Eberron's influence on DnD is profound - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Eberron's influence on DnD is profound

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
drss_dup
Jul 03, 2008 0:09:31 Not only does 4E's direction seem heavily influenced by Eberron's philosophies, I just read a link posted by someone on the forums about the new FR...

FR has Mournlands and Dragonmarks now? (Changing Land kind of = Mournlands; Spellscarred IS Dragonmark (minus House/Race restrictions). Oh man...)

And for those who read it, doesn't some of the effects of the Spellplague look oddly like what happened within the Mournlands? What with the mutations and all? And an entire nation of Halruaa being destroyed in an instant?

Seriously, do we need 2 EBs?
#2
mystrich
Jul 03, 2008 13:08:16 Eberron was popular and they want every setting the same. They've said this, that way all books will work in all settings. FR is basically being turned into Eberron so that Eberron fans by it due to it being Eberron, and FR fans by it thinking it's still FR.
#3
igotsmeakabob
Jul 03, 2008 13:23:29 Interesting thoughts Mystrich, I don't suppose you have a link to where they've said such? It'd be an interesting read.
#4
the_ubbergeek
Jul 03, 2008 13:31:16 The changes in FR are a bit overblown dramaticaly - some peoples went up in fear.... It's still FR, if you look beyond the 'ZOMG they screwed everything' drama.

Now, Eberron's design philosophy is actually quite interesting, and could beneficiate FR, I stated months ago - and fans agreed too. More focus on PC, more unknown and uncertainity, an openess to the DM, the work on religious matters, etc... It"s not bad at all that they actualy, designers, used it a bit.
#5
Nived
Jul 03, 2008 15:34:01 Now is it that Eberron changed design philosophy or did Eberron win the setting contest because it worked with the direction Wizard's already wanted to go?

Don't put the cart before the horse. It could be one or the other.
#6
drss_dup
Jul 03, 2008 22:58:27
Now is it that Eberron changed design philosophy or did Eberron win the setting contest because it worked with the direction Wizard's already wanted to go?

Don't put the cart before the horse. It could be one or the other.

Hmm, that's good thinking. That never occurred to me.

But then, thinking on that, I suspect that the whole contest may imply that they didn't really have a direction at the time and was looking for one. Eberron (in its final form after development) was an emergent product that they did not plan for. And I would suspect that EB's eventual success became a new direction for WotC. That would be my guess.

I wonder, what makes FR FR? I am not a big fan of the setting, and for me, I only went into FR because I happened by FR novels back in school and liked them. I know why EB draws me in, and I know why I want to play in EB. But I gotta say, for FR, I dont really know what its appeal is; I dont know what makes FR the popular setting that it is besides the fact that it has been around, that it has years of history, and that makes it classic. Right now, they are removing everything that I thought defines FR... But of course, that is only because I am not familiar enough to know what flavor FR is supposed to present.
#7
topherb
Jul 03, 2008 23:42:23 FR is "supposed " to be a "true" medieval setting. but it has gotten so bogged down with the uber-epic NPC's that some people (not ALL) got tired of being worthless in the world, and treated as such. This is based on a truly personal experience of the setting. (Having a DM that felt the NPC's had to solve everything, and the PC's were told they meant nothing). I am truly sorry to the FR fans for this, but it just seems that if I want to be a hero, FR is not the place to be. EB has, from the beginning, been PC-centric, and that is the way I enjoy playing fantasy games.

WoTC has heard complaints from from FR players tired of being second best to the NPC's, and has decided to change their biggest CS to fit what, those who "LOVE" EB has done to the gaming world.

Going so far as creating the spellplague (mournlands anyone)? and spellscars (Dragonmarks).

Maybe, just maybe, it might cause EB players to buy into the FR setting, and FR players to buy into our setting.

-Topher
#8
lord_tirian
Jul 04, 2008 3:29:26
Going so far as creating the spellplague (mournlands anyone)? and spellscars (Dragonmarks).

On the other hand, blasted, wretched lands are hardly an Eberron-exclusive thing, we have Mordor in LotR, Cacotopic Stains in Mievillé's Bas-Lag, Chernobyl in reality - the blasted "no-go" land is a trope.

Cheers, LT.
#9
Titanium_Dragon
Jul 04, 2008 3:47:18 Actually, dragonmarks are just regional feats, really. :P

And the Mournlands aren't at all original. The idea of a spell wasteland is not original to Eberron; its a very, very old idea, arguably one of the oldest ones in the book.
#10
evilnerf
Jul 04, 2008 3:48:00
Maybe, just maybe, it might cause EB players to buy into the FR setting, and FR players to buy into our setting.

Boy, here's a frightening thought. What if their eventual goal was to combine the two eventually, into something only vaguely regarding either of the settings as they appear now?
#11
Ogiwan
Jul 04, 2008 14:01:45 Blech. I guess we'll have to see how much they change the Eberron campaign setting. I have the feeling, though, they won't change much (knock on wood!)

Concerning making FR appeal to Eb players, well, it isn't going to work for me; I'm not going to buy anything that's made for that bloated, rotting corpse of a setting.
#12
lord_karsus
Jul 04, 2008 14:21:03 -The changes being made to the Forgotten Realms can be gleamed in the 4e FAQ thread in the Forgotten Realms section.
#13
euangelion
Jul 04, 2008 17:39:46 I think the things that worked so well with Eberron would certainly influence further D&D development. But keep in mind that Eberron was designed with the 3.5 rules firmly in mind and yet within its own parameters addressed weaknesses inherent in other campaign settings (the PCs as "destined to be the greatest heroes of the world" theme, for example), while FR started outside of canonical D&D and has been adapted to fit D&D since 1st Ed.
And yet, Eberron will change to some extent to fit the 4E style (maybe a little more "point of light"ish, for example), and will still be different from standard 4E in some ways (keeping no restrictions on cleric alignments, I'm willing to bet).
#14
drss_dup
Jul 04, 2008 19:21:04 A setting with Mournlands and Dragonmarks does not an Eberron make. I am wondering if making FR more like EB is going to do anything for FR fans and EB fans. EB fans already love EB, so there should be no reason to get into a setting that is EB-wannabe. FR fans, I imagine, liked FR for different reasons (again, I am not sure what those are), and so I wonder if those flavor will remain even after the 4E update.

If a guy like me, who had been reading FR novels and know some things about the setting (without being an expert of getting too involved), doesn't really know what defines the setting and what makes it special... then I think they aren't doing a very good job marketing FR. With this 4E update, they have a chance to clarify or redefine FR's identity. I mean, if I guy like me doesnt know what makes FR cool, how could new comers?

The things I've read Keith Baker post on his blog seem to suggest that EB wont be chaning much. They arent even going to move the CS starting year ahead. Since EB is so flexible to begin with, it isnt hard to believe.

I wonder, if or when they do 4E Dragonlance, would we be seeing EB influences? I mean, seriously, do we need a 3rd EB?
#15
rauric
Jul 05, 2008 8:57:43
The changes in FR are a bit overblown dramaticaly - some peoples went up in fear.... It's still FR, if you look beyond the 'ZOMG they screwed everything' drama.

Now, Eberron's design philosophy is actually quite interesting, and could beneficiate FR, I stated months ago - and fans agreed too. More focus on PC, more unknown and uncertainity, an openess to the DM, the work on religious matters, etc... It"s not bad at all that they actualy, designers, used it a bit.

Agreed.

To the OP I agree a little with you as well, I think 4E fits in real well with EBs ways. I think if you look at the back of the MM and see all of the types of playable monster races you can see EBs influence more than any other setting. Not fact, just an opinion.

The same goes with the High Action concept of 4E and how PCs are the stars. It is just EB and Hellcows influence on how D&D games can be run. It is a pretty cool thing.
#16
octaviusiii
Jul 06, 2008 11:03:37 Well, I've never played FR much but I can say that, after looking through the setting, it fascinated me. It's a huge setting, and you are never going to make any impact on the world unless you persist for a long time. I made a character (Chessentan) whose goal was to unite humanity under a single banner. He knows it's never going to happen unless he makes a local name for himself, and then a regional name, and then leverage that into a national and international name. It's like the real world, in some ways: you're always small, but wherever you're adventuring, there you're a hero.

The NPCs? They don't even have to enter into it until they actually perceive you as a somebody - and then you'd better be ready, because that's when you start playing with the big boys.
#17
fodigg
Jul 07, 2008 17:05:13 I think it makes sense that they'd be moving D&D philosophy towards the direction Eberron took. Eberron is the newest setting, why wouldn't it coincide with their newest design philosophies?
#18
scizor
Jul 08, 2008 12:07:50
I dont know what makes FR the popular setting that it is besides the fact that it has been around, that it has years of history, and that makes it classic. Right now, they are removing everything that I thought defines FR...

That is exactly what they're doing. I have played FR since 1992 (and am recently dabbling in Eberron), and it has always kept its special FR feel through the editions (how to define this feel I don't know though*). Now, with the Spellplague and the 100 year jump into the future, FR is hardly really recognizable as FR anymore. This is what annoys me (beside my discontent with 4th edition) and why I'll keep on playing in the FR as they were before the Spellplague. The good news is that I won't have to buy any more new FR supplements.

*Maybe it's the history of the Realms that defines it. For every idea I come up with for an adventure or story, there's always enough history I can tie to it. That's what made my Realms the Realms!

Eberron, I agree, is the better 4th edition setting.
#19
scipion_emilien
Jul 09, 2008 18:41:50 Even if sometime today I am wondering why I didn't take my FR-haters-club -card, FR always struck me as being a good setting with poorly executed idea. So as an exercise, i'll try to say what I like from FR (and thus try to help define the FR feel for us all).

-The first thing about FR is the fact that it is the classical high-fantasy word. You are into a medieval-like world where you can bea big hero and save the kingdom. While some would say that Eberron have this feeling, it isn't quite the same thing. Eberron have nation-state more akin to the late renaissance era. FR have a more feudal structure and/or city state that give more this impression of medieval. (Than again, the execution of the concept and the theory would be a reason why I would go get the famous card) This can be seen too by the importance of the religion in the game world. (Again the execution lead to constant religious war between hundred of deity rather than one or two persistent conflict like the muslim vs catholic or protestant vs catholic.)

-The second thing about FR is the epic fantasy. You fight evil for the of mankind into a world of fantasy. (While this can lead to great story of the lord of the ring like, the execution in FR lead to a constant good vs evil mindset that become detrimental on the long term.) Eberron on the other hand is more pulp action and has less a "good vs evil" mindset and more "what are our interest?" one.

Others idea would probably come to me later, and probably that a discussion would help me think about others thing. But I must say that the new 4e FR setting caught my attention if they manage to make a good classical high fantasy setting without falling into the exageration of FR that lead to the bad execution of a lot of good concept.

And yes a last point, I would say that FR seem to be more close to a literary base setting than a gaming base setting. It seem to me that the main reason of the brokeness of FR mechanics, is that the mindset of FR is to think 'What would make a good story" and implement it in the mechanics rather than thinking: "How could we do a good story while staying into the balance mechanics parameters."

Which is good for a more literate form, but can lead to trouble at the game table when you have 20+ years of mechanics design with this mindset.
#20
Alter_Boy
Jul 09, 2008 20:08:55 While the OP's motivation for posting this is, shall we say, confrontational, I do believe Eberron did influence 4ed, or was a testing ground for 4ed ideas.

Wizards Presents: World and Monsters specifically quotes the ECS on alignment and dragons. The old "Dragons are colour-coded for your convinience" was overturned in Eberron, and was included in 4ed.

Also:

- PCs are ther focus of the story
- The world should make sense, at least on the surface
- Detail the world in broad strokes, and only as far as you need to
- Adventure should be dramatic and cinematic

Are aspects of Eberron that's carried over.

So, I do not think WotC has given FR an extreme Eberron make-over. I think they liked how Eberron looked, so they gave FR a make-over to highlight its best features.
#21
dread_lord
Jul 09, 2008 20:24:15
Blech. I guess we'll have to see how much they change the Eberron campaign setting. I have the feeling, though, they won't change much (knock on wood!)

Concerning making FR appeal to Eb players, well, it isn't going to work for me; I'm not going to buy anything that's made for that bloated, rotting corpse of a setting.

Well, from a strictly business point I'm sure they'd love to have one line of products that everyone would buy than having a half dozen to get all the niche players.

Honestly, I'm a little intrigued by that idea of a huge game world in which all campaign settings exist under mostly the same rules where the primary distinctions are cultural.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 drss_dup Jul 03, 2008 0:09:31	Not only does 4E's direction seem heavily influenced by Eberron's philosophies, I just read a link posted by someone on the forums about the new FR... FR has Mournlands and Dragonmarks now? (Changing Land kind of = Mournlands; Spellscarred IS Dragonmark (minus House/Race restrictions). Oh man...) And for those who read it, doesn't some of the effects of the Spellplague look oddly like what happened within the Mournlands? What with the mutations and all? And an entire nation of Halruaa being destroyed in an instant? Seriously, do we need 2 EBs?
#2 mystrich Jul 03, 2008 13:08:16	Eberron was popular and they want every setting the same. They've said this, that way all books will work in all settings. FR is basically being turned into Eberron so that Eberron fans by it due to it being Eberron, and FR fans by it thinking it's still FR.
#3 igotsmeakabob Jul 03, 2008 13:23:29	Interesting thoughts Mystrich, I don't suppose you have a link to where they've said such? It'd be an interesting read.
#4 the_ubbergeek Jul 03, 2008 13:31:16	The changes in FR are a bit overblown dramaticaly - some peoples went up in fear.... It's still FR, if you look beyond the 'ZOMG they screwed everything' drama. Now, Eberron's design philosophy is actually quite interesting, and could beneficiate FR, I stated months ago - and fans agreed too. More focus on PC, more unknown and uncertainity, an openess to the DM, the work on religious matters, etc... It"s not bad at all that they actualy, designers, used it a bit.
#5 Nived Jul 03, 2008 15:34:01	Now is it that Eberron changed design philosophy or did Eberron win the setting contest because it worked with the direction Wizard's already wanted to go? Don't put the cart before the horse. It could be one or the other.
#6 drss_dup Jul 03, 2008 22:58:27	Now is it that Eberron changed design philosophy or did Eberron win the setting contest because it worked with the direction Wizard's already wanted to go? Don't put the cart before the horse. It could be one or the other. Hmm, that's good thinking. That never occurred to me. But then, thinking on that, I suspect that the whole contest may imply that they didn't really have a direction at the time and was looking for one. Eberron (in its final form after development) was an emergent product that they did not plan for. And I would suspect that EB's eventual success became a new direction for WotC. That would be my guess. I wonder, what makes FR FR? I am not a big fan of the setting, and for me, I only went into FR because I happened by FR novels back in school and liked them. I know why EB draws me in, and I know why I want to play in EB. But I gotta say, for FR, I dont really know what its appeal is; I dont know what makes FR the popular setting that it is besides the fact that it has been around, that it has years of history, and that makes it classic. Right now, they are removing everything that I thought defines FR... But of course, that is only because I am not familiar enough to know what flavor FR is supposed to present.
#7 topherb Jul 03, 2008 23:42:23	FR is "supposed " to be a "true" medieval setting. but it has gotten so bogged down with the uber-epic NPC's that some people (not ALL) got tired of being worthless in the world, and treated as such. This is based on a truly personal experience of the setting. (Having a DM that felt the NPC's had to solve everything, and the PC's were told they meant nothing). I am truly sorry to the FR fans for this, but it just seems that if I want to be a hero, FR is not the place to be. EB has, from the beginning, been PC-centric, and that is the way I enjoy playing fantasy games. WoTC has heard complaints from from FR players tired of being second best to the NPC's, and has decided to change their biggest CS to fit what, those who "LOVE" EB has done to the gaming world. Going so far as creating the spellplague (mournlands anyone)? and spellscars (Dragonmarks). Maybe, just maybe, it might cause EB players to buy into the FR setting, and FR players to buy into our setting. -Topher
#8 lord_tirian Jul 04, 2008 3:29:26	Going so far as creating the spellplague (mournlands anyone)? and spellscars (Dragonmarks). On the other hand, blasted, wretched lands are hardly an Eberron-exclusive thing, we have Mordor in LotR, Cacotopic Stains in Mievillé's Bas-Lag, Chernobyl in reality - the blasted "no-go" land is a trope. Cheers, LT.
#9 Titanium_Dragon Jul 04, 2008 3:47:18	Actually, dragonmarks are just regional feats, really. :P And the Mournlands aren't at all original. The idea of a spell wasteland is not original to Eberron; its a very, very old idea, arguably one of the oldest ones in the book.
#10 evilnerf Jul 04, 2008 3:48:00	Maybe, just maybe, it might cause EB players to buy into the FR setting, and FR players to buy into our setting. Boy, here's a frightening thought. What if their eventual goal was to combine the two eventually, into something only vaguely regarding either of the settings as they appear now?
#11 Ogiwan Jul 04, 2008 14:01:45	Blech. I guess we'll have to see how much they change the Eberron campaign setting. I have the feeling, though, they won't change much (knock on wood!) Concerning making FR appeal to Eb players, well, it isn't going to work for me; I'm not going to buy anything that's made for that bloated, rotting corpse of a setting.
#12 lord_karsus Jul 04, 2008 14:21:03	-The changes being made to the Forgotten Realms can be gleamed in the 4e FAQ thread in the Forgotten Realms section.
#13 euangelion Jul 04, 2008 17:39:46	I think the things that worked so well with Eberron would certainly influence further D&D development. But keep in mind that Eberron was designed with the 3.5 rules firmly in mind and yet within its own parameters addressed weaknesses inherent in other campaign settings (the PCs as "destined to be the greatest heroes of the world" theme, for example), while FR started outside of canonical D&D and has been adapted to fit D&D since 1st Ed. And yet, Eberron will change to some extent to fit the 4E style (maybe a little more "point of light"ish, for example), and will still be different from standard 4E in some ways (keeping no restrictions on cleric alignments, I'm willing to bet).
#14 drss_dup Jul 04, 2008 19:21:04	A setting with Mournlands and Dragonmarks does not an Eberron make. I am wondering if making FR more like EB is going to do anything for FR fans and EB fans. EB fans already love EB, so there should be no reason to get into a setting that is EB-wannabe. FR fans, I imagine, liked FR for different reasons (again, I am not sure what those are), and so I wonder if those flavor will remain even after the 4E update. If a guy like me, who had been reading FR novels and know some things about the setting (without being an expert of getting too involved), doesn't really know what defines the setting and what makes it special... then I think they aren't doing a very good job marketing FR. With this 4E update, they have a chance to clarify or redefine FR's identity. I mean, if I guy like me doesnt know what makes FR cool, how could new comers? The things I've read Keith Baker post on his blog seem to suggest that EB wont be chaning much. They arent even going to move the CS starting year ahead. Since EB is so flexible to begin with, it isnt hard to believe. I wonder, if or when they do 4E Dragonlance, would we be seeing EB influences? I mean, seriously, do we need a 3rd EB?
#15 rauric Jul 05, 2008 8:57:43	The changes in FR are a bit overblown dramaticaly - some peoples went up in fear.... It's still FR, if you look beyond the 'ZOMG they screwed everything' drama. Now, Eberron's design philosophy is actually quite interesting, and could beneficiate FR, I stated months ago - and fans agreed too. More focus on PC, more unknown and uncertainity, an openess to the DM, the work on religious matters, etc... It"s not bad at all that they actualy, designers, used it a bit. Agreed. To the OP I agree a little with you as well, I think 4E fits in real well with EBs ways. I think if you look at the back of the MM and see all of the types of playable monster races you can see EBs influence more than any other setting. Not fact, just an opinion. The same goes with the High Action concept of 4E and how PCs are the stars. It is just EB and Hellcows influence on how D&D games can be run. It is a pretty cool thing.
#16 octaviusiii Jul 06, 2008 11:03:37	Well, I've never played FR much but I can say that, after looking through the setting, it fascinated me. It's a huge setting, and you are never going to make any impact on the world unless you persist for a long time. I made a character (Chessentan) whose goal was to unite humanity under a single banner. He knows it's never going to happen unless he makes a local name for himself, and then a regional name, and then leverage that into a national and international name. It's like the real world, in some ways: you're always small, but wherever you're adventuring, there you're a hero. The NPCs? They don't even have to enter into it until they actually perceive you as a somebody - and then you'd better be ready, because that's when you start playing with the big boys.
#17 fodigg Jul 07, 2008 17:05:13	I think it makes sense that they'd be moving D&D philosophy towards the direction Eberron took. Eberron is the newest setting, why wouldn't it coincide with their newest design philosophies?
#18 scizor Jul 08, 2008 12:07:50	I dont know what makes FR the popular setting that it is besides the fact that it has been around, that it has years of history, and that makes it classic. Right now, they are removing everything that I thought defines FR... That is exactly what they're doing. I have played FR since 1992 (and am recently dabbling in Eberron), and it has always kept its special FR feel through the editions (how to define this feel I don't know though). Now, with the Spellplague and the 100 year jump into the future, FR is hardly really recognizable as FR anymore. This is what annoys me (beside my discontent with 4th edition) and why I'll keep on playing in the FR as they were before the Spellplague. The good news is that I won't have to buy any more new FR supplements. Maybe it's the history of the Realms that defines it. For every idea I come up with for an adventure or story, there's always enough history I can tie to it. That's what made my Realms the Realms! Eberron, I agree, is the better 4th edition setting.
#19 scipion_emilien Jul 09, 2008 18:41:50	Even if sometime today I am wondering why I didn't take my FR-haters-club -card, FR always struck me as being a good setting with poorly executed idea. So as an exercise, i'll try to say what I like from FR (and thus try to help define the FR feel for us all). -The first thing about FR is the fact that it is the classical high-fantasy word. You are into a medieval-like world where you can bea big hero and save the kingdom. While some would say that Eberron have this feeling, it isn't quite the same thing. Eberron have nation-state more akin to the late renaissance era. FR have a more feudal structure and/or city state that give more this impression of medieval. (Than again, the execution of the concept and the theory would be a reason why I would go get the famous card) This can be seen too by the importance of the religion in the game world. (Again the execution lead to constant religious war between hundred of deity rather than one or two persistent conflict like the muslim vs catholic or protestant vs catholic.) -The second thing about FR is the epic fantasy. You fight evil for the of mankind into a world of fantasy. (While this can lead to great story of the lord of the ring like, the execution in FR lead to a constant good vs evil mindset that become detrimental on the long term.) Eberron on the other hand is more pulp action and has less a "good vs evil" mindset and more "what are our interest?" one. Others idea would probably come to me later, and probably that a discussion would help me think about others thing. But I must say that the new 4e FR setting caught my attention if they manage to make a good classical high fantasy setting without falling into the exageration of FR that lead to the bad execution of a lot of good concept. And yes a last point, I would say that FR seem to be more close to a literary base setting than a gaming base setting. It seem to me that the main reason of the brokeness of FR mechanics, is that the mindset of FR is to think 'What would make a good story" and implement it in the mechanics rather than thinking: "How could we do a good story while staying into the balance mechanics parameters." Which is good for a more literate form, but can lead to trouble at the game table when you have 20+ years of mechanics design with this mindset.
#20 Alter_Boy Jul 09, 2008 20:08:55	While the OP's motivation for posting this is, shall we say, confrontational, I do believe Eberron did influence 4ed, or was a testing ground for 4ed ideas. Wizards Presents: World and Monsters specifically quotes the ECS on alignment and dragons. The old "Dragons are colour-coded for your convinience" was overturned in Eberron, and was included in 4ed. Also: - PCs are ther focus of the story - The world should make sense, at least on the surface - Detail the world in broad strokes, and only as far as you need to - Adventure should be dramatic and cinematic Are aspects of Eberron that's carried over. So, I do not think WotC has given FR an extreme Eberron make-over. I think they liked how Eberron looked, so they gave FR a make-over to highlight its best features.
#21 dread_lord Jul 09, 2008 20:24:15	Blech. I guess we'll have to see how much they change the Eberron campaign setting. I have the feeling, though, they won't change much (knock on wood!) Concerning making FR appeal to Eb players, well, it isn't going to work for me; I'm not going to buy anything that's made for that bloated, rotting corpse of a setting. Well, from a strictly business point I'm sure they'd love to have one line of products that everyone would buy than having a half dozen to get all the niche players. Honestly, I'm a little intrigued by that idea of a huge game world in which all campaign settings exist under mostly the same rules where the primary distinctions are cultural.