But we did lose Saves-vs-DM and Edymnion over 3.5 vs. 4e, and that's a sad thing. It's all a matter of preference, and some people prefer to houserule the crap out of the core 3 books to make them workable, and then try and figure out how to include all subsequent books within the context of their houseruling.
hahahaha, ok, so I have some strong opinions about 3.5e.
Greetings, all. I don't mean to start any sort of edition war, but I really do wonder if there is a correlation between liking 4th edition and liking Eberron. Any ideas?
I've observed before that some of the design philosophies for Eberron seem to be very similar to those of 4th edition. This is most notable in the Xen'drik source books (which could really be 4th ed books if not for the mechanics).
I've observed before that some of the design philosophies for Eberron seem to be very similar to those of 4th edition. This is most notable in the Xen'drik source books (which could really be 4th ed books if not for the mechanics).
That's more of a factor of 4e designs creeping into v3.5 products. Complete Mage and Tome of Battle were the more obvious influences, but other books exhibited it, too.
That's more of a factor of 4e designs creeping into v3.5 products. Complete Mage and Tome of Battle were the more obvious influences, but other books exhibited it, too.
I don't really see how that counters JohnLynch's point. Just because 4e designs were creeping into setting-free supplements doesn't mean that 4e wasn't heavily influence by Eberron design points.
Well keep in mind that James Wyatt was second only to Keith Baker in Eberron's design and development, and James was one of the guys who led up the 4e project. So it probably is less Eberron exerting its influence over the D&D brand so much as James' influence over both products.
Or WOTC's general desire to move in that direction. Remember that they chose Eberron from amongst hundreds of other potential campaign settings. The only other runner up I know of was 11th place holder Dawnforge, which also has players acting like DAMN BIG HEROES in a world where ogres, dopplegangers, and minotaurs are playable characters, gods are unknown, and everything is mythic in scope.
There's also Star Wars Saga, which pioneered many of the ideas that would eventually go into 4E: trained skill bonuses, healing surges, greater number of encounter powers, Reflex/Fortitude/Will defenses, elimination of extra attacks from high BaB, etc.
Lots of later WOTC products were influenced by 4E and Eberron was likely chosen because it was already on track to being conducive to the kind of games WOTC was aiming to make.
I don't really see how that counters JohnLynch's point. Just because 4e designs were creeping into setting-free supplements doesn't mean that 4e wasn't heavily influence by Eberron design points.
Dragons of Eberron and City of Stormreach was designed to be forward compatible with 4e to begin with, so neither of us has a strong case. I don't see the 4e designs in Secrets of Xen'drik or any other Eberron books for that matter.
Dragons of Eberron and City of Stormreach was designed to be forward compatible with 4e to begin with, so neither of us has a strong case. I don't see the 4e designs in Secrets of Xen'drik or any other Eberron books for that matter.
James Wyatt's blog points out Secrets of Xendrik as containing elements of ideas they were playing around with for 4e's traps and hazards.
James Wyatt's blog points out Secrets of Xendrik as containing elements of ideas they were playing around with for 4e's traps and hazards.
That's right. I forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder.
And i was enjoying 4th Ed, until i started seeing some of the Eberron stuff for it, and now its started to put me off 4th Ed.
I'll happily continue to play 3.5ed Eberron, but i think i'll give 4th Ed a miss for now.
I don't see the 4e designs in Secrets of Xen'drik or any other Eberron books for that matter.
Everything is fleshed out only in so much as to give DMs ideas. A lot of the content is modular and easily modifiable. These are core aspects of the 4th edition design.
I'm not saying 4th edition stole these concepts from Eberron or that they were playtested in Eberron for 4th edition. Simply that they do share some design ideas.
I love Eberron. It's one of my favorite RPG settings of all time, period, regardless of the system.
I am not a fan of 4e. I feel it's a step backwards for RPGs, and offers little incentive to RP.
It's a shame, as I feel Eberron had much more going for it in terms of the *variety* of conflicts it supported. Yes, you could go dungeon crawling in Xendrick, and play DDO: Stormreach: The Tabletop RPG. But you could also become involved in Zilargo's Byzantine politics, secret societies that would feel at home in a White Wolf game, explore Call of Cthulu style stories dealing with the machinations of Xoriat... and the list goes on.
Now, I feel the only supported playstyle is the first - dungeon crawling through ruins. It fits the PoL paradigm, and the rules compliment it.
And only. It.
I understand Keith's decision to stick with the IP through the edition shift, but I think he'd prefer 3.5 over 4e, for Eberron, if he had his preferences.
Of course, he'd probably prefer a different system from 3.5, as well. My point isn't that 3.5 was ideal for Eberron - it's that 4e is a step in the wrong direction.
It takes a beautifully realized world and reduces it to the lowest common denominator in gaming. It's a sad thing, where only The Mockery wins.
Note that Keith is not a WotC employee, and suggesting that he's merely shilling for 4e Eberron to sustain his freelance income is to do him a great disservice by suggesting he cannot submit articles for anything but Eberron.
Actually Keith has quite vocally supported 4e. He says it fits Eberron better than 3.5.
Note that Keith is not a WotC employee, and suggesting that he's merely shilling for 4e Eberron to sustain his freelance income is to do him a great disservice by suggesting he cannot submit articles for anything but Eberron.
I see this a lot, and as much as I respect Keith's opinions, they are still exactly that.
Personally, I think Savage Worlds makes a better system for Eberron than v3.5 or 4e, but that's just an opinion, too.
I understand Keith's decision to stick with the IP through the edition shift, but I think he'd prefer 3.5 over 4e, for Eberron, if he had his preferences.
Of course, he'd probably prefer a different system from 3.5, as well. My point isn't that 3.5 was ideal for Eberron - it's that 4e is a step in the wrong direction.
Actually, Keith has explicitly stated that he feels 4e better suits Eberron than v3.5, particularly with regards to rituals and the magic-based technology. Magewrights, as written in v3.5, can't really handle the type of industrial use of magic that Eberron tries to convey.
Now give them Weird Science and Gadgeteer Edges from Savage Worlds and they're set. ;)
I see this a lot, and as much as I respect Keith's opinions, they are still exactly that.
Personally, I think Savage Worlds makes a better system for Eberron than v3.5 or 4e, but that's just an opinion, too.
Oh, certainly. My point wasn't to prove that Keith's opinion was the absolute fact, just that it is, in fact, his opinion. Rant_Casey seems to have thought that Keith would prefer 3.5 if he had any choice, and that seemed to me like he thought that WotC was keeping Keith silent on his own opinions or something. I'm just making it clear that Keith's vocal opinion about liking 4e has no reason to be discarded as merely him "shilling" the new edition. It would be rude and disrespectful to think that Keith Baker's integrity has been compromised because he's kowtowing to WotC or something.
Oh, certainly. My point wasn't to prove that Keith's opinion was the absolute fact, just that it is, in fact, his opinion.
Exactly so.
I just had a big edition debate over on another thread, and I'm not going to repeat that here. But in short, I like 4E. I like Hero System. I love Over The Edge. As a matter of fact, I've run Eberron adventures in all three of these. Different systems serve different purposes - figure out what system is best for the type of game you want to run and use that. I don't believe that there's a correlation to liking 4E and Eberron, because I know quite a few people who prefer to run it in GURPS or Savage worlds
So *I* happen to like 4E and have been running Eberron in it. Many people say "It's a minis game! It's all about combat! It's WOW the RPG!" All I can say is that at my table it's none of these things. I like games that focus on storytelling and intrigue. I've found that 4E works perfectly well for this. The system is a tool, but like any tool, the results will depend on the tool user. 4E works well for me - but I wouldn't try to force it on anyone who didn't enjoy it.
And lest it go without saying, when we ran the Tower of Gygax event last GenCon, we didn't do 3E or 4E; we went back to AD&D. Every system has its strengths and weaknesses - play the game you're most comfortable with, and the one that works best for what you're trying to do.
I'm not seeing a correlation between 4e and Eberron however. The setting always looked interesting, our group simply never took the opportunity to play during 3.5. Forgotten Realms was our focus. Our Realms games finished with 3.5 however and we've have been really anxious to give Eberron a go this time around. We're all familiar with some elements of the setting but for the most part, Eberron is a completely new setting for us; everyone is very excited.
For the rest of this week, I've work to attend to; by next week however, I hope to have the brand-new Player's Guide in hand and have a 4e game up and running. I have the 3.5 Campaign Guide also, so that should help me prepare a bit (at least until the 4e version releases later). As our games pick up steam, I expect to frequent the Eberron sections more and more ;).
I'm a 4e fanboy in decline. I've been DMing Eberron since 2006 and switched my group to 4e in August last year. My primary motivation for gaming is story telling and I've been fairly successful in doing that with 3.5 and 4e. However, I sometimes need to coax my players into doing a little more roleplaying by providing "crunch" benefits for doing so.
A few months ago I decided to try Savage Worlds as, like many of you, I'd been hearing good things about the system.
All I can say is WOW! What an amazing match with Eberron! It provides a great mechanic for creating colorful characters that get my group doing a lot more roleplaying without me needing to coax them into it (the Hindrances mechanic). Finally, they have characters that have been truly effected by the Last War in ways that are captured by the core mechanics of the game.
The end result (for me and mine) is a game that is *more* about the story and the world of Eberron than about which powers are better than others and how do I best optimize my character.
I dare any Eberron fan to give it a chance (you too Keith)! What have you got to loose? The core book costs a tenner and there is conversion material on the web for free. Get your group together and play a one-shot Eberron adventure. Even if its not your thing, you'll be a more well rounded gamer for having tried it.
I still run my 4Eberron game and I'll continue to do so until the story is finished. However, my next Eberron campaign will definitely be savaged.
Cheers,
"savaged" sid
He said, and again here, quite clearly, he "likes 4E." That doesn't imply "likes more," or "works better than." Semantics are a great power, and come with great responsbility. Please don't abuse it, Amaril.
Amaril, Keith has never stated that 4e fits Eberron better than 3.5.
He said, and again here, quite clearly, he "likes 4E." That doesn't imply "likes more," or "works better than." Semantics are a great power, and come with great responsbility. Please don't abuse it, Amaril.
Really?
http://gloomforge.livejournal.com/6535.html
Your mileage may vary. I'm not going to say 4E is going to be all games to all people. But the fact of the matter is that I not only prefer it as a system, I feel that it's a BETTER system for the Eberron setting than 3E - that it plays to things that I consider fundamental themes of the Eberron Campaign Setting. Like what? Well, let's take a look.
http://gloomforge.livejournal.com/6911.html
YOU may decide not to change. Again, I'm not some sort of WotC shill here. You may not like 4E. As it turns out, I do - not just as a system, but specifically as a system for Eberron. And that's the point of these posts: to explain why I think it actually works as well (or even better) for Eberron than 3E. The downsides are obvious; you can't use all the crunch from your old books, psionics won't be in place from day one, and who knows how quickly DDI will provide support for other unique features of the setting. So given that, why have I already jumped ship to the new system?
Do your research before trying to slap someone down, especially when you're wrong.
I also stand with my ideals shattered. I've lost a lot of respect for one of my favorite world-builders, previously. It's tough to remember that people are only human, when viewed in the light of their work which shines as a polished gem. In the end, we will all be dissapointed. We will be hurt, and we will hurt others.
Amaril, my apologies, you were right.
It's a sad day, for me. But there's nothing to be done about it.
Your research is impeccable, and I stand corrected.
I also stand with my ideals shattered. I've lost a lot of respect for one of my favorite world-builders, previously. It's tough to remember that people are only human, when viewed in the light of their work which shines as a polished gem. In the end, we will all be dissapointed. We will be hurt, and we will hurt others.
Amaril, my apologies, you were right.
It's a sad day, for me. But there's nothing to be done about it.
I don't know why people are sad about it. If he had loved 3.5e, or adopted Pathfinder, I still would have found the same things he found to be better about 4e to be true, and it wouldn't have broken my heart if he adamantly stuck by 3.5e while I played it in 4e.
Exactly so.
I just had a big edition debate over on another thread, and I'm not going to repeat that here. But in short, I like 4E. I like Hero System. I love Over The Edge. As a matter of fact, I've run Eberron adventures in all three of these. Different systems serve different purposes - figure out what system is best for the type of game you want to run and use that. I don't believe that there's a correlation to liking 4E and Eberron, because I know quite a few people who prefer to run it in GURPS or Savage worlds
So *I* happen to like 4E and have been running Eberron in it. Many people say "It's a minis game! It's all about combat! It's WOW the RPG!" All I can say is that at my table it's none of these things. I like games that focus on storytelling and intrigue. I've found that 4E works perfectly well for this. The system is a tool, but like any tool, the results will depend on the tool user. 4E works well for me - but I wouldn't try to force it on anyone who didn't enjoy it.
And lest it go without saying, when we ran the Tower of Gygax event last GenCon, we didn't do 3E or 4E; we went back to AD&D. Every system has its strengths and weaknesses - play the game you're most comfortable with, and the one that works best for what you're trying to do.
I'd love to see the package deal write-ups for the Hero System Eberron. ;)
Personally I grew up listening 1930s-50s radio shows, a station out of Chicago used to play them and I always got a kick out of them, the old detective shows and the adventure shows. I guess I have a taste for pulp and nior.
Initially when I heard of Eberron and saw concept art I rolled my eyes. magi-tech, steam punk, not my style. I buddy got me to read the ECS because I've always been deeply amused by halfling barbarians and he said to me, "They have halfling barbarians on dinosaurs!"
"They have what now?"
"The halfing race, in their homelands they're tribal and domesticate dinosaurs, check it out." He showed me a picture so I sat down to read it.
Then I got it, it clicked. Pulp-Nior, what they are now calling Fantasy-Nior. I got it, I grew up with those kinda stories, with Doc Savage, The Shadow, Sam Spade: Private Eye, Boston Blackie. Heck I even had shows like Suspense on CD and would listen to them while leveling up on video game RPGs.
So a D&D world that incorporated those tropes really spoke to me. Which is why sometimes I feel people miss the point of it when they call it Final Fantasy or Steampunk with magic... it taps into something much older.
I would really love to be able to tap that sort of feeling in our upcoming Eberron campaign. Anything I should be aware of (in setting) that will help me in that regard? Any suggestions?
The original Eberron Campaign Setting (and I imagine the new one) had a chapter on these themes, about how it should be about over the top action, villians should be recurring and memorable. Some of the key components were "The PCs should be Heroes!" "Cliffhanger Action!" "Excitement! Danger!"
Here are a couple good examples of what I mean, Dragonshards, a discontinued series of articles from the setting's creator. I suggest reading Swashbuckling 101, and Intrigue and Betrayal.
But to more specifically answer your question... things you should keep in mind?
Xen'drik, Eberron's dark continent. Long ago ruled by giants whose magic and technology was far greater than anything the world has seen since... all lost to the ravages of time... or is it lost? These ruins and the world shaking secrets they contain are ripe for pulp style exploration. As are the various lost civilizations hidden in those dense jungles (there are at least 3 different lost drow civilizations for instance).
The Aurum, the great "Bond style" badguys. A cabal of the wealthiest individuals in Khorvaire who are trying to manipulate the nations, the dragonmarked houses, anything they can get their ten ringed mits on.
The cosmopolitain nature of Khorvaire's cities. Sharn in the greatest example (the picture in the EPG doesn't do it justice), metropolises on the scale of 1930's New York with just as much grit and crime. Justice is hard to come by, but it can be bought, through the services of private inquisitives, the kind that know who to talk to and can sort out whats what.
The universities, who are more than willing to pay for expeditions to the far off corners of the world, to learn their secrets and take their stuff.
I once blatantly stole Doc Savage's greatest (and only recurring) villain John Sunlight for an Eberron game. My player's loved to hate that guy.
I think one of my favorite themes in Eberron that seldom gets explored is the idea that even a successful adventure doesn't necessarily end well. People die. Items become lost. Villains get away. Lives are ruined. One of these should happen at the end of every adventure.
QFT. My 3.5 story arc ended with four out of seven party members discovering that the corpses they found of themselves in the Mournland their second time in were the real them, and they were the fakes (the other three weren't there for that trip). They discovered they had to go to the Teeth of the Three in Adar to fix something wrong with their souls, but they didn't know what it was until they got there, and the Storm Guardians told them. Then they "fixed" them by impaling them on the Teeth, killing them and trapping their souls inside, and summoning the souls out of the Mournland in a ritual, and then told the other three that they'd have to drain their own souls, possibly to the point of death, to cleanse and re-align their souls, at which point the Guardians would ressurect them.
And my 4e campaign is just about to pick up where that left off, with everyone level 1 as a result. :D
. I also like the idea of '30s era New York, very evocative; I definitely wanna capture that feeling.I had my eyes peeled for a reply but forgot where I had posted (I've been following several Eberron posts over the last week or so).
Really?
http://gloomforge.livejournal.com/6535.html
http://gloomforge.livejournal.com/6911.html
Do your research before trying to slap someone down, especially when you're wrong.
While I think that it's nifty that people are digging up things I wrote fifteen months ago, given that I'm here RIGHT NOW and that any post at best reflects the thoughts of the moment, why not, I dunno, ASK ME what I think? ;)
My favorite game system isn't D&D at all; it's Over The Edge. Next to that, it may be Hero System. I've been playing D&D far more than Hero these last few years, but I like Hero because of its extreme flexibility when it comes to character creation. When it comes to D&D, I believe that every version of it has its strengths and weaknesses. As I said, when we ran the Tower of Gygax, I choose not to use 3E or 4E, but rather AD&D. I feel that 3E has many vital strengths. I admire the unification of abilities to follow a single modifier system, an important innovation over the percentile Strength we had before. I admire the flexibility of the multiclassing system and prestige classes. I liked the introduction of feats and skills for greater character differentiation. I appreciate the fact that the combat system allows for a greater level of realism and complexity - but the fact of the matter is that I've never liked the way 3E combat plays out at higher levels. Beyond that, while character customization is more flexible than any previous edition of D&D, it's still extremely limited in comparision to OTE or Hero. I've never liked the power curve of leveling - the fact that first level characters can be killed by a single blow (and wizards if you sneeze at them). But I've created things I really like for 3E and 3.5. I'm very happy with all my work in Occult Lore - work that includes many ideas that would be very difficult to model in 4E. I'm proud of what I did with Crime&Punishment. Just last November I wrote an adventure for Pathfinder. I believe that 3.5/Pathfinder is an excellent system and I expect and encourage people to continue playing it.
Meanwhile, I think that 4E also has strengths and weaknesses. Many of its strengths are things held over from 3E: the unification of ability scores and use of skills and feats being critical examples of this. I really like the differentiation of combat magic and ritual magic, as a way for allowing greater flexibility to magic out of combat and most critically for having a magic system that works very well for professional spellworkers (it's hard to imagine the magewright making a living when he can only cast arcane lock once per day; with 4E it becomes a service). I like the fact that the power curve is lowered - that the first level character can't be killed by a single blow and that the difference between a first and second level character is less extreme. I, personally, like the simpler combat system - this doesn't make it better, it simply means that I like it; again, I personally found high-level 3E combat very cumbersome. But *I* like Over The Edge combat, which is one of the simplest systems around. I like the unification of the defenses so that the attacker always makes the roll to determine success of an attack as opposed to the attacker rolling to hit with a ray attack but the defender rolling to defend against a will attack... but with that said, I'm not crazy about 4E's saving throw system. I like the fact that 4E NPCs and PCs don't follow the same rules, but I completely understand why some people want them to. I like the role of the defender as a way to give the fighter an active means of protecting his allies - and one far more interesting for the DM that the 3E Knight's challenge power, which has far more in common with a Warcraft taunt than marking does. I like the fact that 4E emphasizes that noncombat challenges can play just as significant a role in an adventure as combat encounters, and that you could gain all your levels purely through skill challenges - an option which exists in 3E, but is played down. I completely acknowledge that character differentiation is far more limited in 4E, but I've never come to ANY edition of D&D for this; if I want a truly unique character, I'll go to Hero or Over The Edge. In a Fantasy Hero campaign, I played an undead knight with a permanent telepathic link to the maggots crawling in his flesh (among other things) - not an easy character to make in 3E or 4E D&D, regardless of what sourcebooks you have handy. With that said, I like the Skill Training system of 4E, because in my experience it makes it much easier to have a fighter who's really good with Insight or Perception than the cross-class skill training system of 3E... especially given Perception being three skills in 3E.
And despite these things I like about 4E, it's certainly got significant flaws. I like Skill Challenges and Minions, but neither work quite the way I'd like. And again, I recognize that character options are limited - it's just that this doesn't bother ME. I like the concept of rituals, but hate many specific things about them - for example, I play magewrights as learning to perform a few rituals without using ritual books, because that's how you get the idea of someone with a magical occupation - as opposed to saying that every magewright can use any ritual in whatever book he happens to pick up, which lacks flavor. There are things I like about 3E and things I hate about it. There's things I like about 4E and things I hate about it. And things I like about AD&D and things I hate about it. And so on, and so on.
Beyond this, I love Element Masters, a system many people have never even heard of. I love Paranoia. I've never played Savage Worlds, but I'm sure I'll love it from what I heard. EVERY SYSTEM HAS ITS STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES, it's just a matter of finding the one that works best for you. Let me say this once and for all: I DO NOT THINK THAT 4E IS A BETTER SYSTEM THAN 3E. It simply happens to be a system that I prefer to run when I'm doing Eberron - because I like rituals, skill training, tougher starting characters & lower power curve, simpler combat. BUT THIS DOESN'T MEAN YOU WILL. And again, I think there are things 3E does much better than 4E. The mere fact that *I* like running 4E doesn't make it some sort of binary choice that everyone must make. I like 4E, and I wrote an adventure I'm proud of for Pathfinder last year. I'd love to do more work for Pathfinder in the future. It's a great system that builds on the strengths of 3E.
So Rant Casey is correct. *I* like 4E with Eberron. *I* feel it works better for a few very specific reasons, notably rituals being a stronger way to model Eberron's institutionalized magic. But that's ME. I don't expect anyone else to share my opinion, because it is just that - MY OPINION, based on my very specific tastes. 3E, 4E, OTE, Savage Worlds - you need to find the system that works best for you.
But I'm straying into mechanics again. My point is that just because 4E has its power lists and class roles doesn't change the depth of story you can create as a DM or you can provide as a player. It shouldn't change your ability to make STORY and FLAVOR matter - or even to bring them INTO combat, such as the mysteries I introduced with the Prince of Frost and the idea that being in love actually helps protect you from the sorrow of the Shadow Sisters. That's not supposed to be a feat or mechanical trait - that's the DM's decision based on whether your story has led to your character falling in love.
There are systems that truly focus on roleplaying over all else. I don't think any edition of D&D has done this. However, I think EVERY edition of D&D is an equally good foundation for roleplaying. The story is in the hands of the players and the DM, and is should go beyond the mechanics.
I completely acknowledge that character differentiation is far more limited in 4E...
I agree with most of what you said Kieth, but I take issue with this one line. It is not true that character differentiation is far more limited in 4E (than other editions of D&D, including 3e). 3e had the potential to become a system that included quite a bit of character differentiation. This potential was realized in the mechanics of the Star Wars SAGA system. 3e, however, did not include a lot of differentiation between characters. Between mechanics specifically designed to limit multiclassing (exp penalties), classes which offered no choice in regards to what abilities one gained at what level (and forced you to gain abilities in a fixed progression), and combination that were not actually options, because in a choice between chocolate, vanilla, and a kick in the balls, a kick in the balls is not actually an option (the options were horribly underpowered), 3e did not offer great differentiation between characters (in my opinion). This became especially true if you wanted to play a single class or two. Two level 10 rogues are pretty much the same beast outside of their proficiency choices. Meanwhile, in 4e, two level 10 rogues never need to look the same unless someone specifically tries to make them look the same, not in their proficiencies, class powers, builds, or otherwise.
4e does not offer as much character differentiation as something like the Saga system. But in comparison to other editions of D&D, including 3e, I think that some people often give it an unfairly bad wrap in regards to how much character differentiation it does offer. It offers quite a bit more than 2e ever did, and at least as much as 3e did. Within the mechanics of a single class, 4e offers more differentiation than any other edition of D&D ever did. Once the hybrid multiclassing system is finalized, 4e will offer more differentiation than 3e ever did (though the 3e system still had more unrealized potential to be turned into a system that offers greater differentiation, and the Saga system will still offer greater differentiation than 4e does).
...[important points]...
While I appreciate and respect all of your points, I was merely quoting your statements about liking 4e more than 3e for Eberron. That's not to say D&D for Eberron over any other sytem, or 4e over 3e regardless of setting. I thought I was staying within context. I apologize if that point was not made as clearly as I thought.
And seriously, go buy the Savage Worlds book or PDF already. It's only $10! Shane Hensely would probably send you a copy for free! (Wouldn't hurt to ask.)
given that I'm here RIGHT NOW and that any post at best reflects the thoughts of the moment, why not, I dunno, ASK ME what I think? ;)
Because you're supposed to be enjoying your Europe trip! :P
While I think that it's nifty that people are digging up things I wrote fifteen months ago, given that I'm here RIGHT NOW and that any post at best reflects the thoughts of the moment, why not, I dunno, ASK ME what I think? ;)
Because I had no reason to suspect that you had changed your mind about what you think. ;)
While I appreciate and respect all of your points, I was merely quoting your statements about liking 4e more than 3e for Eberron.
Sure. But I'll point out that I made those comments 15 months ago, two months before 4E was even released. The fact remains that *I* like 4E, and it's what I'm using for Eberron. I like rituals. I like the simpler combat systems. I like the ease of acquiring cross-class skills. But I recognize that some of the things that I like won't be to others' tastes. So to me, the point is to find the system that suits *your* tastes.
And seriously, go buy the Savage Worlds book or PDF already.
I have been meaning to for a while, so perhaps today will be the day.
I agree with most of what you said Kieth, but I take issue with this one line. It is not true that character differentiation is fare more limited in 4E.
Oh, sure. I'm writing while traveling and on poor sleep too. The two simply focus on different FORMS of differentiation, which appeal to different types of players. I'd go into more detail, but it's off-topic and a debate I'm sure one can find elsewhere. In fact, I wrote another of those livejournal articles specifically about character differentation in 4E. It's a semantic question based on your definition of "differentiation".
Sage advice.
We all hear that, Hellcow. Use what you like, and what fits your campaign best.
I also definitely hear you on Over the Edge being possibly the best system out there. I would love to see you get in touch with Atlas after your whirlwind world tour and make a long-overdue third edition of it for them.
Oh, sure. I'm writing while traveling and on poor sleep too. The two simply focus on different FORMS of differentiation, which appeal to different types of players. I'd go into more detail, but it's off-topic and a debate I'm sure one can find elsewhere. In fact, I wrote another of those livejournal articles specifically about character differentation in 4E. It's a semantic question based on your definition of "differentiation".
One note on this: as a DM, I have never seen a character concept presented to me from a dubious-about-4e player who plays 3.5/Pathfinder that I haven't been able to hammer out in 4e within a day, and present to them on a shiny platter (barring rule-breaking loophole builds like Pun-Pun, which I wouldn't have allowed in 3.5 anyway).
I can also back him up on the idea that 4e has no less "RP incentive" that any iteration of D&D - still, I was hoping for more, but that's because *I* am looking for that in all games. I've enjoyed Sorcerer, Kult, Unknown Armies, Ars Magica, yes, Over the Edge, and more recently Savage Worlds greatly. There's much less emphasis on combat and tactics, but it can be said that leads to more focus on story, theme, character, etc.
And maybe it doesn't.
Number crunching can be fun. Creating ideal tactics can be fun. My issue is the effect this can have on the tone of the game. Once the idea of tactical supremacy is introduced into a player's mindset, it can be hard not to view battle as an abstraction, where the minis are... well, chess pieces, rather than people/monsters. It's easy to fall out of the paradigm of character and story, and into the idea of playing a game - a different sort of game, mind you - rather than an RPG, a collaborative storytelling game.
That's where to me, and many others, 4e suceeded a little too well. By codifying class roles, putting such an emphasis on tactical combat and teamwork, and even extending roles to monsters, you have possibly the most balanced system for miniatures combat in an RPG *framework* ever.
But for me, and some others, I'm sure, that makes it far too easy to forget that you're not a Leader putting your Strikers in position to take down an Elite Controller. You're a Cleric of the Silver Flame, working with a Shifter Ranger you don't trust, but whom you're starting to grudgingly respect, and you're dealing with a terrorist who sold his soul to The Mockery.
In all the numbers and grids, with the optimization and tactics, and the "supremely balanced maths" behind it all, I'd simply hate for the game to lose sight of the places, and the people, and the stories, that made Eberron mean so much to so many of us.
With that said, I'm looking forward to running another Eberron game, soon. Because I love Eberron.
It's going to be freaking awesome.
Number crunching can be fun. Creating ideal tactics can be fun. My issue is the effect this can have on the tone of the game. Once the idea of tactical supremacy is introduced into a player's mindset, it can be hard not to view battle as an abstraction, where the minis are... well, chess pieces, rather than people/monsters.
Sure, but the same can be said of 3E. It's the munchkin principle, and it's not like that word somehow came into existence for 4E. While running 3E, I've met many players more interested in creating the perfect Combat Reflexes-Spiked Chain-Exotic Weapon Master build than in that character's role in the collaborative story.
It's easy to fall out of the paradigm of character and story, and into the idea of playing a game - a different sort of game, mind you - rather than an RPG, a collaborative storytelling game.
That's the key. I'm just saying that it's not a new problem.
Two things I like about 4E in this regard are the ease of providing characters with cross-class skills, and the flexibility of those skills. In Crime&Punishment, I presented a system for using the Heal skill to perform forensic examinations. In 4E, that's unnecessary; the skill challenge system encourages you to come up with ways your skills might apply to the situation, so if you're examining a murder scene, it's just up to you to say "I'm trained in Heal - can I examine the body?" and the DM to decide if there's anything to find (mind you, there's no reason you can't do the exact same thing WITH 3E - it's just not the way it's presented). In that regard, it's much closer to the trait system of Over The Edge... if you can think of a way your training ought to help you, you can make a case for it, even if it's not specifically defined in the rules. So if I want my high-Dex tempest fighter to be a former street urchin who knows how to cut a purse with his blade and still has friends among the gangs, I can train Thievery and Streetwise and pretty much get that flavor. I CAN just focus on his combat powers and treat him like a chess piece... but the skills also support me if I want to play up his grimy childhood in Callestan and get involved in the underworld of Sharn.
So my point is simply that this is in the hands of the DM and players. Any edition of D&D can become a number-crunching exercise; any edition can become a foundation for roleplaying. The key is finding the one that's fun for you.
With that said, I'm looking forward to running another Eberron game, soon.
And that's all that really matters.
I've been spoiled by having wifi access for this last few days, but I have no idea when I will again, so that's probably all for me. I hope you have a great time in Eberron, whatever system you use.
And seriously, go buy the Savage Worlds book or PDF already. It's only $10! Shane Hensely would probably send you a copy for free! (Wouldn't hurt to ask.)
Oi. Getting tired of hearing about Savage Worlds. I playtested a buddy's setting he designed for it and it was very meh. It felt like a watered down Deadlands. I wish Shane had stuck with that system and that setting. At least he finally started to get Deadlands running again even though it is with the Deadlands-lite system. This is probably the only thing in RPGs that I am grognard about. :D
Sure, but the same can be said of 3E. It's the munchkin principle, and it's not like that word somehow came into existence for 4E. While running 3E, I've met many players more interested in creating the perfect Combat Reflexes-Spiked Chain-Exotic Weapon Master build than in that character's role in the collaborative story.
To be honest, this is something I like about 4e better. It only really adjucates combat, unlike 3e, which has things which intrude on practically every aspect of the character's interaction with the game world, and don't always fit the feel of the game (and don't always interact well with each other). With only combat adjucated, it leaves the rest of the game wide-open to idealized RP as conceptualized by the players, instead of a ruleset.
The only thing I have to figure out is to implement magic items and getting the artificier to work. Perchance, is there a website out there that's devoted to adapt Eberron to SW?
If you wish to look into it further, I recommend the fantasy world builder tool kit by Wiggy. Also, go to the Pinnicle forum; http://www.peginc.com/forum/ and under the topic "SW Home-brew Settings & Conversions" search for Eberron.
I took a look at Savage Worlds and liked it very much. It does everything right was 4e did do wrong.
The only thing I have to figure out is to implement magic items and getting the artificier to work. Perchance, is there a website out there that's devoted to adapt Eberron to SW?
http://immaterialplane.blogspot.com/search/label/Savage%20Eberron
Even more tiresome is the notion that players somehow need the system to motivate them to roleplay. If you ask me, the exact opposite is true. I've long since given up on using such systems because I believe good roleplaying requires personal initiative and enthusiasm beyond what the system can provoke. If players don't want to roleplay, the roleplaying will never be interesting or immersive no matter how many points and bonuses you throw around. That's my personal experience, anyway.
Myself, I've always liked D&D because it lacks these ill-conceived attempts to trick people who don't like to roleplay into roleplaying. I like 4e because not only do I enjoy tactical gaming, I also like how every player class and combat role has something fun and interesting to do in combat instead of just the spellcasters. I like skill challenges, because they make every skill on the skill list potentially worthwhile. I like the easy-to-use yet powerful tools it provides for the DM.
Most of all, I like it because it fits Eberron, for the same reasons Keith has presented. As for those who say that 4e's combat and character building are incapable of producing flavor... I've got a guy in my group who is playing a disgraced and drunken avenger of the Silver Flame, and I'm able to find no rule that says he can't do this. I think maybe you're not looking for flavor in the right places.
To be honest, this is something I like about 4e better. It only really adjucates combat, unlike 3e, which has things which intrude on practically every aspect of the character's interaction with the game world, and don't always fit the feel of the game (and don't always interact well with each other). With only combat adjucated, it leaves the rest of the game wide-open to idealized RP as conceptualized by the players, instead of a ruleset.
Exactly. Sorry for kinda just reiterating what you already said. >.<
Hate 4e.
Really love Eberron!
I really hate reading edition debates.
Then don't read them....
Seriously though, edition debates irritate me too. They're soooo 2008. ;o) However, discussing which game system you prefer is timeless and can be enjoyable.
I've got a guy in my group who is playing a disgraced and drunken avenger of the Silver Flame
That's cool. I wish my players were more creative like that. Characters are much more interesting when they have tragic flaws.
Even more tiresome is the notion that players somehow need the system to motivate them to roleplay.
Ok, when you say *need* then yes this is bang on. Some systems *promote* more role playing than others do. A good example is a game I played recently where the character had to smoke after combat to calm his nerves.. this was enforced by the system (called a hindrance and it was chosen by the player). This gave the player an interesting hook into role playing the character and kick-started their imagination. This wouldn't have happened in DnD unless the player had the initiative to create the "quirk".
Then don't read them....
I guess I should clarify. I hate them the way a smoker trying to quit hates his cigarettes. I know they're bad for my health but I just can't help myself.
That's cool. I wish my players were more creative like that. Characters are much more interesting when they have tragic flaws.
Yeah, the tragic flaw is a great thing, particularly in Eberron where heroes tend to be a little less perfect than your knight in shining armor. Yet, there is such a thing as overdoing it, and sometimes tragic flaws are far more interesting when there are more stable characters to contrast them.
When my group gave Savage Worlds a try, the hindrance system felt like a strongarm. Everybody had to have a major hindrance, it seemed, otherwise their character was drastically less powerful or varied to start with. Maybe that's just inexperience talking, though, so I'll stop here. :embarrass
Ok, when you say *need* then yes this is bang on. Some systems *promote* more role playing than others do.
I guess that's two different points I've been making without managing to draw a line between the two.
1. Games don't *need* the system to encourage roleplaying for good roleplaying to occur. This is a fact that I would debate all day if I had that much spare time. :P
2. My opinion, however, is that the systems that "promote more role playing" do not actually succeed in that task-- at least, not in promoting the kind of roleplaying that my group enjoys. Maybe nobody cares what I think, but they would do well to note that not everybody who likes roleplaying wants their game system to be directly involved in it.
A good example is a game I played recently where the character had to smoke after combat to calm his nerves.. this was enforced by the system (called a hindrance and it was chosen by the player). This gave the player an interesting hook into role playing the character and kick-started their imagination. This wouldn't have happened in DnD unless the player had the initiative to create the "quirk".
Again, it comes down to player initiative and creativity. I understand some players have problems with that, but personally I've had a lot more success with gentle urging than enforcement by rules.
Whatever Rauric
It's my opinion, and I actually played with the rules. Like someone said earlier though we should not make this an edition debate or they will shut the thread down and that is not a nice thing to do to the OP.
So most of my players are big fans of WOD and Deadlands stuff where there are likes of feat-like features that are supposed to allow for greater roleplaying. We all know how that can turn out, people ignore the "hindrance/flaws" more often than use them to get willpower or chips back. Veterans of both systems become master "optimizers" themselves and stop playing troubled pcs but often just make dominators that plow through the campaign. Not everyone does this but I feel that many do. It is a gamer thing.
Anyway my group of gamers played 3E and used minis but did not love the whole concept, especially when we played in another DMs game and he actually played the Minis game. When I used minis I never focused on all the cover and rough terrain rules, I used them as placeholders for us. Anyway I started a 4E game in Sept based in EB and it did take some time to get them to fully accept the 4E game rules. Now I think many of them like the tactical side of things. The one guy who used to drink a bit too much during the games in 3E (we get beer for our game sessions) tones it back alot more now and focuses more on the game now. He is a numbers guy and tries to keep track of what everyone is doing so they can beat the encounter. He is also a story guy too and if I was not making the game interesting I think he would bounce.
At the end of the day not every game system is for everyone.:D
Um....that is all.....?
As the OP, I'm a lot more concerned with this being a borderline edition war than having my OP answered.
Um....that is all.....?
May I ask, what exactly did you expect?
1. Making PC's heroic and special from 1st level is a core concept of Eberron. This was difficult to do in 3.5 since 1st level was so limited. I'm sure many Eberron fans appreciate WotC's efforts to correct this problem in 4e.
2. I think combat as a far more stylish and satisfying feel to it in 4e. Special attacks that do more than just deal damage are the rule, not just the exception, and the new rules for action points enables every player to perform powerful gambits that are just as rewarding to describe as they are to roll dice for. Sweeping a dude's legs out from under him with the haft of your hammer then smashing the head down into his prone body? That's just fun to do no matter how you look at it.
3. Eberron has always been about mixing non-traditional ideas into high fantasy. It has never clung to D&D "as it always has been." Eberron players have to be more open-minded by nature, so seeing such drastic changes to the system may not be so jarring for them.
4. As we all know, Keith himself has voiced his preference for 4e. Not that this matters much to everybody, but some people who were on the fence about their choice of edition may have been nudged to the 4e side by the creator of their favorite setting.
I don't know whether this correlation is really pervasive enough to be worth noting, but the reasons are certainly there. There are some reasons for the opposite to be true, though. People liked building characters in 3.5-- you could create some pretty stylish stuff with it if you put in the work. There are some Eberron players who'd hate to part with that, I'm sure.
I don't know whether this correlation is really pervasive enough to be worth noting, but the reasons are certainly there. There are some reasons for the opposite to be true, though. People liked building characters in 3.5-- you could create some pretty stylish stuff with it if you put in the work. There are some Eberron players who'd hate to part with that, I'm sure.
I've yet to see a 3.5 character, of any level and any mishmash of classes, that I couldn't replicate for a player in 4e. When the PH first came out it was a little more difficult, but it's becoming easier and easier as the ______ Power books come out, and of course the 2nd PH.
May I ask, what exactly did you expect?
I don't really remember. It was a thought that just popped into my head, and making a thread about it seemed like a good idea at the time.
If anything, Eberron is a versatile enough setting that you can make an Eberron game that could fit almost any system out there, and probably find one that fits the tone of your game, in almost every case, better than *any* edition of D&D.
Now, I'm not bringing up a "war" again, I'm just trying to clarify this point: Eberron existed as a 3.5 setting, and its been republished as a 4e setting. But, first and foremost, it's a setting. It's a setting that's bigger than its rules. IT doesn't exist "because" of its rules. Some settings are inseparably tied to a rules set. Eberron isn't.
So, while you can try to back up the idea that Eberron is more suited to 4e, I tend to reject it. You say Eberron players tend to be more open minded than D&D players who prefer other settings, and I agree with that. But perhaps they're open minded enough to break out of the D&D mold entirely, rather than just porting to the newest edition.
It's something to chew on. Again, run what works for you, and your group. Use what you know, use what works, use what you will.
FourthDimensional, if you'll page back a bit, you'll see your point on "keith has voices his preference for 4e" is a bit of an overstatement. Keith has lent his support to running eberron as you wish, i.e., a blanket statement of: "Use what you will." It's not a support for 4e, or any other system, in specific terms.
Man, I'd rather not start an argument over what the guy did and did not say. It's more than a little uncool when you consider that, given his participation on the boards, he's actually part of this conversation.
But if you will page back a bit:
*I* like 4E with Eberron. *I* feel it works better for a few very specific reasons, notably rituals being a stronger way to model Eberron's institutionalized magic. But that's ME. I don't expect anyone else to share my opinion, because it is just that - MY OPINION, based on my very specific tastes. 3E, 4E, OTE, Savage Worlds - you need to find the system that works best for you.
Are you deliberately ignoring the first half of this paragraph? Or, more significantly, the LiveJournal entries where he's gone into great detail about how he feels about Eberron and 4e?
As for the rest of your post, I completely agree. While I like 4e a lot myself, I can see how open-mindedness could also lead to trying entirely different systems. Either way we can probably agree that a current or former 3.5 Eberron player is less likely to just shun 4e because it's too much change. That's all I was trying to say. As you pointed out, however, they may still shun 4e for other reasons. I do not contest this.
As for the rest of your post, I completely agree. While I like 4e a lot myself, I can see how open-mindedness could also lead to trying entirely different systems. Either way we can probably agree that a current or former 3.5 Eberron player is less likely to just shun 4e because it's too much change. That's all I was trying to say. As you pointed out, however, they may still shun 4e for other reasons. I do not contest this.
This is essentially what I was wondering when I created this thread.
I think.
The main reason I love 4E is, as stated as a possibility, that the characters feel heroic from level one.
During my first 4E game, I decided to make a fighter (the seriously worst and most boring class to play in 3E because being described as the 'master of all things combat' you were always forced to specialize into a one-trick-pony to be remotely viable)
During my first game, as a level 1 character, I was swinging around my bastard sword, bashing people around with my shield, attacking two different enemies and being as sticky as a S&B fighter was supposed to be.
That felt freaking heroic! Much more then anything ever felt in 3E, even on higher levels.
Seeing Action points make it's way into the basic ruleset was great too! I loved using them for heroic things in 3.5.
I am going to start running an Eberron campaign using 4E next week and I really hope my players will love the combination of setting and ruleset. Some of them never changed from AD&D untill I gave them a small peek into playing 4E on lvl 1.
That is also another reason why i love 4E. You can do a demo game at lvl 1 to new players and they will already see and use many of the basic options of the game without being overwhelmed with options. This really is a big step forward in balance and fun for Dungeons and Dragons I felt..
The only thing that was a bigger step forward in fun was ECS being published in 3.5 :P
So rather than ask "is 4E best for Eberron?", people should ask, "given I'm running 4E, should I run it in Eberron?" I believe Eberron is a very strong campaign setting for 4e, it's a strong, pretty natural fit, the best fit yet in terms of what's been published for any edition (given you're running 4e rules). Not perfect, but the few things I dislike (like the annoying Eberron-specific names for everything) are far outweighed by all the good stuff I find in the setting. So I agree with Ogiwan - I think Eberron and 4E are a good fit.
(*) I've always run Greyhawk previously, but it didn't seem a great fit without a realms-style make-over, which doesn't sit well with me, so I decided to start with a clean slate...
Exactly so.
I just had a big edition debate over on another thread, and I'm not going to repeat that here. But in short, I like 4E. I like Hero System. I love Over The Edge. As a matter of fact, I've run Eberron adventures in all three of these. Different systems serve different purposes - figure out what system is best for the type of game you want to run and use that. I don't believe that there's a correlation to liking 4E and Eberron, because I know quite a few people who prefer to run it in GURPS or Savage worlds
So *I* happen to like 4E and have been running Eberron in it. Many people say "It's a minis game! It's all about combat! It's WOW the RPG!" All I can say is that at my table it's none of these things. I like games that focus on storytelling and intrigue. I've found that 4E works perfectly well for this. The system is a tool, but like any tool, the results will depend on the tool user. 4E works well for me - but I wouldn't try to force it on anyone who didn't enjoy it.
And lest it go without saying, when we ran the Tower of Gygax event last GenCon, we didn't do 3E or 4E; we went back to AD&D. Every system has its strengths and weaknesses - play the game you're most comfortable with, and the one that works best for what you're trying to do.
In 3.5 I found it hard getting my PCs to do anything investigative. Since there was no real award other then advancing the plot they found it to a bit of drudgery to do so. But, with the use of Skill Challenges working in mysteries, crime scenes, and tracking people has become alot funner and it involves the party more.
In 3.5 you'd have the one char who focuses on tracking and the other on investigating. Now, if each party member has a skill that works for the challenge they can help out.
I love 4E and I love Eberron :P
The main reason I love 4E is, as stated as a possibility, that the characters feel heroic from level one.
During my first 4E game, I decided to make a fighter (the seriously worst and most boring class to play in 3E because being described as the 'master of all things combat' you were always forced to specialize into a one-trick-pony to be remotely viable)
During my first game, as a level 1 character, I was swinging around my bastard sword, bashing people around with my shield, attacking two different enemies and being as sticky as a S&B fighter was supposed to be.
That felt freaking heroic! Much more then anything ever felt in 3E, even on higher levels.
I totally agree and its the one thing I enjoy about 4e. No class outshines another...or at least no one has made that fact evident yet. My Fighter felt like he was more then just a chain of feats or weapon with a body attached to it. I felt like an important part of that party. I had my niche to play and I excelled at it. He wasn't being outdone.
Now, I need to try my hand at my two other favorites classes...Barbarian and Illusionist Wizard.
Unfortunately, I am one of two people in my current group that is knowledgable about Eberron. So I'm stuck with DM duty.
------------------------------------
As for my only gripes on 4e and Eberron.
Eladrin....
Keith, I so wish you had the power to make Aerenal and Valenar elves more distinct in 4e race wise. And I do hope there will be a 4e Equivalent of Race of Eberron to bring back shifters with claws, bites, and horns.
But, where it hasn't been provided I can toy around with the system to make my own. So it's not as much as a problem.
As for more positive things. Thank you or whomever else kept Dragonborn and Eladrin from being too main stream in Eberron. I feel bad for Forgotten Realms when they changed everything around so vastly to fit those races. I'm glad Eberron didn't suffer as badly. Though, it seemed to slide right into 4e. While Forgotten Realms crashed and burned like an Elemental Airship being piloted by a Warforged.
In 3.5 I found it hard getting my PCs to do anything investigative. Since there was no real award other then advancing the plot they found it to a bit of drudgery to do so. But, with the use of Skill Challenges working in mysteries, crime scenes, and tracking people has become alot funner and it involves the party more.
In 3.5 you'd have the one char who focuses on tracking and the other on investigating. Now, if each party member has a skill that works for the challenge they can help out.
I call BS. I never had this problem with skill use in 3.5. Skill challenges provide nothing new that 3.5 didn't do. Any difficulty with 3.5 skill use on the player's behalf was the fault of the DM.
I call BS. I never had this problem with skill use in 3.5. Skill challenges provide nothing new that 3.5 didn't do. Any difficulty with 3.5 skill use on the player's behalf was the fault of the DM.
No, to be honest my players are more flash and bang. They're not as subtle as I'd like them to be. Just because a game goes bad it isn't always the DM. I hate how everyone puts all this responsibility of the stability of the game on the DM. Player's can make a game as terrible as a DM.
And everyone plays the same game differently. I don't feel like derailing this thread so please let's leave it at that.
No, to be honest my players are more flash and bang. They're not as subtle as I'd like them to be. Just because a game goes bad it isn't always the DM. I hate how everyone puts all this responsibility of the stability of the game on the DM. Player's can make a game as terrible as a DM.
And everyone plays the same game differently. I don't feel like derailing this thread so please let's leave it at that.
I'm not passing the buck to the DM. Skill Challenges are a tool of the DM, not a function of the players. They do nothing in 4e that a DM shouldn't have been doing already in v3.5. The only difference from a player's perspective is how the DM presents the situation.
I'm not passing the buck to the DM. Skill Challenges are a tool of the DM, not a function of the players. They do nothing in 4e that a DM shouldn't have been doing already in v3.5. The only difference from a player's perspective is how the DM presents the situation.
Listen, I'm not going to argue about this. All I know is I tried and tried to get the PCs to do a little investigating. It never worked out very well during 3.5Either the char didn't have enough skill points to throw around, the char was more focused on combat, or we had new players. Either way by the time 4e came around things worked alot better. Who knows maybe our competence as players came about when we all started going to college.
This is a thread about Eberron and 4e. Not about the way I play a game. I respect your opinions and what not. But, to be honest I just don't care.
Now, though, they are codified, easy to use, and don't need the DM to seat-of-the-pants rulesmith. The only downside is that the mechanic is so flexible, it's hard to come up with a skill challenge sometimes.
The only downside is that the mechanic is so flexible, it's hard to come up with a skill challenge sometimes.
I hate the things and yet I can't help but come up with them. Although on the upside I'm hating them less now that I'm writing my own instead of running someone else's. This way I can keep the complexity extremely small rather then have arbitrarily long skill challenges simply because the author wanted to hand out a certain amount of XP.
I did like 4th Edition a lot. I felt like it was designed to be less burdened by unecessary rules and complexities, was highly customizable, and supported a greater degree of freedom in storytelling, and is easier to learn. All good things, in my book.
So when Eberron came back around again, in 4E form, and I heard such great reviews from the Player's Guide, I decided to take another look. I've completely come around on Eberron, and am now excited about running a campaign. I realize now that it was presented poorly to me before, and that it's far more interesting and has far more story value (and good action) than I anticipated.