4E turned out to be very similar to Eberron's philosophy. I believe that some of the development decisions have roots from Eberron. ie. Eberron's pulp style where PC's are special people superior to the norm. This is very much reflected in 4E. And as Keith Baker himself put, the skill challenge system works well for Eberron's intrigue/noir side. 4E seems to take care of the dual nature of Eberron's pulp and noir styles.
Eberron, by its all-inclusive nature, is also fitting for 4E. The setting allows for easy expansion (adding in the new core races etc) without much alteration to the setting. Even back in 3.5, there are a lot of elements that included in EB (if it is in DnD it is in EB) without being a foucs in EB as mainstream concepts. 3.5 Tieflings is one such example. While it is suppose to have a place in EB, the race wasnt greatly defined. Or say Eladrin, which I didnt even know was mentioned in EB (i thought it is a new invention of 4E, and that the term never appeared before), had a place in EB. Dragonborn is similarly an easier fit in EB's dragon-centric creation myth than FR, I suppose.
((4E had been "accused" of being anime-like. So had EB, once upon a time (still?). Or perhaps this is just related to the pulp feel of the setting; younger audience, lacking a real sense of what "pulp" is supposed to be like, identifies the feel as "anime"; their term for heroic, cinematic, high action stories. Just an aside... back to the original point.))
It seems to me that EB matches quite well with 4E in style and in content. If people want to have an official CS to play in asap, EB seems to be a better choice, since it should require less changes and development than fitting 4E with FR.
Also, this is the perfect chance to introduce (or reintroduce) EB to people who may not previously have gotten in. Since 4E is such a big departure to previous versions of DnD, I am guessing if people are willing "move on" to 4E that is SO different, that they may be open to a new CS while they're at it.
I dont know what sort of things they're planning for FR. But 4E core seems kind of a hard fit to FR to me. I imagine there'd be more development efforts required to make that switch, and perhaps more CS-specific customization of the core content to make FR work.
To me, it seems the only thing going for 4E FR getting released first is marketing; FR being more popular and deeply rooted to the name of DnD. FR must be released asap so DnD players will get their fav CS asap, and hopefully do the 4E switch.
But in terms of development, it seems counter intuitive. It is the eternal victory of marketing vs sense (without marketing winning most of the time).
The thing I dont get is that if 4E has as 1 of its mission statement bringing in new players, wont a fresher, more matching (in style AND content) CS be a better choice than a CS with such heavy continuity concerns?
Make the mistakes in the place that's the most hosed, learn from them, and then do the golden-boy setting right, once you've worked out all the kinks... that would be my assumption as to why the Realms was done first, following your train of logic there.
Makes sense to me. FR's going to need the most readjustment ... plus, the truth of the matter is, it's probably a lot more popular than Eberron (which is a shame), so it goes first. I'm willing to let FR go first by virtue of seniority, if nothing else.
but this way FR will lose lots of its appeal and Eberron will have a chance to gain more popularity
I agree that it's a mistake, Eberron fits much better with new ''dumb everything down'' trends
but this way FR will lose lots of its appeal and Eberron will have a chance to gain more popularity
please, don't bring this canard again.
My hypothesis is that 4E EB should have been the 1st of the 2 projects to be developed and released; 4E EB should be before 4E FR, given the nature of 4E. My reasoning:
4E turned out to be very similar to Eberron's philosophy. I believe that some of the development decisions have roots from Eberron. ie. Eberron's pulp style where PC's are special people superior to the norm. This is very much reflected in 4E. And as Keith Baker himself put, the skill challenge system works well for Eberron's intrigue/noir side. 4E seems to take care of the dual nature of Eberron's pulp and noir styles.
There's something to that, but I think a lot of stuff that didn't make PH1 is somewhat important to Eberron, and I don't think three-quarters of the Eberron Player's Guide should be new races, classes, feats, and paragon paths. Especially since a new class in 4e is a 10-15 page project, whereas in 3.x it was a 1-2 page project (plus spells, and even there you'd largely re-use existing ones).
1.) The inevitable mistakes made in making a campaign setting book will be made in FR, rather than in my Eb. Very similar to Stiggar's hypothesis.
2.) If Eb comes out first, all the FR fanboys will swarm over the Eberron book to point out stuff they don't like, which will annoy me immeasurably
Salla also brings up points about fixing the most hosed setting first, which i guess is a valid reason.
-Stigger is pretty right on. That said, there's no reason why both books can't be released simultaneously.
-Nah they wont do that. They want to maximize their $$$$$$$$$ Profits. :P Even when one could play 4E in The Fourgotten Realms or in Eberron now and there is really not any thing different about the settings other than names now. One Core to Rule Them All, and One GSL to Bind Them.
18DELTA :P
-Nah they wont do that. They want to maximize their $$$$$$$$$ Profits. :P
-If both were released at the same time, there'd still be equal profits. If 10 people bought the FRCG, and 10 people bought the ECG, that'd be 20 people in total. If they bought them at the same time, or months apart, that'd still be 20 people.
-Here's a thought with everything being core now would I need to buy the Eberron books when they are released. I could use my 3.5 ECS with my 4E FR Books and it would be the same. Next summer there will be a tremendous wailing and gnashing of teeth on the Eberron Forums when they realize what is coming.
18DELTA ;)
-Nah, they want those twenty people to buy the twenty Realms books. Then next year for those same twenty to buy the Eberron books. $$$$$
-And, that's not going to happen. Keep in mind what Ogiwan said. "I am a card-carrying FR hater". And, his comments were edited for baiting. Do you think he's going to but both products? Or, people like him? And, likewise, the people who dislike Eberron, are they going to buy the ECG?
-No.
No.
but seriously, Forgotten realms has way more books and a longer history in D&D. I like ebberon and FR, but i have to say forgotten realms is too prominent, has too many games based on it (video games i mean) and it too much of a brand unto itself to be put off for long. Ebberon... well people will live with the stuff that's comein dragon and the MM.
I'm very interested to see if they'll do another setting search like they did for Eberron. In the mean time, we'll just sit in patience for the dragonmarked setting.
-Probably not, because the WotC designers have stated that the plans right now are to breathe life into one defunct setting (Planescape, Spelljammer, Mystara, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, etc.) each year. If they keep to this, there will be plenty of material.
This is also heavy projects, which need many workers - and resources are finite in the long run. Better all concentration on ONE at the time, for me - a better product will come to it than two half-baked.
-Majority of the designers who work with one setting don't work with other settings.
I think that all the reasons you have cited are prime examples of why Forgotten Realms is coming out first. Ebberon does mesh easier and while there are certainly elements missing, it seems Eberron campaigns could play in 4e before getting their book. FR doesn't fit in quite as well, they get the book because there setting needed to be redone to fit with this edition. It may not be a case of favoritism but rather that Eberron's design has forward compatability while FR doesn't translate well. I'm very interested to see if they'll do another setting search like they did for Eberron. In the mean time, we'll just sit in patience for the dragonmarked setting.
Right, good thinking. The forward compatibility, as you put it, justifies FR going first.
4E with Eberron is cake and I don't need a sourcebook to run my gmaes there. It would be nice and I will buy it when it comes out but it is not needed.
Whoops. Let's put it this way. Can we please save the drama/negativity for other sites or forums or such? This thread has a possibility of being an anti one campaign over the other thread which is not too cool. That is all.
Plus I know FR haters who are going to now buy the FR books due to the crunch in it. New Rituals, classes and other goodies will draw in many consumers. Eberron's core book will have the same type of goodies that will draw in more consumers, even those who dislike the setting.
Next summer there will be a tremendous wailing and gnashing of teeth on the Eberron Forums when they realize what is coming.
I started an Eberron campaign today (because frankly the Forgotten Realms forums scared me off running a campaign in that world to begin with. I'll be waiting for the source books before I think about it) and I'm running it straight as a 3.5 campaign with 4e rules. We've handwaved on where eladrin, dragonborn and tieflings come from which we won't need to next year. But I don't anticipate very many changes myself.
And if we use proximity of style as a criteria, maybe it's their equivalent of "doing the hard part first, then dealing with the easy."
In the Forgotten Realms, however, the mechanics were tied stronly in the workings and history of the world. As such, you can't just ignore mechanics when it's time to describe the setting to the extent where it can be in Eberron. Therefore, if you change the rules, you must change the world. And thus Wizards has made a 100 year jump in the future. The rules have changed and so has the world, and there's no way to play in those new Realms without a new campaign setting.
And then there's the RPGA. The Xen'drick Expedition campaign is still going, but there hasn't been a FR campaign in years, and they're starting Living Forgotten Realms next month. It's hard to start a worldwide campaign without clear setting guidelines, and what better time to publish a new book, so that everyone who wants to join will buy a new hardcover book rather than just print a campaigns standards pdf.
-And, that's not going to happen. Keep in mind what Ogiwan said. "I am a card-carrying FR hater". And, his comments were edited for baiting. Do you think he's going to but both products? Or, people like him? And, likewise, the people who dislike Eberron, are they going to buy the ECG?
-No.
-I am not talking about the card carrying FR 'haters'.
I am talking about the 4E newbie's that are new to D&D. This is WotC's way of firing their fanbase and bringing in a new fanbase for D&D. :embarrass 18DELTA ;)
-I am not talking about the card carrying FR 'haters'.
-Likewise, why would they randomly buy both? They are admittedly attempting to attract a younger generation. The younger generation doesn't have infinite resources. I should know! :P
-I am not talking about the card carrying FR 'haters'.
18DELTA ;)
The new players will buy the FR book and EB books when they come out if there is a bunch of mechanical gaming information in it and not just lore and info about he setting. Each setting book will have powers and rituals, classes and races that will be able to be used for anyones D&D campaign.
Further, dual release dates are a bad idea if the market can’t support them both. This is because you force your audience to choose.
Which is to say that not everyone plays either the Realms or Eberron. Some of us play both.
I think it will work nicely (for me) with the release dates the way they are. I can take the 4E Realms for a spin and then have a gander at 4E Eberron with my buddies at the gaming table.
I know for a fact the FR changes have been in the works for at least three years. I’m not sure at what point Keith and company were given notice of 4E and tasked with making Eberron fit.
In closing, I’m a huge FR fan, but I also happen to think that Eberron kicks ass and is an absolute blast to play in. Having release dates far apart from each other for each setting will maximize the audience exposure and help each setting to grow into 4E era.
Now, of course, my qualms with FR's balance are no longer (necessarily) an issue, so I can feel free to be curious. Time to Wiki it and, if I like what I see, maybe some disposable cash will head that way. When Eberron hits I'll be buying that up without much question (love the setting), so count me as a technically 'Faerun hating' non-newbie player who'll at least consider buying both.
And for the record, if they were both coming out at the same time, Faerun wouldn't even get a glance from me. I like to devote some focus to new material, and an entire campaign setting makes for a lot of material. If WotC were silly enough to release both at once, I'd prioritize my favourite. Going one at a time, not only is there less immediate impact on my budget to worry about, but by spacing them out they keep me hungry, rather than overwhelming me with more than I care to buy all at once.
I am a card-carrying FR hater, but I'm also willing to let FR get made first. My reasons:
1.) The inevitable mistakes made in making a campaign setting book will be made in FR, rather than in my Eb. Very similar to Stiggar's hypothesis.
2.) If Eb comes out first, all the FR fanboys will swarm over the Eberron book to point out stuff they don't like, which will annoy me immeasurably
Salla also brings up points about fixing the most hosed setting first, which i guess is a valid reason.
That's absolutely a difficult fit, though. Just see how much changes they're going to make to the entire world of FR, while EB remains unchanged.
So what? Let FR fans be the white mice for us, while Keith is doing the serious work on this more profound world.
I just have to kill off the remaining meddling high-level twits like Drizzt, and it's all good.
Ironically, now that FR is getting a much-needed facelift (No 100s of gods, no high-level NPCs around every corner of every city so the PCs actually have something to do), I might be interested in it.
I just have to kill off the remaining meddling high-level twits like Drizzt, and it's all good.
You know, Drizzt is actually a good npc. I means, not really op, he minds his own stuff, the supposed whineyness is overblown, and he 'do the right thing' in a limited geographic area.
Like FR in general, it's very mode to denonciate him.
and high level npcs, lol, I don't understand how's that a problem
what's wrong with 100s of gods? you're familiar with polytheism in history?
and high level npcs, lol, I don't understand how's that a problem
I'm familiar with it, yes. And I can't keep track of all of them either. You don't need hundreds of gods, especially with how many portfolios overlapped. Too many to keep track off, more than needed, excess needs to be trimmed.
If there's a high level good-guy NPC or four in every city, what are the PCs going to have to do? Unless the PCs are supposed to be the stars of the show, not whatever epic-level fiction character is floating around. So, if the epic-level NPC is Superman, and the PCs are the rest of the Justice League, and the rest of the League is just there to kick the Kryptonite out of the room, how is that fun for the players?
As to 100's of deities, I liked all those deities for the opportunities they presented, even if I ignored quite a few at some points.
But anyway, Eberron is fine being updated second imo. Aside from everything else I think it's good that writers will have more time to incorporate general 4E feedback, and make the setting smoother to play in the new edition.
Think of the Epic Level NPC as M to the PC's James Bond and its not a problem anymore.
But Drizzt Do'urden and others like him aren't M.
It compounded the problem of 'too many high level NPCs' exponentially.
As to the deity as Epic NPC, that's utterly controllable by the DM, and if its a problem, then the problem is with the DM, not the setting itself. That some authors over-use or abuse them is immaterial to home games. If that perception spoils the Realms for you, blame the way the setting is used, not the setting itself, as that sort of stuff is going to ruin any setting it happens in.
Really, if its not to your taste, that's your business, but it strikes me as disingenuous trying to invent reasons not to use something just because you don't like it.
I'll admit I'm not that fond of Eberron, but that's a matter of personal taste, and not one of the setting being objectively bad. Despite that however, Eberron does have some excellent ideas that are more than easily borrowed and incorporated into other settings.
Because every Forgotten Realms sourcebook I ever read seemed more concerned with what the gods and epic level characters were up to rather than why your first level character needed to go out and save the damn world.
That's just the impression that I got playing in plenty of Forgotten Realms game, its not my style, I'm not trying to bash it I'm listing reasons I don't care for it.
*Edit, I supose I should have stated that I don't agree with the original thesis for this thread. I don't think that it was a mistake releasing Forgotten Realms first. I have no problem with Forgotten Realms getting the spotlight, if people like the setting more power to you, dive in enjoy.
So ignore that part of the history if it doesn't suit you... it's not that difficult to do. It's not like anyone's holding a gun to your head, forcing you to adhere slavishly to 'canon'.
Just because you can homerule something doesn't mean its broken. I can homerule the entire ruleset, does that mean WotC shouldn't try to fix things that wrong with it?
Five years ago I liked all of those gods. A year ago when I tried another setting ;) I realized they were not really needed even in a large setting like FR. I am happy with the god tweaking in the end because many of the gods were just redundant. Having the lesser redundant gods be exarchs or saints is cool because it does not destroy the being that was, it just makes them work under a more powerful deity and they can act as a servant or emisary when needed. People can still pray to them for spells and hope, it just will come from their boss. Churches can still be made in their name, but the Greater god is the one getting all of that "Godjuice". Of course all of this will not be specified probably in the core book. Perhaps in a DDI article.
Plus the ignoring thing goes both ways. Just ignore the new concpets. I figure this is being doen because they feel the majority of fans may want the changes. They are not catering just to the Superfans. Superfans to me are like the folks who only like Star Wars EPISODES 4,5 and 6 and hate all of the others. They bring up canon alot, and purity of a setting, and continuity then they start to talk like Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons all of a sudden without realizing they are doing it. Yeah, I am sure I was a Realms Superfan in the 90's now that I think of it.
Yeah you're right, I can easily ignore that material, but you know what I don't want to be bothered. I don't care for the setting, I don't care for its themes, I don't care for its style. I'm not inventing reasons not to use it because I don't like it I'm telling you reasons I don't like it.
Fair enough, nothing there I could or would argue with.
I'd even agree that 3e's presentation of the Realms was largely geared towards the metaplot of the novels, which I feel was a tremendous mistake and really engendered a lot of the things that haunt the Realms at the moment. I rather envy the lack of novels as canon that Eberron has going for it to be honest.
Just because you can homerule something doesn't mean its broken. I can homerule the entire ruleset, does that mean WotC shouldn't try to fix things that wrong with it?
I'm going to presume you meant that it's not broken there. And in principle I can agree with you. We just differ on what constitutes broken and what doesn't. To me, a novel is simply one person's (the author) take on a setting, not the 'correct' way to portray a setting. The second I let someone else tell me how I should run my own campaign and surrender my take to their artistic vision of a setting is the day I stop DM'ing. One of the key points behind 4e is the idea that it's our game, not WotC's, and that we should do whatever we like with it... that's always been the case as far as I'm concerned, so I do not accept that the setting was broken, though I will concede that its presentation left a lot to be desired going by the novels.
And Rauric, I'd make the case that the folks saying that the setting is broken due to NPCs and gods messing things up are just as guilty as the Superfans, as you described them, of being like Comic Book Guy since they accept the notion that canon must be adhered to on at least some level, otherwise the arguement falls apart rather quickly. NPCs are only an issue if you're clinging strictly and slavishly by some notion of canon, or if you have an incompetant DM who can't tell a proper story.
I'm going to presume you meant that it's not broken there.
Good presumption ;)
And in principle I can agree with you.
I'm glad, I was mainly talking in principle rather then in this very specific situation. Although having said that....
To me, a novel is simply one person's (the author) take on a setting, not the 'correct' way to portray a setting. The second I let someone else tell me how I should run my own campaign and surrender my take to their artistic vision of a setting is the day I stop DM'ing.
I'm not sure what you mean here. One of the draws of FR is that its a living world. It doesn't just have source books contributing to its lore, but it has novels as well (unlike Eberron whose novels are not canon). So I don't see using a novel as a source of lore as "surrendering your take for their artistic vision" any more then I see using a sourcebook as "surrendering your take for their artistic vision."
NPCs are only an issue if you're clinging strictly and slavishly by some notion of canon
When you have a local NPC defender of a town (whose been shown in a novel) then you have the problem of either killing the NPC (or sending him on some mission elsewhere), not using the local (which isn't a good option) or having him overshadow the PCs by working on something much more important. I like my players to be the heroes, not second stringers whose actions are meaningless until they reach the epic tier.
The biggest problem I have with them is that I have an idea of how I want my Realms to be, in terms of society and their worldview, which I have reasoned through with each region that concerns me and my campaign. For the most part, with a few author exceptions, I find the society portrayed a bit too reflective of a relatively monotheistic experience and mindset. Its subtle, but its there if you're pretty familiar with medieval and rennaisance history, which I am. Just utterly blows the whole book for me when that happens, so I learned rather quickly to just ignore them and view the Realms the way I want them, rather than the way someone else sees them.
With a sourcebook, I have the luxury of taking whats there, fitting it into my overall worldview, and leaving what I find lacking, without having to filter it through pages and pages of dialogue and characterizations I don't think fit the setting (for my take on it anyway). A sourcebook doesn't characterize for the most part, it reports. The novel characterizes, and reports as almost an afterthought, and very much color that lore with those characterizations, to me anyway. So, not nearly as easy to interpret things my way with those, at least I find that to be the case.
As to the NPC, I'd say just ignore his existance entirely, or move him somewhere less obstructive to your campaign, and say that novel events happened over there in your Realms, not wherever you're basing your campaign around. Or hell, have some real fun with it and say he was something of a sham whose story got overblown by some overexcited folks telling the tale, and he's not actually anywhere as good as he's supposed to be... could make for a great scene with the PCs when the big hero turns out to be a fraud. Hells, use the Gilderoy Lockehart (or however that's spelled) trick and say he's been offing the real heroes and stealing their tales for himself and make him something of a villain that needs to be stopped.
Hope this makes sense, I'm a bit tired and its getting late. At any rate, I'd say all of this was true with any setting, not just the Realms, at least for me.