Once, I was an avid collector of all things Eberron. I'd played the original adventure path, bought every book monthly since it came out, had read the Ask Keith Baker thread, ran a campaign set in Fallen in Sharn, and even read my first roleplaying fantasy novel in literally decades (two actually, plus that short story collection). I had it bad.
Then, one day, I stopped.
I still liked Eberron. I still cared about the setting, but I'd stopped buying the books.
But more than that, I was frustrated with the books that I had bought. In my mind some books, like Faiths of Eberron and Five Nations "weren't very good". I felt like Magic of Eberron and Dragonmarked were "flawed in ways they shouldn't be". I wrote a long review/rant about Dragonmarked actually (the rant could use some editing; but I suppose it serves as good evidence of my mindset at the time.) I think Secrets of Xen'drik was the straw that broke the camels back. I remembered (or thought I remembered) some sort of explicit agreement that Xen'drik wasn't going to be developed. That it would be wild and woolly and mysterious and each DM could develop it for themselves.
In fact, I actually just stopped playing DnD. I put everything in the closet and went off and played Call of Cthulhu. Later I'd play and run a bunch of White Wolf.
It seemed like I wasn't the only one; my favorite writers for the setting were off doing novel stuff. As I'd mentioned I felt Dragonmarked had been rushed and development on the line had gone off the rails (two books on Xen'drik? why? to capitalize on the online game?)
Of course 4th edition sucked me back in. ;)
I saw the development of FR as adopting a lot of the great things I'd liked about Eberron. I saw that Eberron, which had once been getting a book-a-month as the "primary setting", was basically on hold. Wizards was simultaneously announcing a "digital initiative" but wasn't even bothering to publish Dragonshards anymore. (Keith Baker was enthusiastically banging the drum of course; except that he didn't really have a drum, or even a drumstick, but he was enthusiastically banging what he had anyway.)
I wanted to know more though, it seemed like Eberron had fallen off the map awfully precipitously. At the same time I'd stopped by Eberron books, and since I was the biggest booster I was aware off (outside of a few people on message boards) that wasn't really a good sign.
So, taking advantage of the "perceived closeness" of the internet I pestered Keith Baker for more info. He suggested asking here.
Naturally, traveling to "strange boards" to post opinions that suggest that people's work could have been better and demand improvements necessitated, I felt, more research.
Weeks later I'm still not done reading all my Eberron books. I seem to have throughly "re-indoctrinated myself": I find myself posting beligerent screeds against those who insult the "one true setting". (Memo to self: smugly asserting (c.f. Haka'torvhak) as rebuttal of anything is a sign you need to go sit outside for a while).
Driven by the "passion of the newly reconverted" I wrote the following, pretentiously titled, "Open Letter to the Designers of Eberron" alternatively singing the praises of things I liked and belittling the things I didn't like.
At the same time, though, as I was railing against "wrongness" I could see that I was going overboard. Upon actually re-reading books that I remembered poorly (Faiths, Explorers, Magic) seemed a lot stronger and more balanced upon review. I could see the advantages of certain tacks that the books had taken, even if some things bothered me (and oh did they bother me) I was happy in a general way with the vast majority of it. Happy that I knew this and that piece of information about Eberron, happy that I could use it (even if I thought that 90% of people wouldn't use X; I could figure out a way to turn it into a game element) and so forth.
Some of my frustrations with certain books (Dragonmarked) were only valid in the context of 3.5. If everyone had been working on 4th edition when they were writing it, it wasn't really a surprise that the it was mechanically all over the place? On an abstract level it was just as valid a complaint as when the book came out, but of course, in the 4e Eberron game I'm planning on running it doesn't really matter.
So where am I? I'm not sure.
So, with a fair amount of trepidation I post my opinions with hope that it will enter the zeitgeist and perhaps nudge it in a "better direction" (or a least a direction that will make me happier)
An Open Letter to the Designers of 4e
Executive Summary
The strength of Eberron is really "storytelling".
0. Focus, initially, on building up an image of what the average person (or at least the average PC) knows about the world around them. Make it very very very clear that the average PLAYER CHARACTER believes that the Blood of Vol is a RELIGION, that Warforged ARE NOT being produced anymore, does not know that Sarlona is ruled by an extra-dimensional race of dream demons, Houses Phiarlan/Thuranni are entertainers, etc.
0b. Work to make sure that the average PLAYER does not feel like his character is stupid because he does not know these (Obvious to the player) secrets. Make it fun to roleplay their character's IC knowledge.
0c. If you feel that you can't do that then you have to make this "formerly supersecret" information freely available.
Executive Summary
The strength of Eberron is really "storytelling".
0. Focus, initially, on building up an image of what the average person (or at least the average PC) knows about the world around them. Make it very very very clear that the average PLAYER CHARACTER believes that the Blood of Vol is a RELIGION, that Warforged ARE NOT being produced anymore, does not know that Sarlona is ruled by an extra-dimensional race of dream demons, Houses Phiarlan/Thuranni are entertainers, etc.
0b. Work to make sure that the average PLAYER does not feel like his character is stupid because he does not know these (Obvious to the player) secrets. Make it fun to roleplay their character's IC knowledge.
0c. If you feel that you can't do that then you have to make this "formerly supersecret" information freely available.
Personally
I don't think you have to do 0c.
I think you can keep the secrets secret and still have a very compelling offering for the average player.
Eberron's "front story" is vastly cool and worthy of being the "default reality" that most characters live in and most games occupy.
I go into this a great length below so I should probably stop but I think this obsessive need to put paragraph after repetitive paragraph about these "kewl secrets" to the detriment of the "basic reality" of the setting is (after the technomagic thing), the greatest barrier to broader acceptance of Eberron as a fun setting.
I don't think you have to do 0c.
I think you can keep the secrets secret and still have a very compelling offering for the average player.
Eberron's "front story" is vastly cool and worthy of being the "default reality" that most characters live in and most games occupy.
I go into this a great length below so I should probably stop but I think this obsessive need to put paragraph after repetitive paragraph about these "kewl secrets" to the detriment of the "basic reality" of the setting is (after the technomagic thing), the greatest barrier to broader acceptance of Eberron as a fun setting.
Main rant text
I am a simulationist. I realize many people are not. I am not "only" a simulationist (I confess to strong narritive leanings as well) , but compared with most DnD players I am "more simulationist". I understand that many people do not care whether the world "makes sense"; I respect them. However I think the inherent consistency of Eberron is one of its strengths and enthusiastically encourage the continuation of that tradition (as well as the slaughtering of a few sacred cows that violate the setting's consistency).
I do pick on a few things: specifically the half-daelkyr, the bone knight PrC.
It's not a kill Rich Baker thing. I think the writers were working under constraints, they brought their 'A' game, the ideas are good and so on. I just don't think that they needed to go into the books that they did with the page count they received, especially given what they were (potentially) replacing.
If I mention one of those just think of it as shorthand for "something that wasn't really a core part of the Eberron and didn't need to be included in an Eberron line book, especially at that time when more pressing topics were not being addressed".
Eberron's swan song?
We need to be practical: this this is Eberron's last gasp. The computer games were flops, the new setting comes out in 2010. There won't be a 5e Eberron. I'm doubtful that 4e Eberron will even get as many pages as it did in 3e. MAKE EVERY PAGE COUNT! You have the final iteration of a fantastic setting in your hands. You've got a solid base, step up and deliver now and you'll all be heroes! (If love of the game isn't enough motivation, which I'm sure it is).
Much like Planescape and Dark Sun your every word will be enthusiastically masticated, digested, regurgitated and debated by Eberron fans for decades to come.
A casual observer may be thinking that Eberron is in trouble. 4e has taken a lot of Eberron's core themes and identifying markers (PCs as heroes in a low level world, action points, dramatic pulpy action, covers by Wayne Reynolds, common history for abberations, elves (eladrin anyway) driven from their home by superpowered magical giants) and FR seems to have plundered almost everything else: Dragonmarks (sorry spellscars), the Mournlands (sorry the "Plaguewrought Lands" or "Plaguelands" whichever is correct), etc. Even the "new" continent of Abir sounds a bit like some other dragon dominated continent I can think of (not that dragon-dominated lands are new, but it's new to FR and removes a point of distinction).
True Fans of the Setting* (TM) see this is a blessing in disguise, though, since it will allow you to focus on the underdeveloped core of Eberron (i.e. Khorvaire, it's major countries and organizations, the core Eberron races and social roles).
I am a simulationist. I realize many people are not. I am not "only" a simulationist (I confess to strong narritive leanings as well) , but compared with most DnD players I am "more simulationist". I understand that many people do not care whether the world "makes sense"; I respect them. However I think the inherent consistency of Eberron is one of its strengths and enthusiastically encourage the continuation of that tradition (as well as the slaughtering of a few sacred cows that violate the setting's consistency).
I do pick on a few things: specifically the half-daelkyr, the bone knight PrC.
It's not a kill Rich Baker thing. I think the writers were working under constraints, they brought their 'A' game, the ideas are good and so on. I just don't think that they needed to go into the books that they did with the page count they received, especially given what they were (potentially) replacing.
If I mention one of those just think of it as shorthand for "something that wasn't really a core part of the Eberron and didn't need to be included in an Eberron line book, especially at that time when more pressing topics were not being addressed".
Eberron's swan song?
We need to be practical: this this is Eberron's last gasp. The computer games were flops, the new setting comes out in 2010. There won't be a 5e Eberron. I'm doubtful that 4e Eberron will even get as many pages as it did in 3e. MAKE EVERY PAGE COUNT! You have the final iteration of a fantastic setting in your hands. You've got a solid base, step up and deliver now and you'll all be heroes! (If love of the game isn't enough motivation, which I'm sure it is).
Much like Planescape and Dark Sun your every word will be enthusiastically masticated, digested, regurgitated and debated by Eberron fans for decades to come.
A casual observer may be thinking that Eberron is in trouble. 4e has taken a lot of Eberron's core themes and identifying markers (PCs as heroes in a low level world, action points, dramatic pulpy action, covers by Wayne Reynolds, common history for abberations, elves (eladrin anyway) driven from their home by superpowered magical giants) and FR seems to have plundered almost everything else: Dragonmarks (sorry spellscars), the Mournlands (sorry the "Plaguewrought Lands" or "Plaguelands" whichever is correct), etc. Even the "new" continent of Abir sounds a bit like some other dragon dominated continent I can think of (not that dragon-dominated lands are new, but it's new to FR and removes a point of distinction).
True Fans of the Setting* (TM) see this is a blessing in disguise, though, since it will allow you to focus on the underdeveloped core of Eberron (i.e. Khorvaire, it's major countries and organizations, the core Eberron races and social roles).
*
True Fans are, of course me, people who agree with everything I say, and no-one else.
Because this is the internet I feel obliged to explicitly point out that this is a joke.
Because this is the internet I feel obliged to explicitly point out that this is a joke.
For what it's worth, I think you're being overly pessimistic with your prediction there will be no Eberron 5e. Eberron is just as popular as FR, and I have no doubt it'll survive. Yes, FR and PoL are borrowing from Eberron, but that's a testament to its success, not a harbinger to its downfall.
Now, having read all of that, it looks like 80% of your problems are with layout. Specifically, having DM knowledge presented in the same place as player knowledge. That's a complaint I can agree with, but since in all likelihood we'll be getting a 'Campaign Guide' and a 'Player's Guide' in 4e, that problem will be, mostly, solved.
However, not all secrets can be kept that way. The quori, for example, are critical to the back story of the Kalashtar, a player race. The secret creation of warforged by Merrix and the LoBster can come up in a player character warforged's background.
Simply put, any secrets that relate to player character races should be presented to players so they can work them into their back stories if they choose to. If you want to make an elf of Thuranni, you should know they are really assassins, for example.
Another major problem of yours seems to be presenting crunch that isn't going to be used nearly as much as a fluff written in the same space. I agree with that, for the most part. PrC write ups are too long IMO, and a lot of the time the fluff attached to them is too narrow.
Having said that, NPC stats are good additions for important characters in Eberron (not PrC examples). No, it doesn't matter than Kaius has a +5 vampiric longsword, but it does matter that if your PCs are going to fight him, you know how to run that fight. The stats save DMs time, and are exactly the sort of thing you should see in a DM focussed book. I'm more likely to use Kaius' stats in a game, than I am a couple of paragraphs about his ancestors or his stance on taxation.
On priorities, I think you have some good points and some less solid points. I agree that it's frustrating we still haven't seen much on the likes of the Arcane Congress while the Passage Institute gets space, and I'd have much prefered a book about the Khorvarian frontiers than Sarlona. However, Xen'drik and Stormreach are both great books IMO (though the former is a bit disorganised), and since Xen'drik is an important locale for many adventures, I don't think it's a waste.
My time is short so I'll end this post here...but I'm sure I'll be back for more later, and I might address a few specifics!
"...lots of things to consider...More discussion, analysis and a couple of suggestions.
Healing in the Mournland -- this sucks, players hate it, it gives DMs headaches, it mucks with game balance. Have healing spells be impeded, halve the amount healing spells heal, create some item that allows temporary healing (or turns healing spells into temporary hit points), but as it stands it makes the whole area of the world "not-fun". Nobody wants to adventure in "not fun" areas. What's the point of having a cool "mega-dungeon" right in the middle of the Five Nations if it's just the source of "not fun".
...lots more things to consider..."
When I first got Eberron Campaign Setting, I had fun with the Forgotten Forge adventure in the back of the book. I bought the squel which leads into the Mournlands. But while playing, I stopped part way thru.
Why?
Here we are in the middle of a dungeon which has multiple traps that hurt people if you guess wrong. These same traps are very difficult for an average adventurer to find/disable. This is in a place where the average adventurer cannot be healed up at all.
I don't remember what come next in the adventure, but look at the big picture: after two battles getting to the dugeon, a battle in the middle of the dugeon, and a battle after leaving the dungeon, who can even hope to survive this adventure???
Yes, much later, I figured out the ins and outs of healing (including in the Mournlands by necessity), but I hate to go there as an adventurer and always wonder how the DM will rule on it since healing is so complex there. Believe me, one could make a huge debate on certain things.
All healing effects are halfed in the Mournlands is easy to remember and use.
It also would have made the adventure playable.
Why?
Here we are in the middle of a dungeon which has multiple traps that hurt people if you guess wrong. These same traps are very difficult for an average adventurer to find/disable. This is in a place where the average adventurer cannot be healed up at all.
Yes, Shadows of the Last War is very, very deadly if you play with the no healing rule.
I believe Keith has said that the difficulty of the adventure was a mistake, but I can't remember which way round it was. Either the no healing rule wasn't in the ECS when SotLW was written, or he forgot/overlooked the rule (perhaps another author wrote that part).
Personally, I play that there are areas in the Mournland where healing doesn't work - and areas where it does. Just like there are some places where bosies don't decompose, and some where they decompose instantly at the moment of death. My rule for the Mournland is that there are no reliable rules.
As for the main point of the thread, so noted!
1) Less space on "secrets". I'd personally like it if 4e Eberron does what 4e FR is going to do: release one book for players and one book for DM's at launch. The DM book could tell us about Kaius, secret warforged, the Dreaming Dark, etc. The Player book would tell us things that most players would know in-character. It's not necessarily that finding out Kaius is a vampire is a "spoiler"; since most DM's will assume that big Eberron fans will read every book anyway. The bigger problem, for me, is that it starts to get really confusing remembering what is a "secret" and what isn't. I don't have secrets of sarlona, but in the books before that, so much time is spent describing the Dreaming Dark that it's confusing to figure out what someone should really know about Sarlona and the Inspired, other than "they seem to be friendly".
2) More focus on Khorvaire, less on Xen'drik. I think you've covered most of that above.
3) If you're going to make video games and computer games, try to have a little creative input. Dragonshard and DDO are both based in Xen'drik, which to me, seems like they were picked because Xen'drik came with the guideline "You can throw whatever you want in there and it doesn't have to fit with the main setting!" The developers took this to heart and created two games that have none of the feel or lore of Eberron. (Yes, they both have warforged. Whee.) What Eberron could really use is a standard, single-player, story-based RPG set in Khorvaire. I think a cursory glance of video game and Eberron fandom would show that a pulpy character-driven RPG set in Sharn would sell much better than an RTS set in Xen'drik. Get out there and woo Bioware. Or, better yet, take your license back from Atari before they run it into the ground and shop around a little.
For what it's worth, I think you're being overly pessimistic with your prediction there will be no Eberron 5e. Eberron is just as popular as FR, and I have no doubt it'll survive.
Obviously this is something that we'll find out about in the future.
I agree that Eberron is still quite popular now.
Now, having read all of that, it looks like 80% of your problems are with layout.
Interesting way to put it. I complain most about the secrets and developing/foregrounding of the reality-everybody-knows-about but I wouldn't call it 80% of the argument. If everything was well developed I'd be less unhappy about the secrets.
Example using Vol
We got almost exactly the same information about Vol in the ECS, the Five Kingdoms, and then the Players Guide.
I have to admit Faiths did a great job on the Blood. But reading you can desperately see the authors struggling to argue that "nobody knows about Vol in the Blood of Vol except the highest ranks" for page after page. But they still refer to her several times a page. "Vol uses this group to do this... etc etc"
If they would just present the Blood of Vol in the players guide (if we get one) as a religion that people believe in, talk about the Divinity Within and have a few tantalizing sidebars suggesting "there's more too it" then we'd be in a fantastic position.
We got almost exactly the same information about Vol in the ECS, the Five Kingdoms, and then the Players Guide.
I have to admit Faiths did a great job on the Blood. But reading you can desperately see the authors struggling to argue that "nobody knows about Vol in the Blood of Vol except the highest ranks" for page after page. But they still refer to her several times a page. "Vol uses this group to do this... etc etc"
If they would just present the Blood of Vol in the players guide (if we get one) as a religion that people believe in, talk about the Divinity Within and have a few tantalizing sidebars suggesting "there's more too it" then we'd be in a fantastic position.
I complain most about the secrets and developing/foregrounding of the reality-everybody-knows-about but I wouldn't call it 80% of the argument. If everything was well developed I'd be less unhappy about the secrets.
Here's the issue as I see it.
When the ECS was designed, it was the One True Eberron book. It had to contain everything you could possibly need to run Eberron. The PGtE came over a year later. Sure, they did a crappy job separating PC and DM material. But it all had to be there in one book, because that one book was it, period.
Now, what we have been told is that this is the Year of FR, and 2009 is the Year of Eberron. For FR, we are getting a Setting Book and a Player's Book. As such, I personally assume that Eberron will get the exact same treatment. Which means that even if that aren't talking about it now - which only makes sense, because WotC virtually never talks about books before they're announced - they'll be able to plan things out in a completely different way than they did before. The ECS wasn't designed to BE a DM-only book; a Campaign Setting book developed simultaneously with a Player book can be.
This is speculation. And obviously we should all state our concerns. But personally I'm not worried for just this reason. I assume Eberron will use the same format as FR because that's how WotC does things. So I think we'll have our two books, and thus material specifically designed for use by players.
I'll sblock the rest to keep the post from taking up too much space.
Show
Regarding Vol, I think what you're dealing with there is a fundamental disagreement among the game's designers as much as anything else. You mentioned the ECS, PGtE, and 5N; what I look at is the differing presentation between the ECS and Sharn, the second major sourcebook released, which takes a view closer to that of FoE.
That wouldn't be enough for me, personally. If it's a Player's Guide, what *I* want is enough information so that I can PLAY a follower of the Blood of Vol. Keith Baker has said that he's got a Paladin of the Blood of Vol in one of his playtest groups. And with this in mind, what I would like said is that the Order of the Emerald Claw is an extremist fringe group of the Blood of Vol known for engaging in violent actions that have scarred the name of the faith. We don't need to know who's in charge of the Order, because that's supposed to be a secret. But as I've always used it, the Order of the Emerald Claw is Eberron's answer to COBRA or the Nazis of Indiana Jones - people don't know their SECRETS, but they've certainly heard the name, because these are the fanatical terroists who are setting off necrobombs and doing similar crazy things. Not to mention the fact that they were for a time an elite Karrnathi unit, then outlawed; in this way they're almost like the Ku Klux Klan. You think Karrnath, you think "That's where those Emerald Claw crazies come from, right?" Again, you don't need to say a word about Erandis in the Player's Book; I don't need to know the secrets of the Order. But I'd definitely want the existence of the Order and its role as the extremists whose actions are what gives the BoV its bad name clearly stated.
Not good enough for me. Because player characters are exceptional people. Because PCs are exceptional people, and they should have the opportunity to BE involved in plots that most people don't have any idea about. Perhaps you run a game where PCs are essential on the outside of everything that's going on, but in my games they often do have ties to one or more of the secret forces in the world from the start, because that makes things interesting. Setting aside kalashtar, I've seen LOTS of people write about how they want to play escaped empty vessels, despite the fact that the concept is a hard one to use; if you were too tight-lipped about the mere existence of the Inspired, that sort of idea is certainly right out.
Because what you've suggested creates an entirely different type of character. As they stand, the Kalashtar are like the Jedi vs the Empire. As you've described it, Star Wars would end up as "Well, the Force may or may not exist, and there's rumors that there's an empire out there, but it could just be a story made up by that crazy old hermit who lives in the Dune Seas." They could certainly do a better job of emphasizing that MOST people don't believe these stories, and that the kalashtar themselves follow the MIB philosophy. But in this particular case, I think that it's entirely appropriate for a player with an interest in playing a kalashtar to clearly understand that the threat of the Dreaming Dark is very real.
Certainly. And it's something that should be dealt with, and if we do get two books designed in tandem from the start, I would expect it to be dealt with.
Many times. On these boards.
In my campaign. I think he's a interesting character and like to emphasize his "lesser of evils" role, given the alternatives should an Erandis-backed, aggressive warlord seize the throne. So yes, my PCs have dealt with him on multiple occasions.
If that's how you see him, you're really letting a good character go to waste.
Actually, no. We didn't get Kaius' stats until Five Nations. I didn't need them even there. People HAVEN'T fought him in my campaign, because that's not what makes him interesting to me. So personally, I don't need the stats. So I'd just as soon not waste space on a stat block in a Dm's book, and certainly not in a player's book.
On the other hand, as I've said, I've seen others post on the boards who have used him as an antagonist. So I'm sure others would disagree.
And I see your point. But first we have the question of how much detail we're realistically going to get in a single book that's NOT The Five Nations. If we're going to turn from talking about Kaius to instead talking about his most minor functionary who you might meet at first level, then do we do the same for each one of the Five Nations - skip Aurala to talk about Deputy Subminister Such-and-Such? After all, you can't predict which naiton the PCs will take an interest in. And as you note, the PCs WILL eventually reach the level where they are dealing with the movers and shakers. I would like to see the books provide information useful to players and DMs at every tier of play, from the very begining to epic level. But if space becomes a concern, I would rather they tell me about the plans of Aurala and Kaius than the minor functionaries, because it's the plans of the rulers that will ultimately trickle down TO the minor functionaries. Knowing that ruler X wants war and ruler Y wants peace, I can make up the minor thugs, and decide whether or not they support that agenda. While if I know that minor thug X is a jerk but don't know the agenda of his ultimate boss, I've got no basis for planning a long-term arc. I'd like to have it all. And I want enough to be able to PLAN a long-term story. But even if they extract PC information into a separate player book, we're not going to have room in a new ECS for Five Nations-level descriptions of the Five Nations, let alone the other nations, Dragonmarked Houses, etc.
I completely agree that they can do something far more useful than give us Kaius' stat block - but we didn't get that in the original ECS, and I see no reason to assume they'll waste space on it in a new one.
I certainly recognize and agree with many of your basic points. We all want to see books that are easier for both player and Dm to use, and that establish a clear hierarchy of information. But I personally think we'll get those two separate books, and I think that with that structure in place from the start it will be easier for the writers to address the problem.
But I'm an optimist. ;)
If they would just present the Blood of Vol in the players guide (if we get one) as a religion that people believe in, talk about the Divinity Within and have a few tantalizing sidebars suggesting "there's more too it" then we'd be in a fantastic position.
That wouldn't be enough for me, personally. If it's a Player's Guide, what *I* want is enough information so that I can PLAY a follower of the Blood of Vol. Keith Baker has said that he's got a Paladin of the Blood of Vol in one of his playtest groups. And with this in mind, what I would like said is that the Order of the Emerald Claw is an extremist fringe group of the Blood of Vol known for engaging in violent actions that have scarred the name of the faith. We don't need to know who's in charge of the Order, because that's supposed to be a secret. But as I've always used it, the Order of the Emerald Claw is Eberron's answer to COBRA or the Nazis of Indiana Jones - people don't know their SECRETS, but they've certainly heard the name, because these are the fanatical terroists who are setting off necrobombs and doing similar crazy things. Not to mention the fact that they were for a time an elite Karrnathi unit, then outlawed; in this way they're almost like the Ku Klux Klan. You think Karrnath, you think "That's where those Emerald Claw crazies come from, right?" Again, you don't need to say a word about Erandis in the Player's Book; I don't need to know the secrets of the Order. But I'd definitely want the existence of the Order and its role as the extremists whose actions are what gives the BoV its bad name clearly stated.
If less than 1/100th of 1% of the population knows
Not good enough for me. Because player characters are exceptional people. Because PCs are exceptional people, and they should have the opportunity to BE involved in plots that most people don't have any idea about. Perhaps you run a game where PCs are essential on the outside of everything that's going on, but in my games they often do have ties to one or more of the secret forces in the world from the start, because that makes things interesting. Setting aside kalashtar, I've seen LOTS of people write about how they want to play escaped empty vessels, despite the fact that the concept is a hard one to use; if you were too tight-lipped about the mere existence of the Inspired, that sort of idea is certainly right out.
Kalashtar believe they are engaged in a secret war with fiends that dwell in their old home dimension. Elders whisper that these creatures drove them out and hunt them even today, that they control a whole continent and seek to stop the turning of the age.
I don't really see why you need to write "Sarlona = controlled by the quori = fake religion = Dreaming Dark" every time the Kalashtar or Riedra or Sarlona or the quori are mentioned.
Because what you've suggested creates an entirely different type of character. As they stand, the Kalashtar are like the Jedi vs the Empire. As you've described it, Star Wars would end up as "Well, the Force may or may not exist, and there's rumors that there's an empire out there, but it could just be a story made up by that crazy old hermit who lives in the Dune Seas." They could certainly do a better job of emphasizing that MOST people don't believe these stories, and that the kalashtar themselves follow the MIB philosophy. But in this particular case, I think that it's entirely appropriate for a player with an interest in playing a kalashtar to clearly understand that the threat of the Dreaming Dark is very real.
He also rightly points out that this is done to such a degree that most people don't even know what's secret and what isn't anymore.
Certainly. And it's something that should be dealt with, and if we do get two books designed in tandem from the start, I would expect it to be dealt with.
I wanna know when you've heard about somebody fighting Klaus.
Many times. On these boards.
Hell I want to know about a game where someone actually met Klaus face to face.
In my campaign. I think he's a interesting character and like to emphasize his "lesser of evils" role, given the alternatives should an Erandis-backed, aggressive warlord seize the throne. So yes, my PCs have dealt with him on multiple occasions.
(especially when they're so bland. He's vampire lord, with a vampiric sword. it's the definition of blah.)
If that's how you see him, you're really letting a good character go to waste.
You think you want Klaus' stats. But if you never had them, would you even notice?
Actually, no. We didn't get Kaius' stats until Five Nations. I didn't need them even there. People HAVEN'T fought him in my campaign, because that's not what makes him interesting to me. So personally, I don't need the stats. So I'd just as soon not waste space on a stat block in a Dm's book, and certainly not in a player's book.
On the other hand, as I've said, I've seen others post on the boards who have used him as an antagonist. So I'm sure others would disagree.
I -am- asking for things like useful NPCs (nobles who you are actually going to interact with*)
And I see your point. But first we have the question of how much detail we're realistically going to get in a single book that's NOT The Five Nations. If we're going to turn from talking about Kaius to instead talking about his most minor functionary who you might meet at first level, then do we do the same for each one of the Five Nations - skip Aurala to talk about Deputy Subminister Such-and-Such? After all, you can't predict which naiton the PCs will take an interest in. And as you note, the PCs WILL eventually reach the level where they are dealing with the movers and shakers. I would like to see the books provide information useful to players and DMs at every tier of play, from the very begining to epic level. But if space becomes a concern, I would rather they tell me about the plans of Aurala and Kaius than the minor functionaries, because it's the plans of the rulers that will ultimately trickle down TO the minor functionaries. Knowing that ruler X wants war and ruler Y wants peace, I can make up the minor thugs, and decide whether or not they support that agenda. While if I know that minor thug X is a jerk but don't know the agenda of his ultimate boss, I've got no basis for planning a long-term arc. I'd like to have it all. And I want enough to be able to PLAN a long-term story. But even if they extract PC information into a separate player book, we're not going to have room in a new ECS for Five Nations-level descriptions of the Five Nations, let alone the other nations, Dragonmarked Houses, etc.
I completely agree that they can do something far more useful than give us Kaius' stat block - but we didn't get that in the original ECS, and I see no reason to assume they'll waste space on it in a new one.
I certainly recognize and agree with many of your basic points. We all want to see books that are easier for both player and Dm to use, and that establish a clear hierarchy of information. But I personally think we'll get those two separate books, and I think that with that structure in place from the start it will be easier for the writers to address the problem.
But I'm an optimist. ;)
With that said, the question of what information should be kept completely secret and what should be known to players under the cover of "But this information is only known to characters in X circumstances" is an interesting one. Among other things, almost every DM I know is also a player - and I know players who never DM but who have read every sourcebook. That's where the game needs to be clear: you as a player may know all of this information, but in-game, this piece is only known to these people. That's the decision that was ultimately made in putting the sidebars in the ECS with the Knowledge checks; what I tell people reading the book is to take ten on the appropriate skills and use that as a measure of what they know. So as a player, obviously you now know everything presented in those sidebars. But you also know that with no ranks in Knowledge of any sort, your fighter doesn't know any of that.
With that said, there's certainly material in the PGtE that would really be better held to the DM. I don't intend to turn this into a defense of PGtE. However, I do believe that WotC assumes that players are capable of drawing the line between PC and player knowledge, as long as they are clearly shown where that line falls.
On the "character concept" issue, I'll note that one of the players in my game is someone who's never DM'd and hasn't read every Eberron book. His idea for his character is that he is a paladin of the Blood of Vol, whose family has followed the faith for generations. His father fought for Karrnath, serving in the Order of the Emerald Claw - and when Kaius turned on the Order and drove it from Karrnath, the PC's father was killed and his fiefdom granted to another warlord. The PC was raised in the Lhazaar Principalities. Recently he has received visions from Erandis d'Vol. She has told him that he has a destiny, and promised that with her aid he will have vengeance on Kaius, and not only regain his fiefdom but depose Kaius and take over Karrnath himself. But he's not tempered yet. He needs to build his reputation and his power before he can accomplish this feat - and so he is adventuring, with occasional visions from Erandis to direct him down a particular path.
The PC is a follower of the true path of the Blood of Vol, not the Emerald Claw (and the point is that this should make him a suitable and appealing leader even to Karrns who oppose the EC - it's in Erandis' interests to keep him at a distance). The PLAYER knows that Erandis is deceiving and using him; that's essentially the point. At some point, through play, he expects he'll figure that out. But right now, he believes that she is his divine ally - just as Kaius himself did, back in the day. And he absolutely intends to fight Kaius someday; regardless of what ends up going on between him and Erandis, he intends to raise an army and claim Karrnath.
Personally, I think this is a great idea that gives me all sorts of hooks to work into a story. He's not a villain; he's not part of the Emerald Claw, and he's tied to the positive aspects of the BoV. But he has a close connection to a villain, and his goal is to depose a king.
If there was a complete lack of information on the Emerald Claw, he could never come up with a character like this. As is, he as a player knows what Erandis is doing, and he knows that his character does not - and so the story works.
So it's all a matter of deciding what things really need to be absolute secrets that a player only knows if he reads DM material - and what can be revealed under the cover of "only known if you meet these restrictions."
Kaius is a good example of this. I see no reason a player needs to know the true story behind Kaius. But I'm less concerned with a player knowing that the Emerald Claw are Erandis' followers, who are followers of the Blood of Vol but have strayed from the true path of that faith. So it's all a question of where to draw the line.
Regarding Kaius' stats - obviously, in my current campaign I have a PC who intends to, at some point in the future, fight Kaius. However, this is rare enough that I wouldn't see a need to have Kaius' stats in the book... any more than we did in the original ECS. So what we could put in the space instead becomes something of a moot point, because it's not an either/or. Now, should the DM have full information on Kaius' background and goals? In my opinion, absolutely. His actions have an important impact on the balance of power between the nations, and he has a lot of potential as both an ally and opponent. But stats? Maybe not.
It's certainly a goal moving forward to ensure that we provide interesting adventure hooks for PCs of all levels, and of course, 4E is designed to go all the way to level 30. And it's important to make sure players understand exactly what information is available to PCs and what isn't. So we do have these issues in our minds.
This one will probably be better for the rewriting anyway.
Here's the issue as I see it.
When the ECS was designed, it was the One True Eberron book. It had to contain everything you could possibly need to run Eberron. The PGtE came over a year later. Sure, they did a crappy job separating PC and DM material. But it all had to be there in one book, because that one book was it, period.
This argument would be credible if the players guide was not substantially worse than the ECS. Kaius’ nature is a sidebar in the ECS, the Karrn chapter of Five Kingdoms is all written about his vampiric nature.
As I mentioned in the rant the players guide entry on the blood of vol includes this line in the MAIN TEXT
[INDENT]Behind the scenes, Vol and her chief lieutenants carefully orchestrate the activities of specific cells throughout Khorvaire.[/INDENT]
I agree with what you’re saying (that this would be the logical way to do things).
Since it’s not being done that way then can I say that you agree it’s illogical?
So as a player, obviously you now know everything presented in those sidebars. But you also know that with no ranks in Knowledge of any sort, your fighter doesn't know any of that.
However, I do believe that WotC assumes that players are capable of drawing the line between PC and player knowledge, as long as they are clearly shown where that line falls.
Not sure how to respond to this line really.
Is it fair to say that if each successive book makes the line (such as it was…) blurrier and blurrier then WotC believes that players will not capable of drawing the line for themselves?
I mean. I agree with the sentiment. So, I think, do most people on the boards.
The point of contention is really “is this line being drawn properly already” (your view? WotC’s view?) or “does the constant repetition of the same secrets in book after book (without any sort of segregation) represent a flaw in the 3.5 books that ought to be addressed in a new edition” (my view).
Obviously it’s a bug for some people and a feature for others. I submit it's a minor feature for "feature people" (because most people who are interested in playing those kinds of characters will read the sidebar/DM's book anyway) and a serious bug for "bug people".
I am, of course, a bug person though, and biased.
If there was a complete lack of information on the Emerald Claw, he could never come up with a character like this.
I realize my original post was long, and hard to read. But this is the opposite of what I was asserting. At NO POINT did I ask for “a complete lack of information”. I realize it’s much easier to argue extremes when making a point but what I said was:
Focus on the pubic facts/stuff everyone knows. …. Lay out the "base line" what everyone in the world knows first and make that the focus.
- The Emerald Claws are a group of extremists sure. But they're also a revered patriotic organization and backbone of the Karrnath war effort who couldn't give up their vendetta when the war ended. Or they're patriots who were used and then abandoned by a craven, peace loving king when the political winds changed; even now hunted by their own country they soldier on rendering service to a King and Country that have turned their backs on them.
So I’m asking for, essentially is this
If it's a Player's Guide, what *I* want is enough information so that I can PLAY a follower of the Blood of Vol. … what I would like said is that the Order of the Emerald Claw is an extremist fringe group of the Blood of Vol known for engaging in violent actions that have scarred the name of the faith. We don't need to know who's in charge of the Order, because that's supposed to be a secret.
I realize my writing a massive barrier to understanding me, but if we’re all on the same side (and it looks to me like we are) then I feel obliged to suggest that maybe this would be a nice design goal for Eberron 4e.
COBRA
Just so I’ve responded
Great metaphor.
It’s not what I had in mind, exactly, but I’d certainly think about adopting it in the future.
So we’re in complete agreement on this.
I confess that I like the organizations more separate.
A rogue political organization having secret ties to an evil religion through the BBEG that controls both is more interesting to me than having them mixed up.
I’m not a fan of “monolithic evil”.
But, obviously, the books have them sitting together like peas in a pod however incongruous that may be, so I’m wrong..
But as I've always used it, the Order of the Emerald Claw is Eberron's answer to COBRA or the Nazis of Indiana Jones - people don't know their SECRETS, but they've certainly heard the name, because these are the fanatical terroists who are setting off necrobombs and doing similar crazy things. Not to mention the fact that they were for a time an elite Karrnathi unit, then outlawed; in this way they're almost like the Ku Klux Klan. You think Karrnath, you think "That's where those Emerald Claw crazies come from, right?"
Great metaphor.
It’s not what I had in mind, exactly, but I’d certainly think about adopting it in the future.
Again, you don't need to say a word about Erandis in the Player's Book; I don't need to know the secrets of the Order.
So we’re in complete agreement on this.
I’d definitely want the existence of the Order and its role as the extremists whose actions are what gives the BoV its bad name clearly stated.
I confess that I like the organizations more separate.
A rogue political organization having secret ties to an evil religion through the BBEG that controls both is more interesting to me than having them mixed up.
I’m not a fan of “monolithic evil”.
But, obviously, the books have them sitting together like peas in a pod however incongruous that may be, so I’m wrong..
With that said, I recognize the validity of the rant, and that perhaps FIVE NATIONS could have included something more useful than those stats. But again, this won't be Five Nations.
Is it fair to say that if each successive book makes the line (such as it was…) blurrier and blurrier then WotC believes that players will not capable of drawing the line for themselves?
No, I think that's two entirely separate points.
My statement that WotC believes that players can handle player knowledge is just that. It's the reason you have sidebars in the PGtE that present secret information with Knowledge checks: because if you have the skills you know you possess the information; if you don't have the skills you know that you don't. Likewise, the information about Kaius in the original ECS was intended to be secret information. A player might read it, but I think the writers assumed that the reader would be able to identify this as information not known to the public.
The point about it becoming unclear whether certain pieces of information are supposed to be secret or not is a separate issue, and a perfectly valid one. The ECS presenting something in the PGtE with a skill DC is an example of a clear delineation of what a character should know. The PGtE mentioning Erandis as the leader of the OtEC in the main body of an entry is far less clear, and an example of something that should be improved in the future.
I don't think we're arguing about whether a line should be drawn. And I'm certainly not saying it's drawn well now. I think the only argument is where it should be drawn.
I realize my original post was long, and hard to read. But this is the opposite of what I was asserting.
The various nesting sblocks can be hard to follow. Here and in my post on your other thread I've found things on secondary readings that I missed the first time around. So I apologize for misunderstanding on my part, but you do weave a labyrinthine maze of words.
A rogue political organization having secret ties to an evil religion through the BBEG that controls both is more interesting to me than having them mixed up. I’m not a fan of “monolithic evil”.
The point to me is that they aren't monolithic evil. They are an example of how a religion that is not inherently evil in its practices can nonetheless produce organizations that are violent, evil, or otherwise operate in ways that go strongly against the principles of the faith. Look to Islam, Christianity, and almost every major religion in our world and you will find groups that claim to be motivated by their faith but who, instead, stain its reputation with their actions. That's how I've always intended the EC to be. The typical worshipper of the BoV is a decent person who cares about his community and believes that through his faith he may some day free all people from the curse of death. He's not an evil man; he's simply a follower of a grim faith. The follower of the Emerald Claw who sets off a necrotic wave generator in Sharn on the orders of Erandis may CLAIM to be a follower of the Blood. He may BELIEVE he's a follower of the Blood. And others will certainly attribute his actions to the faith, saying that it's an undead-loving religion of violent madmen. But how did triggering that device have anything to do with the actual doctrine?
When you separate the EC from the BoV, it becomes a random terrorist organization - and it should make the BoV less reviled than it is, because it's the EC that does most of the bad stuff associated with it. To me, the EC is to the BoV what the followers of the Pure Flame are to the Silver Flame; extremists who have lost sight of the true meaning of their faith, and who harm the reputation of their church with their actions.
But, obviously, the books have them sitting together like peas in a pod however incongruous that may be, so I’m wrong...
Well, obviously you're not wrong. But beyond that, the books don't all have them sitting together like peas in a pod. The ECS does, and I think it's a backwards interpretation. I think Sharn and Faiths of Eberron get much closer to my vision of the faith. 4E will be a new chance to get it straight.
Anyhow, I think that we agree more than we disagree, so I'll leave it there.
Response to Grafster
I realize that I was unduly snarky in some places and misinterpreting things in other places, so my apologies for that. I tend to annoy people - I'm a little too Smug sometimes.
I was going to go through the Kalashtar - Star Wars thing point by point, but I'd be wasting both our time - I think this is a case we're you're misinterpreting my point just as I have misinterpreted some of yours. And my statement was unnecessarily snarky. But the last thing I was trying to say is that Riedra was in any way a direct parallel to the Empire of Star Wars. My point was essentially this.
So my major point here is that it should be clear that the existence of the Quori as the driving force behind the Inspired is not public knowledge among the people of Khorvaire. But per PGtE and RoE, the threat posed by the Dreaming Dark is part of the daily life of a kalashtar and the core of their religion, and if you're going to have options for kalashtar PCs you need the players to understand the threat that they're facing, the origin of their race, and the nature of their religion. The kalashtar chapter is the one I've seen praised the most on these boards (taken from a book that many people hate) precisely because these people felt that they didn't understand the kalashtar until they had that information.
The existence of a corporeal quori? Absolutely. However, the kalashtar have more experience with quori than any other race. First, you are right to note that kalashtar don't dream. Instead, they experience visions drawn from the memories of their own quori spirits. So they are some of the few people who DO know what quori look like, because they've spent much of their lives dreaming of conflict in Dal Quor. This ties to the concept of the spiritual lineage as described on page 59 of RoE. It's not simply a matter of faith; kalashtar feel the connection to others of their spiritual lineage, and share the same dreams and memories.
Then there's the whole "We're being hunted by these guys" aspect of things. Sure, you have to take it on faith that they are possessed by quori, but it's something that's a very real threat to you.
Finally, you have the various effects that allow quori simulacrums to manifest (Quori Nightmare, project quori spirit) and things like the Quori mindhunter, Quori Dread, and stun quori spirit (lifebound and the like aren't necessarily unique to quori). So the existence of the quori may be a matter of faith to any one random kalashtar - but the race as a whole has lots of concrete evidence to work with, especially with their own dream-memories of their Quori spirit.
But what you said was "Kalashtar believe they are engaged in a secret war with fiends that dwell in their old home dimension. Elders whisper that these creatures drove them out and hunt them even today, that they control a whole continent and seek to stop the turning of the age."
This isn't clearly marking it as secret - it's calling the veracity of it into question, and would leave me, as a reader, entirely uncertain as to whether it's truth or just some nutty belief they have. I know a guy on the street corner who believes he's engaged in a secret war with aliens, and I at least am assuming he's nuts. I assume that your point is that this is how most people view the kalashtar, and that's perfect and something that should be clearly stated. But in my opinion it's too central to the daily life of the race to leave a person who intends to play a kalashtar with that uncertainty. It's very different from RoE telling you exactly how your race came to be, what the Path of Light hopes to acheive, and why the Quori are interested in Eberron in the first place. What I'm saying is that I'd like that information, with a clear statement that it is secret and an equally clear statement as to WHY it's still secret.
Your version is far more poetic and flavorful; but my concern is that it leaves something that is a fundamental cornerstone of kalashtar life as a mystery - when for the kalashtar themselves, it's not a mystery. They have visions of it every night, and have to watch for the Dreaming Dark every day. The current version does a terrible job of explaining why the world at large doesn't know all about it - but there's still some middle ground between the two points.
Sure. I think we're both equally snarky by nature, and I admit to misinterpreting some of your posts.
Oh, fair enough - totally missed that. No argument there. I've never been arguing in favor of Kaius' stats. But I think this comes back to Hellcow's point of "We all agree Five Nations wasted space in this way, but this isn't something that's in the running for the 4E book(s)."
I ‘m going to skip some parts (the suggestions about the kinds of games I run, etc) and just tackle stuff where I think we can have a productive conversation.
I realize that I was unduly snarky in some places and misinterpreting things in other places, so my apologies for that. I tend to annoy people - I'm a little too Smug sometimes.
I was going to go through the Kalashtar - Star Wars thing point by point, but I'd be wasting both our time - I think this is a case we're you're misinterpreting my point just as I have misinterpreted some of yours. And my statement was unnecessarily snarky. But the last thing I was trying to say is that Riedra was in any way a direct parallel to the Empire of Star Wars. My point was essentially this.
- The Kalashtar are a small group of persecuted individuals.
- The vast majority of Kalashtar follow a religion that drives them towards good action. Specifically it sets them in opposition to the Inspired and the Dreaming Dark. Even if they have not always physically opposed the Inspired, the basic tenet of the Path of Light is that through their actions, they are bringing things closer to the turning of the Age and destruction of the Dreaming Dark.
- The Kalashtar are persecuted by the Dreaming Dark, to the extent that they must stick together in tight-knit communities to avoid being picked off by agents of the Dreaming Dark. Combining this with the central role of their religion in their culture, and it is only logical to assume that they will be taught about the Dreaming Dark and the Quori: these are critical elements of both the genesis of their race and their religion.
- The physical agents of the Dreaming Dark come from the nation of Riedra. The rulers of Riedra are the demons of the Kalashtar religion - examples of the beings that hunt them. While the Kalashtar have traditionally been passive, the Kalashtar of Adar have been actively fighting them for a thousand years and have actually developed spells to bind Inspired spirits. Again, as such, it seems logical to me that a kalashtar is going to be taught to understand the true nature of the Inspired as a basic part of their religious beliefs.
- Riedra has been a sealed country, but during the Last War it came to the aid of Khorvaire, and has ambassadors in every major court. In Sharn, the Inspired ambassador is supposed to be quite a celebrity. At this point, the existence of the "godlike" Inspired is a matter of a DC 20 Geography check - a challenge, but certainly possible for the educated Aundairian commoner with 4 ranks of Knowledge.
So my major point here is that it should be clear that the existence of the Quori as the driving force behind the Inspired is not public knowledge among the people of Khorvaire. But per PGtE and RoE, the threat posed by the Dreaming Dark is part of the daily life of a kalashtar and the core of their religion, and if you're going to have options for kalashtar PCs you need the players to understand the threat that they're facing, the origin of their race, and the nature of their religion. The kalashtar chapter is the one I've seen praised the most on these boards (taken from a book that many people hate) precisely because these people felt that they didn't understand the kalashtar until they had that information.
The quori, just so we've brought them up are an intangible extradiminsional race. The Kalashtar believe in them, but most of them have never even met one, they probably don't even know anyone who has. Their existence is an article of faith for most Kalashtar.
The existence of a corporeal quori? Absolutely. However, the kalashtar have more experience with quori than any other race. First, you are right to note that kalashtar don't dream. Instead, they experience visions drawn from the memories of their own quori spirits. So they are some of the few people who DO know what quori look like, because they've spent much of their lives dreaming of conflict in Dal Quor. This ties to the concept of the spiritual lineage as described on page 59 of RoE. It's not simply a matter of faith; kalashtar feel the connection to others of their spiritual lineage, and share the same dreams and memories.
Then there's the whole "We're being hunted by these guys" aspect of things. Sure, you have to take it on faith that they are possessed by quori, but it's something that's a very real threat to you.
Finally, you have the various effects that allow quori simulacrums to manifest (Quori Nightmare, project quori spirit) and things like the Quori mindhunter, Quori Dread, and stun quori spirit (lifebound and the like aren't necessarily unique to quori). So the existence of the quori may be a matter of faith to any one random kalashtar - but the race as a whole has lots of concrete evidence to work with, especially with their own dream-memories of their Quori spirit.
Saying the existence of the quori should be clearly marked as a secret and deemphasized is NOT the same as saying most people think Riedra doesn't exist.
But what you said was "Kalashtar believe they are engaged in a secret war with fiends that dwell in their old home dimension. Elders whisper that these creatures drove them out and hunt them even today, that they control a whole continent and seek to stop the turning of the age."
This isn't clearly marking it as secret - it's calling the veracity of it into question, and would leave me, as a reader, entirely uncertain as to whether it's truth or just some nutty belief they have. I know a guy on the street corner who believes he's engaged in a secret war with aliens, and I at least am assuming he's nuts. I assume that your point is that this is how most people view the kalashtar, and that's perfect and something that should be clearly stated. But in my opinion it's too central to the daily life of the race to leave a person who intends to play a kalashtar with that uncertainty. It's very different from RoE telling you exactly how your race came to be, what the Path of Light hopes to acheive, and why the Quori are interested in Eberron in the first place. What I'm saying is that I'd like that information, with a clear statement that it is secret and an equally clear statement as to WHY it's still secret.
Your version is far more poetic and flavorful; but my concern is that it leaves something that is a fundamental cornerstone of kalashtar life as a mystery - when for the kalashtar themselves, it's not a mystery. They have visions of it every night, and have to watch for the Dreaming Dark every day. The current version does a terrible job of explaining why the world at large doesn't know all about it - but there's still some middle ground between the two points.
So why don’t agree that we’re not conflating the two and leave it at that?
Sure. I think we're both equally snarky by nature, and I admit to misinterpreting some of your posts.
I'll say it again. Kaius' stats are blah.
Oh, fair enough - totally missed that. No argument there. I've never been arguing in favor of Kaius' stats. But I think this comes back to Hellcow's point of "We all agree Five Nations wasted space in this way, but this isn't something that's in the running for the 4E book(s)."
Yay!
edited to add:
I should -probably- say that I'm not so thrilled that Eberron isn't going to be continuously developed.
But if we get three solid thick ECS level books (quality/size) that are tied nicely together? I'd be pretty happy.
That was pretty much exactly the sort of treatment I was hoping for in 2009.
- Segregation of secrets is feasible. (To a certain degree, keeping some key stuff in the DMs book will help sell that book to a wider audience. (PLEASE MENTION THIS TO MARKETING ;) )
- Shouldn't be much, if any, repetition.
- There's enough "natural crunch" in Eberron that we won't see stuff tacked on just to sell books.
And if the community has a chance to develop options to the setting through the wikis and we get regular smaller treatments direct from KB on DDI? -- god I may actually have to consider subscribing.
Will I get my wish?
One awesome large style campaign
Eberron needs its Masks of Nyarlathotep. As non-linear as possible, epic and creative and amazing! Travel all over Eberron fighting the forces of evil and dealing with fascinating and complex NPCs!
The three books are: Campaign Guide (DM), Player's Guide (players, and DM for good measure), and Adventure (everyone).
Maybe I will.
Maybe I will.
Indeed, maybe you will... and yes, because of the format of things, we should be able to have that clear segregation of information that's appropriate and useful for DMs and players respectively, with minimal repetition and wasted space. For me, the primary issue is how much we can fit into two books. However, I hope that I will have the opportunity to explore the subjects that have been left unexplored on DDI; I've already talked about a lot of article ideas with the DDI folks.
I've enjoyed the feature level articles like the Valenar or Zeitgeist ones, but even they're not worth the US$9.95 per month for the yearlong subscription.
I wouldn't call things like the Valenar Expeditionary Dispatches "feature level articles", personally; as you say, they are essentially on par with the free content provided previously. While I can't provide details, I'm working on an article that is both considerably larger and dealing with a subject I've wanted to tackle for some time. I don't expect to have this level of Eberron support in DDI every month (though I'd hope to get monthly support on par with the Expeditionary Dispatches/Dragonshard stuff)... but you will also see true Eberron features in addition to this sort of minor supporting article.
While I can't provide details, I'm working on an article that is both considerably larger and dealing with a subject I've wanted to tackle for some time.
Let the guessing begin! ;)
But first . . . a little hint? ;)
Girls of Khorvaire with pullouts?
Maybe there'll be an illustration of the long awaited Jaela vs. Vol catfight?
Maybe there'll be an illustration of the long awaited Jaela vs. Vol catfight?
I'm so glad people understand me here. ^_^
... Isn't Jaela 11 or something? I'm not sure a catfight between a little girl and an excessively old lich would look very interesting...
The issue is how old Erandis was when she became a lich. The catfight scenario emerged when I said that I personally prefer to think of Erandis as having been very young when she became a lich - thus not having full control of her powers, and also explaining how her escape went unnoticed. She wasn't a leader of the house at the time; she was its last child. Hence the concept of her and Jaela pulling each other's hair. However, the mini produced of her and the art shown of her certainly both depict her as an adult.
Regardless of physiological age, Erandis is certainly thousands of years old - but Jaela is the preternaturally wise vessel of a divine force, so she's not exactly your typical 11-year-old.
The feel of Eberron is going to be lost behind a mass of cheesy art, and stupid rules, just cut the crap and get John Kovalic to do the art work ( Artist of Munchkins and Dork Tower).
After talking to everyone I know at my local gaming store, and they all say the same thing. It seems silly and a waste of time. Were all concerned for Eberron.
Gary Gygax made the game to be complicated, and now Wizards is selling out.
Oh, come on. I don't know if this is just trolling (most likely), intentionally misrepresenting the opinions of a great man, or just ignorance. But Gary Gygax wasn't a champion of complicated games or 3E. Quoting this interview:
After 30 years of role-playing gaming, however, I find that the system is too rules oriented for my personal taste, too centered on combat as well, so I will play it, but I do not enjoy DM'ing it--although I still love to DM for original D&D or AD&D.
Now, I'd NEVER make the claim that "He'd like 4E better." It would be ridiculous and insulting. Beyond that, I think the same quote given above could be applied to 4E just as much as 3E. Because despite the constant claims that 4E is "D&D for Six Year Olds", the fact of the matter is that combat in 4E is more complex than people seem to think. Sure, Sunder is gone and Grapple is simplified. But as a mid-level fighter or a rogue, I have an array of options I never had in original or AD&D. As a fighter, do I hold my foe in place with a lockdown strike or try to knock him off his feet with a sweeping blow? As a rogue, do I focus on damage or search for a gap in the enemy's armor to improve my chance to hit? Do I trick my enemy into stumbling into a poor position, or blind him with my flashing blades? (and all of these are options available to first level characters!) The SYSTEM may be simpler, and it certainly involves fewer die rolls. But in terms of the tactical options available, there's a lot going on. Likewise, I love the Skill Challenge system of 4E - but it IS the case that it brings more rules to the table (more rules than 3E actually had for adjudicating many situations). Beyond that...
Eberron is about dirty alignments, gray alignments, and everything that is wrong with the world.
Which actually makes 4E a BETTER system for modeling it, since 4E downplays alignment and entirely removes effects like detect evil and smite evil.
This isn't a 3E vs 4E thread, so I'll leave it there. But bringing Gygax into the 3E vs 4E debate is just rude: given the choice between the three, he'd play Lejendary Adventures (his own system, published by Troll Lord Games).
I just wanted to pitch in my voice in support of almost everything you wrote in the original (quite extensive) letter. Well written (if a bit unwieldy)
I'm also glad you got KB to look at it.
well done.
...As it stands, the DDI is incredibly slow to load for international dial-up users like me...
Perhaps, articles should have a version without any pictures attached to make downloading much easier? (High resolution, Low resolution, and no pictures versions.)
Even in rural America, dial up is quite common, however, recently a company began offer Satellite Internet at affordable prices with good consistent service. I wonder how long it will take before the same thing happens for the rest of the world? How many more satellites would need to be placed in orbit to accomplish this?
At the same time, every newspaper and a lot of magazines are facing a huge crisis. Print is becoming more and more expensive with less and less people purchasing it. What will become of them? Talk to people in this profession carefully and they will tell you about this.
Now, on a more serious note:
101. Anything about the drow in Xen'drik as PCs. They're savages who live in the jungle. They're monsters; they exist to sit in their lairs, be killed and have their treasure taken. Get over it or play FR.
The Eberron fan in me says that Eberron is the ideal setting to play a monstrous npc, be it a drow, goblin, thri-keen, or any other race that, in FR or many other settings, would be killed outright at the gates of your average town.
[Switches his FR aficionado mode ON]I'm serious. In Fr, playing (for example) a drow is a death sentence, unless one plays exclusively in the underdark. Even that famous, heroic-dual-scimitar-wielding-drow-who-has-so-many-fans is not welcome in the North, despite all the good he's done. And Eilistrae (goddess of good drow)? Those very, very few outside her faithful who heard of her dismiss the idea of a good drow (let alone a deity of such) as an utterly ridiculous flight of fancy.[FR aficionado mode OFF]
I like Eberron for this reason (and many others.) Only on Eberron could I envision playing an arctic Flind Gnoll grinning like a maniac, he and his adventuring companions hanging on for dear life as the Zilargo-developped, prototype elemental snowship they are onboard of zooms across the Frostfell.
And for this, I am grateful.
101. Anything about the drow in Xen'drik as PCs. They're savages who live in the jungle.
Actually, they're not "savages who live in the jungle", they're "humanoids who live in Xen'drik", possessing a range of cultures. The Sulatar have elemental binding techniques even the gnomes haven't mastered. And even if you go with the savages, how is this an unacceptable path for a PC? Tarzan is a pulp icon. Xu'sasar from The Gates of Night seems like a perfectly acceptable PC to me; she's a drow, but she's an EBERRON drow, not a Drizzt clone. I'll be annoyed if drow get more screen time than warforged, but personally I like what Eberron's done with the drow and won't mind if they're at least mentioned in enough detail for a newcomer to the setting to understand just how different they are from their FR cousins.
To belatedly return to some stuff Smug said...
I think he has a lot of good points about Quori/Kalashar, and I'm not sure that it'd be productive to split ever smaller hairs on where we see things differently.
Personally I like the idea of the Kalashtar-as-consperacy-nuts.
Some fictional novels that are rooted in very right wing religious books have the head of the UN (I think?) as the anti-christ or his agent. Some/all Kalashtar think the same thing about the Inspired.
I guess I find that more appealing than "yes, you're objectively right, he's the anti-christ, it says it right here on page 3".
I -do- agree that Eberron handles -certain- weird races better. Gnolls and drow all have back story. If you follow the back story it's easy to have them "fit".
Races like Githzerai and Goliaths, to my mind, fit very poorly in Eberron. I just think they clash with existing races that are already tightly integrated into the setting better.
So I wouldn't say better/worse really with regard to FR and allowing weird races. Honestly I've seen so many all-or-mostly-drow-parties galivanting around FR that I tend to think of the setting as being profoundly loose, but that's more of how the setting was played.