eberron has to be the same as your Eberron?
-Pallando
Now, if in order to create your character you need all the details of the setting, and there are some players who do, then you obviously have to have the ECG, and there is nothing stopping you from buying it and reading it when it comes out.
However, my players hate having to read lenghty tomes to play in my games. They just want the high level flavor, a little bit of common knowledge, and rely on me to fill in the rest. This book is written for them.
The 3.5 guide would have been way overkill for them, much less all of the supplemental books, the Dragonshards articles, the novels, and posts from Keith Baker that the OP seems to think should have been condensed in the EPG to provide the player "everything he needs" to create a character in the setting.
So I like the approach WotC has taken. My nightmare scenario? The OP gets his way, and we get two books with vast amounts of overlapping content, just with different "perspectives".
That said, it is apparent that there are some apparent drawbacks to releasing the EPG a month before the ECG. Several new players obviously want to see the ECG content now. Will they now be waiting with 'bated breath, an easy sale? Or will they get frustrated and abandon the setting in a fit of pique?
No, the reality is that it is meant as a DM only source book.
The reality is that it's the book that has all the details, regardless of who reads it
I'm not going to read all this, but I do want to point out, whether this matters or not, that all the pictures of Dragonmarks in the book are on people's faces.
Not so - the character on the cover has it on her right forearm, the one on page 15 has it on his left breast, the one on page 67 has it on her right hand, the one on page 72... I don't know where she has it, but it's not on any part of exposed skin, same for the one on 79.
The reality is that it's the book that has all the details, regardless of who reads it
Bear in mind that most players aren't going to read it, either because their DM tells them not to, or because it's not advertised as "for players", or because it hasn't got any interesting mechanical options for characters.
Off-topic reply to Dan_VK
Generalization is the language of the internet, and maligning people is the style of it. Tact is not always a virtue here. Anyway, there was no hostility intended in my post, but that said, I think you still missed my point.
The OP came here to express dissatisfaction with the content of the Eberron Player's Guide, and one of the earliest replies was to the effect that he should just look up the information he's missing on Wikipedia. In my opinion, this suggestion was totally off-base; the OP wasn't complaining about the lack of information, he was complaining about the lack of clear information in the place where it should have appeared. Beyond this, I was also refuting the assertion that information about non-academic topics presented on Wikipedia is always accurate; it's obviously not. I pointed out several common, easy-to-imagine purveyors of misinformation, to illustrate that even the information available there might not be able to answer the OP's questions. I did so because I sympathize with the OP; as a player, he shouldn't have to look up basic information about life in Eberron outside of the Eberron Player's Guide, in my opinion.
As for the validity of Wikipedia, I agree that this is no place to discuss it. I was merely pointing out that it is not suitable for the purpose it was suggested.
(The OP shouldn't have to Wiki everything he wants to know for his beginning character; not only is Wikipedia full of spoilers, but it's also vulnerable to major inaccuracies and even falsehoods thanks to overzealous editors, raging grogNerds, and well-meaning-but-ignorant fanbois.)
I agree but your statement, but the manner in which you made it lacks tact. This is no place to debate the merits and flaws of the Wiki information database structure(so I won't), but please refrain from making generalized statements--you never know who may belong to the group you are maligning.
Generalization is the language of the internet, and maligning people is the style of it. Tact is not always a virtue here. Anyway, there was no hostility intended in my post, but that said, I think you still missed my point.
The OP came here to express dissatisfaction with the content of the Eberron Player's Guide, and one of the earliest replies was to the effect that he should just look up the information he's missing on Wikipedia. In my opinion, this suggestion was totally off-base; the OP wasn't complaining about the lack of information, he was complaining about the lack of clear information in the place where it should have appeared. Beyond this, I was also refuting the assertion that information about non-academic topics presented on Wikipedia is always accurate; it's obviously not. I pointed out several common, easy-to-imagine purveyors of misinformation, to illustrate that even the information available there might not be able to answer the OP's questions. I did so because I sympathize with the OP; as a player, he shouldn't have to look up basic information about life in Eberron outside of the Eberron Player's Guide, in my opinion.
As for the validity of Wikipedia, I agree that this is no place to discuss it. I was merely pointing out that it is not suitable for the purpose it was suggested.
No, the reality is that it is meant as a DM only source book. Whether or not any particular play group decides to treat it that way can't change that fact.
No, you're wrong.
No, you're wrong.
No, you.
No, you.
No, you.
No, you.
No, you.
No, you.
But seriously, here's why my way of looking at it is better then yours:
You have a problem with yours, and so would I. I don't have a problem with mine, and you wouldn't either.
The campaign guide isn't just for DMs. It's for everybody. The player's guide is just where they keep very specific mechanical information for the creation of Player Characters.
Now is your concern that it's two separate books instead of all being published together? I think the reason for that is because some people just want the mechanical stuff and have no interest in the campaign setting at all. I know I'll never run an Eberron game, but I do still like Warforged and Kalashtar and Artificers and stuff.
My group dislikes Ebberon but a couple plan to buy the EPG for the races etc..
My GM does not plan to run eberron any time soon, I bought the book mainly for the warforged. However I wanted to read some information from a setting I have never played.
This book is not sufficient to my desire for information on the setting.
That's the way the 4e settings books are designed. The PG's are for crunch and are meant to be mostly setting neutral. The fluff/flavor of a campaign is covered in the CG book. It's not strictly a DM-only book but it is geared for DMs over players, assuming the DM is running that campaign world. If they aren't (as my DM is using a homebrew campaign to avoid having to deal with players who likely know more about any given setting than him) then there's no harm in a player reading the CG since any crunch in a CG isn't likely to be used (named NPCs primarily).
Do we say "most players need"?
Do we add "provided, of course, that you have a GM that has read the Eberron Campaign Guide and fills in details at the level he/she finds appropriate for your game"?
Glad to see this hornets nest is still stirred up. Let me add a comment to it. Am I the only one who feels a paragon path for the aberrant dragon marks is missing? The flavor for it seems to be there, be it someone on the run from the houses or someone out to bring them down. Why did we not get one of those? Also with all the big houses and other political organizations the lack of some kind of underground group of aberrant marked individuals out to infiltrate and or bring down the houses makes little sense to me.
This would've been great, for sure, but we only get so many pages of content. I'll bet there were many great things that didn't make the final cut.
This is the downside to the "two books per setting" policy. In the past, we could've hoped to see this implemented in a later supplement. Now, the best we can hope for is a Dragon article. I'm a subscriber, and I'll say I've seen nothing to suspect we'll ever get anything this setting-specific from Dragon.
The only truly setting-specific material we get is adventure adaptations and the articles that highlight specific locales. The only reason we've seen these is that each encourages plundering content across setting-boundaries.Because, historically, all the meaty crunchy bits are tied in with the fluff text, WotC can't just keep publishing the old fluff text. At the same time, they don't want to rewrite it or alter it, and they use it themselves and, I suspect, have an instinct to assume that the current players and DMs already have the old, mechanically-outdated sources on hand.
The same has been going on in the TSR days, with things like Dark Sun in 2nd edition and Ravenloft and FR in 3rd, and so on and so forth.
Worse for Eberron, in 4th edition, it hasn't been "reset" like FR has, so it's dealing with the full brunt of the issue, while FR is no longer beholden to Volo's Guides and other such.
This would've been great, for sure, but we only get so many pages of content. I'll bet there were many great things that didn't make the final cut.
I'm sorry but one page for one paragon path can't break the page limit, I just don't see it.....
.....
Hold on, I just caught something, both the Eberron players guide and the Forgotten Realms players guide are exactly 160 pages long. Oh this will stir up the hornets for sure. If WotC is intentionally cutting these books to a fixed number of pages for some reason, and I find with this realization that this is highly likely, this could hurt the more complex settings (like dark sun) significantly on content. This said I still think the FRPG feels like its much more informative than its eberron counterpart and still has more in the class information department. Still I can't say I like that they seem to be limiting the pages of the guide for some reason, regardless of the complexity of the campaign and what information you should know. I think it will be even worse if the Eberron Campaign guide hits and has the same number of pages as its forgotten realms counterpart, let us hope this is not the case.
Edit: I have just found that both power books and the manual of the planes are all cut to the exact same 160 pages. Oh I don't like this one bit, relevant content should not be cut out just to conform to a certain number of pages and that is what this will lead to if it hasn't already (and I think with the EPG it has)
Edit: I have just found that both power books and the manual of the planes are all cut to the exact same 160 pages. Oh I don't like this one bit, relevant content should not be cut out just to conform to a certain number of pages and that is what this will lead to if it hasn't already (and I think with the EPG it has)
I'm pretty sure this has always been the way of things, so that's no "news", really. The ECG does indeed have the same page count as the FRCG.
Set page counts aren't a nefarious scheme to deny us good gaming content. They're a part of the publishing business.
Oh this will stir up the hornets for sure.
I hope this isn't the only true goal of your posts, my friend. ;)
I hope this isn't the only true goal of your posts, my friend. ;)
Not usually the goal, but when it happens as a side effect I can't say I don't enjoy it. :evillaugh
But seriously, here's why my way of looking at it is better then yours:
You have a problem with yours, and so would I. I don't have a problem with mine, and you wouldn't either.
Strange I don't seem to recall having any problems. Though you're right about me not having any problems with your method either, but that's only because the way YOU play with YOUR group is not really of any concern to ME.
Also, while I found your post (with the mock circular argument) amusing, you should be careful putting words in other people's mouths.
Indeed, it's possible that's how it was all written. I recall a few posts over the confusion as to which would be released first.
It makes sense that the campaign guide would have more information as the DM could "rule 0" many of the elements for his game. Just because you as a player think you should know everything about x,y and z, that may not be the case.
Also with all the big houses and other political organizations the lack of some kind of underground group of aberrant marked individuals out to infiltrate and or bring down the houses makes little sense to me.
This information is extremely specific and wouldn't fit into every game. The information they chose to provide skims the surface of what each Eberron game might have and which shows the distinction of the setting off. It's unreasonable to hope they would chase down every different bit of knowledge and provide it. As other have said, DMs are the source of answers to these specific questions.
It seems like you're nitpicking just for the hell of it.
A the setting guides make a whole lot of assumptions that the players already know about the setting. Hmmm.
It's not a Setting Guide. It's the Player's Guide. Players shouldn't know every secret of the setting before the game starts. It's great that you hardcore Eberrites do, or whatever, but really it makes for a better game if the players don't immediately know everything. I mean, you don't hand out all your campaign notes when you run a homebrew setting, do you?
I'm sorry but one page for one paragon path can't break the page limit
Actually, it can. I'm not sure on the specifics of their printing process, but adding one more page would actually mean adding 8-16 more pages, which is more cost per unit just to print and bind, also more cost in storage space, shipping packages, etc. Publishers, especially ones in a niche industry, have to operate on a strict page budget.
Edit: I have just found that both power books and the manual of the planes are all cut to the exact same 160 pages. Oh I don't like this one bit, relevant content should not be cut out just to conform to a certain number of pages
That's the way publishing works, unfortunately. There's no cost-effective way around it.
Also with all the big houses and other political organizations the lack of some kind of underground group of aberrant marked individuals out to infiltrate and or bring down the houses makes little sense to me.
"House" Tarkanan, one of Sharn's most succesful (and most shadowy) gangs, mostly assassins and thieves. It will be in the ECS of course, as a mostly villainous organisation. I agree with excluding it from the EPG-its plots, schemes and actual goals belong firmly in the DM's territory.
It's not a Setting Guide. It's the Player's Guide. Players shouldn't know every secret of the setting before the game starts.
I'm more of a casual Eberron fan myself. But that's despite the point.
What I think the OP is talking about, and my take on it is: It's a matter of degrees. Personally I don't think the team is putting enough 'what is the world like' bits into the Player Guides. They seem writen from the standpoint of the GM sharing a lot of knowledge from the Campaign Guide with the Players. That's fine to a point. But 4E is more about Player inclusivness. I find it interesting but it doesn't ruin the product for me.
I doubt anyone would have noticed this 'feature' if the PG came out after the Campaign book.
I don't think the team is putting enough 'what is the world like' bits into the Player Guides.
I don't think they're giving themselves enough pages to put the information on. The EPG is fairly thickly filled and even then some crunch that should be there (e.g. mounts, channel divinities) is missing (with mounts most likely in the ECG).
I think if they upped the price tag and the page count most people would be happier.
So, I am perfectly fine with keeping the bulk of the setting fluff in the ECG and making it the DM's responsibility to convey. Worst case scenario would be pandering to the minority and filling the book up with details that are duplicated in the ECG.
There's the 'ten important facts'. Chapter 1 is 'Life in Eberron', with snippits of info on the actual world (proper), the main continent (Khorvaire) and even beyond, such as the planes. There's also a description of life across Khorvaire, talking about government, everyday life, money, adventurers, languages. Also, the faiths of Eberron are described, a bit on time and history, even 'movers and shakers'.
Then, there's Chapter 5 to round thing out. Divided into regions, it goes things like common knowledge, regional features, people, adventurers (again); there's even character backrounds (ala PH 2), and a sidebar on Thronehold.
With a little imagination, I could run a full-fledged campaign setting with this book alone; all the material needs is some fleshing out. Of course, I've got the actual ECS to look forward to next month for that ;). In any case, I feel like I have everything I need to create and run a character in Eberron. I'm very impressed with the EPG. Just going by what's inside, I think Eberron is an exciting setting; hope our new campaign goes on for a while ;).
With a little imagination, I could run a full-fledged campaign setting with this book alone; all the material needs is some fleshing out.
This. I thinks that some of the lack of significant setting detail is to allow DMs to create their own Eberron without overly disrupting player expectation. The book lays out the key aspects of what makes the setting unique, but then steps aside to let the DM create his own world.
For those wanting the "genuine" Eberron experience, the campaign guide comes out later this month.
Doesn't "Adventurer's Guide to Eberron" include all the fluff that a player needs?
That depends. If by "all the fluff a player needs" you mean "all the NPCs' secrets and plots and the locations of all the secret doors in Sharn" you'll be utterly disappointed.
If, however, you mean "all the stuff an average citizen would know, and races/classes/feats/magic items to make an Eberron character", then it's more than adequate.
Isn't that book out of print? It is a 3.5 book correct?
Edition neutral, actually.
Edition neutral, actually.
Actually it is Eberron Survival Guide that is edition neutral. There is no mention of Adventurer's Guide to Eberron in the edition proof list. Of course that doesn't change the fact that you can still buy Adventurer's Guide to Eberron on Amazon.
Actually it is Eberron Survival Guide that is edition neutral. There is no mention of Adventurer's Guide to Eberron in the edition proof list. Of course that doesn't change the fact that you can still buy Adventurer's Guide to Eberron on Amazon.
Oh yeah, I was thinking about the Survival Guide. The other poster propably thought about the Player's Guide. Which is spoilerriffic enough that I wouldn't give my players free access to it.
I can't understand why -players- feel they have a right to know mechanical rules that don't pertain to them. Its roughly the same as saying, "Well I own 4E products so I should know how this trap in the module works, or the stats on the Major Bad Guy!" When I play I'd much rather be surprised by how deadly Mournland is, or just how those effect make for a unique and challenging adventure.
Lets ask this: If you the player knows all the mechanics of Mournland, what then? Buy gear, potions, and magic items to counter its effects? Feign surprise? What extra enjoyment from the game do you get if you know all of Eberrons secrets? And what of the rest of the gaming world, do you believe everyone should know?
To be clear, the EPG is called the 'Players' guild because it is designed around what a player needs to know. Yes it is quick and rough and to the point. A bit more flesh might be nice. But not a whole lot more. It sets a framework and leaves it to the GM's and Players of the world to fill in. Sometimes too much cannon can be a bad thing. A players guide should never contain information that players should not know. That was a failing of the original Eberron Campaign Guide, it had all these 'Secrets' just sitting there. Its hard to run (as people have said) when the players know as much as the GM's on an NPC, or effects of the Mournland, or XYZ.
On a final note, as a player you should always ask your GM 1st before reading information on his/her campaign. If you want to know about the Mournland, make a character who perhaps has gone there. Ask to make a Knowledge roll to see what you know.
Make the game fun, not predictable!
1) No one gets to tell me what published materials I can and can't read. I'm an adult and I'll read anything I want to. And no, reading a published game book is not the same thing as demanding a GM's notes on a homebrew campaign. I wouldn't ask to see my GMs campaign notes on an Eberron game he was running either. Of course any player has to understand that a GM can change elements of the campaign world, so reading the material may not be very helpful.
2) In my group, three different GMs run Eberron games, and all of them play in each other's campaigns. We have only two players out of seven who do not run games for our group. Do most groups consist of only one person who does all of the GMing, while everyone else just plays?
Maybe we've been doing it wrong since 1978.
Maybe it's my play experience that's different, but all this talk about GMs "allowing" players to read materials is bizarre to me for a couple of reasons
I come from an online RPG background. It had a big policy against spreading IC information through OOC channels because it would ruin the mystery in the game and make the big reveals completely anticlimatic. It also had the possibility of unconsciously affecting how you play the game as you inadvertently use OOC knowledge ICly. Just as you don't have the monster manual open to the page of the monster you're fighting, I don't expect you to memorise the secrets of a world setting so you can solve the 30th level mystery from level 1.
No one gets to tell me what published materials I can and can't read. I'm an adult and I'll read anything I want to.
I ask my friends to not read certain books. I explain why I make this request, and if any of them have an issue with it I hope they would come to me so we can discuss the matter. Isn't that what friends do? Make reasonable requests that will make a game we're all playing more enjoyable?
Do most groups consist of only one person who does all of the GMing, while everyone else just plays?
From what I've heard, yes. I'm currently a GM in one game (homebrewed adventures based in Eberron) and a player in another (homebrew world using the H1 to E3 modules), both of which have the same group of people. Just as the GM of the other game asked us to not read the H1 to E3 modules, I've asked them to not read the Eberron Campaign Guide. Everyone sees this as a reasonable request. No-one has said "I'm an adult, I'll do what I want and there's nothing you can do to stop me. So there."
1) No one gets to tell me what published materials I can and can't read. I'm an adult and I'll read anything I want to. And no, reading a published game book is not the same thing as demanding a GM's notes on a homebrew campaign. I wouldn't ask to see my GMs campaign notes on an Eberron game he was running either. Of course any player has to understand that a GM can change elements of the campaign world, so reading the material may not be very helpful.
Yes you are an adult, and as such can read what ever you choose, but you should make such choices responsibly. Books like the upcoming ECG are likely to contain serious spoilers that may compromise a DM's attempts to create mystery and suspense. This can be an exceptionally significant concern in a setting like Eberron where every major NPC has a secret.
This is what made the old ECS books so bad. It had no segregation between common knowledge and secret knowledge. A player might be reading a section on life in a given nation, only to accidentally stumble across the secret goals and motives of that nations leadership.
Maybe it's my play experience that's different, but all this talk about GMs "allowing" players to read materials is bizarre to me for a couple of reasons:
I run a game of Necessary Evil, in the Savage Worlds system, that the back of the book is a DM's area that has an entire campaign laid out. I do not 'allow' the players to read this section, because it would ruin any surprises that are meant to be revealed at a certain time. As the one doing all the work of running a campaign, I feel it is in my right to restrict what the players have access to, as I try to run a suspenseful game, and events that are meant to be surprises which are read, can ruin said suspense.
1) No one gets to tell me what published materials I can and can't read. I'm an adult and I'll read anything I want to. And no, reading a published game book is not the same thing as demanding a GM's notes on a homebrew campaign. I wouldn't ask to see my GMs campaign notes on an Eberron game he was running either. Of course any player has to understand that a GM can change elements of the campaign world, so reading the material may not be very helpful.
What an arrogant position. Little news for you, the Eberron Campaign Book *IS* a GM's campaign notes. Yes a GM can change things, hell, many a GM has to because some player with a holier than though, I'll read any damn thing I please, attitude comes along and reads all the info that a player shouldn't know. Really how would you feel if someone came along and ruined the end surprise of Empire Strikes Back by blurting out that Vader was Luke's father while you were standing in line to see the movie for the first time. You'd might be upset, and much of the drama of that scene in the movie is lost, because you knew how that scene played out. I'd be pretty disappointed. That's why people put spoiler tags on new movies.
2) In my group, three different GMs run Eberron games, and all of them play in each other's campaigns. We have only two players out of seven who do not run games for our group. Do most groups consist of only one person who does all of the GMing, while everyone else just plays?
Maybe we've been doing it wrong since 1978.
Maybe you have good players that CAN have their characters not act on information that the player knows, for many people, that is hard, and as I've said many GM's don't want the surprise twists that they've worked hard to write exposed before the actual moment.
But, maybe you were the type of person that always opened up your christmas gifts so they knew what they were getting.
I certainly appreciate your discretion, even though I've seen the film several times by now ;).