# Why is Eberron being pushed so hard?



## DarkCrisis (Aug 5, 2004)

I admit I never really cared for it.  I had my Forgotten Realms and my Dragonlance and wa content.

I then recently heard that thier is a new D&D MMORPG coming out and it's set in Eberron.  What?  Why?  Greyhawk and Faerun have dedicated fans and tons of history that legions of fans are familiar with, so why the new kid on the block.  I was gonna play it but not now... be playing EQ2 anyways =D

Also I saw a D&D RTS coming out, also set in Eberron, again!  I'd love to have an RTS set in Faerun!  But nah, New kid on the block again.

What else do I come to learn?  Eberron is the new Flagship setting for D&D!  Greyhawk to old and boring?  Last time I checked none of Eberrons news races are in the PHB. Nor is it's gods.

Meh.  Meh I say!

I've read some reviews and I've even flipped through the book.  I know it's interesting but does it really deserve to be fed to us so much?

Or am I just an old gamer to set in my classic ways?


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Aug 5, 2004)

It's younger and prettier.

Kind of like how you'd much rather meet Ms. Hawaii in person than, say, me.


----------



## DanMcS (Aug 5, 2004)

Now you know how fans of greyhawk (and lots of 2e settings) felt when their favorites were completely dropped in favor of FR for 3e.

Cheer up.  At least you're still getting a constant flow of sourcebooks for FR.


----------



## diaglo (Aug 5, 2004)

i say the same thing about all of the new stuff.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Aug 5, 2004)

Well, it *is* the new baby on the block, so of course they're going to try to push it.  

Aside from that, it's just that good.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Aug 5, 2004)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> Cheer up.  At least you're still getting a constant flow of sourcebooks for FR.




At least for now.... 

I would say its all part of their marketing strategy; of course it has all their eggs in one basket but at the same time TSR showed that having to many baskets was a bad thing also…

I really look to WotC for their generic books, examples: complete warrior and divine, anymore and look for third parties for their settings.  

As for computer games, not much you can do if you want to play the latest and greatest D&D game.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 5, 2004)

Of course, it might also be because Eberron is better than FR or DL. 

*runs from the lynch mob*


----------



## Frostmarrow (Aug 5, 2004)

It's Wizard's first own setting. Forgotten Realms was handed over to them from TSR. Eberron is what came in place of Dominia (The Magic-setting), which was cancelled.


----------



## edbonny (Aug 5, 2004)

I am an old gamer too but I don't really notice any difference between the way Eberron is being marketed and the way past worlds published by TSR were marketed. There's been the usual flurry of articles in Dragon and Dungeon (that seem about right when compared to the other closed worlds). 

As for PC games, almost all settings got at least one shot to be a video game: Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, Al-Qadim, Dark Sun (which also had a shortlived MMORG, Crimson Sands?), Ravenloft, Birthright and Planescape. And Neverwinter Nights 2 has just been announced so you know the Realms is still going strong.

In fact with Ral Partha out of the mix and D&D miniatures the in thing, Eberron is getting less mini support than in the old days. I really miss collecting all the unique critters and folk from the old settings.

All in all to me it's been pretty much the same.

- Ed


----------



## snarfoogle (Aug 5, 2004)

They were making Dominia for D&D? I would have bought it.


----------



## Paradigm (Aug 5, 2004)

They sank a pile of money into it. So they are pushing it. Simple enough.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 5, 2004)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> It's Wizard's first own setting. Forgotten Realms was handed over to them from TSR. Eberron is what came in place of Dominia (The Magic-setting), which was cancelled.




Dominia wasn't cancelled, so much as it never really got off the ground, because the different departments couldn't get together on it.

Saying Eberron "came in place of" it really isn't accurate, since Dominia as an RPG setting was dead _years_ before the Setting Seach was announced.

I think your overall point has merit, though. This is, indeed, the first setting that the WotC folks can really call their own. I'm sure that has _some_ bearing on their enthusiasm for it, and I don't think that's a bad thing.


----------



## Wraith Form (Aug 5, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Of course, it might also be because Eberron is better than FR or DL.



I respect your opinion, and I'm not gonna flame away or anything 'cause it's really not that important to me.  I'm just confused (unconvinced?) why Eberron is "better".

I have the book, so I'm not just blowin' smoke outta my arse.  I've read through it.  It's pretty, the binding is hearty and the editing is better than some publisher's (*ahemmongooseahem*), but I don't "get" why it's any better than the old settings.

In some ways, I think it's actually a little goofy--especially the dinosaurs.  (To it's credit, I _do_ like the...um...half-doppelganger / half-human race--changeling?)  The art is often good.  I just don't "get" the point....I don't feel an overwhelming urge to play the setting.  

(I got that feeling and/or urge when I cracked open Midnight.  Sometimes Mutants & Masterminds.  Often Delta Green.  ....But not Eberron.)

So what makes it so appealing to those who like it?  ("It's shiny and new and I'm a fanboy" is certainly a valid response.)


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 5, 2004)

DarkCrisis said:
			
		

> *Why is Eberron being pushed so hard?*



* I don't know, but if they don't stop the poor dear is going to get tired. 

 Seriously?  It's a concerted marketing push, just like they said it would be when they did the setting search.  The same way they initially pushed the realms, but with more of a concerted focus on licensing.  New players to D&D will have a single world to consider playing in, all the new materials will be supported in that world, novels will be in that setting.

 Greyhawk was the first to do this, but with little focus to speak of.   The Realms was the first to really pour it on, and Dragonlance showed how the novels could make the setting.  Every setting has folks who like or dislike it.

 For those who don't much like Eberron, Greyhawk is well supported in Dungeon, these days, and the realms still gets material.  Dragonlance is outsourced, and Planescape is fan supported.  There are always options.
*


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 5, 2004)

> I'm just confused (unconvinced?) why Eberron is "better".




Well, my reply was meant mostly to be humerous, really. Hence the lynch joke.

But yes, I do believe Eberron is better. I feel it has more adventure possibilities, and more fun adventures at that. I feel it's more coherently and reasonably put together. I've gotten more adventure inspiration out of the core book than I have every piece of Forgotten Realms material (including fiction) I've read to date. Ditto for Dragonlance.

This despite the fact that Eberron differs in many ways from traditional fantasy, and I'm usually a traditionalist at heart.

I'm not saying Eberron is the be-all and end-all of campaign setting design, but I really do believe it's one of the best things out on the market right now.

Or to put it in more concrete terms... I've been working in the role-playing game industry for almost four years now. Eberron is the first setting that's been published since I started writing where reading a small portion of the corebook was enough to make me decide "Whatever it takes, I _must_ get a job writing for this setting." (I'm not counting books where I _was_ a writer on the core book, since that's obviously a whole different kettle of fish.)


----------



## Psion (Aug 5, 2004)

I thought that part of the design goals behind Eberron was to be marketed, including being MMORPG ready.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 5, 2004)

Incidentally, it was never my intention to start an Eberron vs. Greyhawk vs. FR hijack. I'm happy to continue this discussion if people want to, but let's not get _too_ far afield. (I suppose we could start a new thread, if people really felt it worthwhile. Though I don't foresee a pleasant or moderator-free end to such an endeavor. )


----------



## Wraith Form (Aug 5, 2004)

No, I really did get the sarcasm--I just don't feel all warm and fuzzy about Ebby like you do, and I'm sincerely (hopefully not snide-ly) asking why it's so well liked.

I love everyone.  *mm-WAAAAH*  No mods needed here.  Kisses!


----------



## sledged (Aug 5, 2004)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> Now you know how fans of greyhawk (and lots of 2e settings) felt when their favorites were completely dropped in favor of FR for 3e.



 Yes, but wasn't Greyhawk dropped for more... spiteful reasons?



			
				edbonny said:
			
		

> almost all settings got at least one shot to be a video game: ... Greyhawk ...



 Really?  What was it called?



			
				Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> It's Wizard's first own setting.





			
				Paradigm said:
			
		

> They sank a pile of money into it. So they are pushing it.



 Two valid reasons if I ever heard any.  Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms are step children who have grown up and moved out on their own.  WotC wants a child they can call they're own, but raising Eberron requires time and money to ensure its survival.


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 5, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Well, my reply was meant mostly to be humerous, really. Hence the lynch joke.
> 
> But yes, I do believe Eberron is better. I feel it has more adventure possibilities, and more fun adventures at that. I feel it's more coherently and reasonably put together. I've gotten more adventure inspiration out of the core book than I have every piece of Forgotten Realms material (including fiction) I've read to date. Ditto for Dragonlance.



You've found the setting inspires you and its the best for you. That is awesome. Great! I don't see how or why anyone would lynch you for that. I would actually agree in that there are some things that Eberron handles better than the Realms does. How many settings have they done? Practice make perfect.

It's the setting bashing that gets under my skin. The absolute lack of civility that some pointy headed message board members think they can get away with just because its the internet. Granted its been pretty OK around here lately.


----------



## trancejeremy (Aug 5, 2004)

Well, WOTC did pay, what, $130,000 for it? (I think $100,000 for the main prize, but 3 $10,000 ones).  If you spend that much money on a contest for a setting, I imagine you'd want to push it a lot.


Greyhawk did finally get a game - Temple of Elemental Evil. 

(Even Hollow World got a game - one for the Genesis...)


----------



## Faraer (Aug 5, 2004)

Wizards is gambling that Eberron will become a lucrative licensing property, which their existing worlds can't be for legal reasons.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 5, 2004)

I thought Eberron was great.  Until I picked up my Iron Kingdoms book a few weeks later!


----------



## Jakar (Aug 5, 2004)

I like Eberron.  It is a lot fresher than say the FR and Greyhawk.

For me it isgood because it is fresh.  I will be interested to seewhere it goes.


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 5, 2004)

sledged said:
			
		

> Really?  What was it called?



 D&D Heroes mentions Greyhawk dieties in number, while the Scourge of Worlds DVD is plainly set in the world of Greyhawk.

 Temple of Elemental Evil was also a Greyhawk game.

 One can only hazard a guess where the AD&D game for the Intellivision was set.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 5, 2004)

DarkCrisis said:
			
		

> I've read some reviews and I've even flipped through the book.  I know it's interesting but does it really deserve to be fed to us so much?
> 
> Or am I just an old gamer to set in my classic ways?



Yep. It's time you face reality ... and Metamucil. You're as old as I am.

As you said, you have been a fan of _FR_ and _DL_ so you have connected with them for a very long time that they're more than just familiarity, they're a source of intimate comfort.

Remember when _FR_ came out in 1987 and then later become the de facto setting for 2nd edition _AD&D_? That must have ticked off the senior gamers who are fans of _Greyhawk._ They criticized how _FR_ hog the spotlight with many series of novels (compared to the _Greyhawk's Gord the Rogue_ series) and a host of electronic game software, even to this day.

Now, we're the "grumpy _Greyhawk_ gamers" and the wet-behind-the-ear college-age students (18-25) see _Eberron_ as their generation's _FR._

Also, the RPG and gaming market are much more competitive now than in the late 80's and 90's, with new hobby trends appearing almost every year (from TCG, to CMG, and lately CSG). You either reinvent yourself like Madonna, or end up like FASA.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 5, 2004)

Wow, Ranger REG; I think that post may have had the highest analogy to wordcount ratio I've yet seen on these boards!    Congratulations, man!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 5, 2004)

> Now, we're the "grumpy Greyhawk gamers" and a wet-behind-the-ear college-age students (18-25) see Eberron as their generation's FR.




Well, just to throw a different spin on things...

I hail from the Greyhawk days of 1st Edition, and the Known World of Basic. I didn't dislike FR being the default setting because it replaced GH. I disliked it being the default setting because it's never, in all its years, appealed to me as a setting.

I like Eberron better than Greyhawk. I like Greyhawk better than Forgotten Realms. Other people disagree, and that's cool. But honestly, while I'm sure age (and past experience with D&D) play into this to some extent, I don't think it's as major a factor as many people suggest. Most of the long-term players I know personally also really like Eberron, and like the fact that it's being pushed hard.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 5, 2004)

I am grumpy that they decided to make Eberron the setting for the D&D online game.  That kind of sucked out my anticipation for the game.  But for me D&D will always = Greyhawk so I'm probably in for a lot of dissapointment in my gaming life.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 5, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Well, just to throw a different spin on things...



But there are also some _GH_ fans who see _Eberron_ as the proverbial final nail on the _GH_ coffin, unless Wizards of the Coast outsource it like they did with _Blackmoor_ (now in the hands of creator Dave Arneson). And who knows? In a couple of years, _FR_ will also phase out.

IMHO, it sucks to stay in the RPG/_D&D_ hobby for so long to see discontinued support of your own favorite longtime published world.

You like your _Greyhawk._ That's cool. Don't begrudge me for liking _FR._ And if _FR_ goes, I either be content with what I have in my pile of books and continue playing, or just retire.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 5, 2004)

Ranger, I don't begrudge you anything. Despite the fact that it doesn't appeal to me, I'm _glad_ FR still has a fanbase, because I want WotC to succeed as a company.  I could have wished it was simply one option of many, rather than being the default for so long, but that's A) just personal taste, and B) water under the bridge at this point anyway.

My point was only that I don't think the age factor is that big a deal. Everything else was personal opinion.


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 5, 2004)

Being in South America, I haven't even had a chance to see Eberron yet, so I certainly won't make any kind of judgement on it as a setting, save to say that *from the point of view of the preview material I've seen* it looks a bit too wierd to ever become the "standard" fantasy setting.

That said, what worries me about the sheer amount of money and energy WoTC is investing in this baby is that it could very well flop miserably, causing a huge amount of damage to WoTC.  I am left to wonder if the amount they are investing in Eberron is an amount they could afford to throw away, or if they've crossed some "point of no return" with it, so that if Eberron fails the results might be disasterous?

Granted, WoTC belongs to Hasbro now, and Hasbro can certainly afford to have a failed game or two.. but if WoTC has dedicated a lot to Eberron and in turns out to be a flop, Hasbro might decide to take some action as far as WoTC's viability.

Nisarg


----------



## KenM (Aug 5, 2004)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Well, WOTC did pay, what, $130,000 for it? (I think $100,000 for the main prize, but 3 $10,000 ones).  If you spend that much money on a contest for a setting, I imagine you'd want to push it a lot.





 Excatly my thoughts. They want to make sure they make money on the deal. I have not really looked at it, but from the reviews I've read its at least different enough then the other WOTC settings to spark intrest. I wonder if the contest winner gets any more cash from the deal from other setting books as well.


----------



## The_Gunslinger658 (Aug 5, 2004)

Hi-

Eb's world looks like another source for me to plunder for my home brew which is a patch work of FR, GH, Dominia, CoC, Conan, the Planes, Lord of the rings and star wars(I like the Force concept). Perhaps much more, only my imagination can limit my vision.

When I was a young lad, Greyhawk was my default world, but as I grew up, I wanted more but did not want to put that kind of work into making my own setting, ya I'm lazy. So I decided, why not patch worlds together?
I would hazzard to guess that my world might be at big at Jupiter!

Now since we are on the subject of Eberron, can somebody tell me what this worl is like in a nut shell? Is it alot like Dominia?


Scott


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 5, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> Being in South America, I haven't even had a chance to see Eberron yet, so I certainly won't make any kind of judgement on it as a setting, save to say that *from the point of view of the preview material I've seen* it looks a bit too wierd to ever become the "standard" fantasy setting.
> 
> That said, what worries me about the sheer amount of money and energy WoTC is investing in this baby is that it could very well flop miserably, causing a huge amount of damage to WoTC.  I am left to wonder if the amount they are investing in Eberron is an amount they could afford to throw away, or if they've crossed some "point of no return" with it, so that if Eberron fails the results might be disasterous?



I don't know if it can be disastrous. If they market the IP right through several media, most especially in consumer electronic (MMORPG, CRPG, console), they would get better exposure to the buying public.

Of course, I have not heard any development problem from Turbine Entertainment (the folks creating the _Eberron_-based _D&D_ MMORPG). We all remember have remembered the _Master Tools/e-Tools_ debacle with Fluid. Perhaps it is a good thing Atari is managing the electronic licensing of _D&D,_ since they have a longstanding record in that area of expertise. (Then again, I'm biased. My first videogame system is Atari 2600.)




			
				Nisarg said:
			
		

> Granted, WoTC belongs to Hasbro now, and Hasbro can certainly afford to have a failed game or two.. but if WoTC has dedicated a lot to Eberron and in turns out to be a flop, Hasbro might decide to take some action as far as WoTC's viability.



With every business decision, there is always a risk. Sometimes you can't always play safe or be conservative.


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 5, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> With every business decision, there is always a risk. Sometimes you can't always play safe or be conservative.




I grant you that, I just don't know if its wise to put all your eggs in such an apparently wierd basket.  
The danger with these "frantabulous, fantrastrical" settings (ie. settings that go out of their way to NOT be normal fantasy) is that people will at first say "hey, cool, its not like tolkien", and get excited about it, only to drop it three months later because its TOO different.   

The same archetypes and basic themes that make Tolkien seem a little dull to some people is also what keeps Tolkien classic, timeless, and played.  FR was a success for TSR because (especially at first) it stuck close to those kinds of archetypes, while still introducing some pretty sophisticated detailed cultures/places/groups, etc. 

Also, I would personally have preferred that the "next big thing" from FR would be something more down-to-earth and lower-magicked with a focus on cultures and kingdoms, rather than what appears to be even more high-magick high-powered.  Granted that high-powered tends to sell well for the D&D fanboys, but i can't help but be reminded of RIFTS everytime i read the "its got everything!!" previews and reviews of Eberron. And if it isn't already like RIFTS, something like Eberron could quickly develop a RIFTS-like power creep. Hope I'm wrong though.


Nisarg


----------



## Paradigm (Aug 6, 2004)

> Two valid reasons if I ever heard any.  Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms are step children who have grown up and moved out on their own.  WotC wants a child they can call they're own, but raising Eberron requires time and money to ensure its survival.




Never underestimate the culture of a large company. Nobody at WotC can point to Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms and say, "I did this."


----------



## Henry (Aug 6, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> ...what worries me about the sheer amount of money and energy WoTC is investing in this baby is that it could very well flop miserably, causing a huge amount of damage to WoTC.  I am left to wonder if the amount they are investing in Eberron is an amount they could afford to throw away, or if they've crossed some "point of no return" with it, so that if Eberron fails the results might be disasterous?




I sincerely doubt they need to worry, based on the fan reaction I've seen so far. I could be wrong, but for the bookstores I've seen, It's selling pretty regularly. I myself have bought the first two products for it, and I've RARELY done that with a new setting within its month of release. I also intend on buying the next two products, because they are interesting the heck out of me (vampire's blade and the Sharn Source Book).

What gets me attracted to the setting? Perhaps it's the visuals so far, and the dynamic of the characters being truly set apart from the rest of the inhabitants of the setting. In fact, there are many things about this setting that actually are similar to Original 1975-1980 Greyhawk in theme. FR wasn't built with NPC commoner and adept and aristocrat classes in mind; Faerun is a fun and vibrant setting (I may know more about FR than any other setting I've been exposed to) but there's a sense of modern-day "lost in the shuffle" that comes with being 1 of a million other characters of your level or higher. Even when you are 20th level, you've got a stable of almost 100 peers in Faerun.

In the Original Greyhawk, there were the elements of:
-- 95% majority of inhabitants were 0-level humans or 1st level demihumans
--great war devastated a quarter of the map (albeit long ago)
--only a handfull of high-level characters
--the PC's are some of the select few who make a difference.
--Gygax and Kuntz and Mentzer, et al gave it an undercurrent of leiber/howard style adventure, and morals were a bit greyer

In Eberron all these elements are in place, plus the elements of low-level D&D magic taken to logical extremes; the malaise of 1920's and 30's US and europe given form in the post-Mournland and post-Last War continent of Khorvaire; and the kind of religious grey and uncertainty that Greyhawk couldn't have without a minor rewrite. Eberron is one of the only TSR settings outside of Planescape where a religious inquisition actually MAKES SENSE to me.

All these things mean it holds promise for this wet-behind-the-ears 33 year-old. (No offense, REG. )


----------



## Scribe Ineti (Aug 6, 2004)

REG covered it pretty much in an earlier post. Eberron is new, and presents a fresh spin on the traditional fantasy stuff. While many of us grew up with Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms, there are thousands of gamers fairly new to the game that may not have something to call theirs. Maybe many of them are intimidated by the long list of products released for GH and FR over the past couple decades. Eberron is a chance to get started on a setting from the laying of the first cornerstone.

There are hundreds, probably thousands, of D&D gamers who will cut their teeth on Eberron, much as we did with GH and FR and other settings. I think it's great that WotC is pushing it. I'd love to be able to translate my modest RPG writing credits into working on the line somewhere. And I'm sure that's a very long list to want to be added to.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 6, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I didn't dislike FR being the default setting because it replaced GH. I disliked it being the default setting because it's never, in all its years, appealed to me as a setting.




I'm would never claim that one person's opinion represents a trend or anything like that, but....

Would you see any meaning in the statement that one of the most devoted myrmidons of Eberron didn't like the most commercially successful setting ever?

Anyway, I've tried reading my copy several times and I see the same thing each time.  A world where you are told where everything goes.  How that increases adventure options, I will never understand.  I've yet to see an actual example of adventure that can be done in Eberron, but not in my homebrew.

There is an amazingly developed, detailed and tangled political world in Eberron.  And I can completely understand the appeal of that.  But beyond that its just telling me what I can and can't do.  Who needs that?
Of course I can ignore any of it I want to.  But if I start doing that, then what is the point of buying the stuff in the first place?

I love FR.  I've never actually PLAYED in FR that I can recall.  FR is a mountain of mix and match classic fantasy elements.  So much that it doesn't even make sense as a single world.  But it is all modular and I shred it and toss the stuff I don't like and blend the cool stuff into my home brew.

Eberron is the opposite.  An extremely consistent and rational world that gets there by linking everything in one giant gordian knot.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20040803a
This is keith's current essay on "What makes it "swashbuckling action"?"
I do not see one word in there that did not apply to Greyhawk 25 years ago.
OK, one exception: action points.  I got Unearthed Arcana, I got action points.  Next?


----------



## s/LaSH (Aug 6, 2004)

Why push Eberron? I'm beginning to see people coming up with a good reason:

Because Eberron was built to work, and to use everything.

Unlike the Realms, Eberron is supposed to be consistent. Unlike Greyhawk, its consistency demands the inclusion of up-to-the-minute minutae of the 3e ruleset and other crunch. It's a better investment because it's a better design (learning lessons from the past) and it can incorporate all the weird stuff out there. (In part, because it's new and nobody's quite sure what it is yet - if it sprouts an extra arm overnight, people will be all 'hey, how many arms did it have last night? Oh. Maybe we just missed one.')

Now, imagine I'm Johnny Playstation, someone who has been convinced to try this new computer game called D&D Online. Apparently, it's based on this thing you do with dice and paper and Mountain Dew. Sounds kinda cheap - everyone knows real games cost, like, fifty bucks and need hundreds (or thousands) of dollars to buy or build the machine to play on. Whatever, I'm trying it, see? OK, I fire it up, play a little, and then think about what I've seen. Remember, I haven't had the benefit of a couple of decades glossing over any rough edges in a setting. I'm _new_. What I've just experienced (if I, the writer not Johnny Playstation, am guessing right, and I haven't read Eberron yet) is a world where magic is used to do stuff it should do, where ancient ruins have history, monsters have origins, and there's a good reason to ride off into the depths of Xendrik and beat up monsters and become someone really quite a bit more powerful than the rest of the world.

Now compare that experience to Johnny Playstation playing the hypothetical FR Online. Sure, it'll work. Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and NWN have proven that quite recently. But I don't think it'll feel as cohesive as Eberron, it won't have a Final Fantasy flair to it, and the NPC level is a bit oppressive, or so I hear. Hyperbolically, if you give someone a choice between a nice car, good fuel economy, and comfortable seats; and a top-of-the-line sports car with leather upholstery, an engine that glows in the dark, and a stereo that breaches the Geneva Convention, what will you choose?

Johnny Playstation is a much more lucrative potential market than Simon Tabletop, I believe. Pandering to Johnny, with a setting that's not dumbed down and is, in fact, pretty good for Simon too, seems like a good move to me.

Hm. Now I just have to read the setting whose defence I've leaped to. Maybe I got carried away a little...


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 6, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> You either reinvent yourself like Madonna, or end up like FASA.




This is a bad call - FASA's best selling and most profitable products at the end were Shadowrun and Battletech, and were also their longest running products. From comments made by employees, FASA died by trying to start up too much new stuff too quickly.


----------



## Zulithe (Aug 6, 2004)

Eberron is the best thing to happen to D&D since the release of Third Edition, I'm all in favor of the upcoming computerized Eberron games.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Aug 6, 2004)

BryonD said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> I love FR.  I've never actually PLAYED in FR that I can recall.  FR is a mountain of mix and match classic fantasy elements.  So much that it doesn't even make sense as a single world.  But it is all modular and I shred it and toss the stuff I don't like and blend the cool stuff into my home brew.
> 
> ...




You've just describe exactly what I like about Eberron and exactly why I've never liked FR.  For now they're both supported and we're both getting material we like.  I'd call that good marketing.


----------



## Ahrimon (Aug 6, 2004)

Another thing that might have made a differance is how well developed FR is.  A lot of the world has been detailed in source books.  So if they want to change the layouts of the city's and other well known places to fit the game into a MMORPG, they could end up with a lot of negative feedback about how they changed the game.  Ebberon is new enough that the little details haven't been revealed yet and thier free to tweak them to fit into a MMORPG.

Just a thought

Ahrimon


----------



## Belegbeth (Aug 6, 2004)

The fact that the world was designed to appeal to "Johnny Playstation" (by resembling Final Fantasy) and support a MMORPG are two pretty damning criticisms of Eberron...

These features alone demonstrate why it will not appeal to many traditional fantasy enthusiasts. 

But as a gimmick to attract new gamers?  Sure, the kids will love it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 6, 2004)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I'm would never claim that one person's opinion represents a trend or anything like that, but....
> 
> Would you see any meaning in the statement that one of the most devoted myrmidons of Eberron didn't like the most commercially successful setting ever?
> 
> Anyway, I've tried reading my copy several times and I see the same thing each time.  A world where you are told where everything goes.  How that increases adventure options, I will never understand.  I've yet to see an actual example of adventure that can be done in Eberron, but not in my homebrew.



That depends on your homebrew world - maybe people can`t have a wild chase through and above a lightning rail (or any other raillike vehicle) in your world? 
But I think there is little point to compare Eberron to your homebrew world - you created the world to do exactly the things you like, and you spent a lot of time to do so (I guess). Though you are both biased towards your own setting, but the setting is probably better to you anyway - it suits your needs. A official setting will probably never give you that. But remember, there are many gamers out there who might just start into D&D, and lack the experience to create new worlds. And then there are gamers who simply lack the time to do so. 
So, they only question remaining is: Why not Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms?



> There is an amazingly developed, detailed and tangled political world in Eberron.  And I can completely understand the appeal of that.  But beyond that its just telling me what I can and can't do.  Who needs that?
> Of course I can ignore any of it I want to.  But if I start doing that, then what is the point of buying the stuff in the first place?
> 
> I love FR.  I've never actually PLAYED in FR that I can recall.  FR is a mountain of mix and match classic fantasy elements.  So much that it doesn't even make sense as a single world.  But it is all modular and I shred it and toss the stuff I don't like and blend the cool stuff into my home brew.
> ...



That`s something I like for a world, if I want to use it. Especially if all of this knowledge is contained in a single book. 
Forgotten Realms is a big setting with a rich history and thousands of details. I could never create my own adventures there, because I would always see the risk of breaking continuity with older books or adventures. I know, I could do it and just say: "This is my FR". But I have two players in my group that are ten years older than me, and they probably know a lot about FR. If they suddenly can`t trust their own memories of the setting, it becomes incredibly difficult.    
With Eberron, I can take the book, and have all the information I need. At least for now - maybe this is wrong in 2, 5 or 10 years. But unlike with FR, I will be grown up with it.

(These things aside: I will probably not master in Eberron. And I am happy with it, because I prefer playing in it. I already have the burden to master a Diamond Throne / Arcana Unearthed campaign I would prefer playing in  )



> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20040803a
> This is keith's current essay on "What makes it "swashbuckling action"?"
> I do not see one word in there that did not apply to Greyhawk 25 years ago.
> OK, one exception: action points.  I got Unearthed Arcana, I got action points.  Next?



Well, he is telling what his setting makes swashbuckling action - not what you might be able to do in other settings. But see it from this point of view:
If you`re a new gamer, you probably don`t have the Unearthed Arcana book (why should you need variant rules if you aren`t familar with the standard rules?) 

But the final reason for Wizards of the Coast pushing Eberron so hard:
They have invested some money into it. They want to be sure to get it (and much more) back. They already have a strong book line with Forgotten Realms and their Complete xyz handbooks. They are not pushing only one thing. This might be a danger, if they saturate the market. But so far, it seems not to happen. We´ll see it in a few years...



			
				Belegbeth said:
			
		

> The fact that the world was designed to appeal to "Johnny Playstation" (by resembling Final Fantasy) and support a MMORPG are two pretty damning criticisms of Eberron...
> 
> These features alone demonstrate why it will not appeal to many traditional fantasy enthusiasts.
> 
> But as a gimmick to attract new gamers?  Sure, the kids will love it.



If Eberron is well-made (and so far, I think it is  ), then this isn`t bad. Jonny Playstation might grow up to a John Roleplayer thanks to it. 


Mustrum Ridcully


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Aug 6, 2004)

For what it is worth Ebberon seems like a fairly appealing setting to me, and I am an old gamer. (I still have part of the early Judges Guild Fantasy campaign floating around,,, Predating Greyhawk as a publicly available setting. Unless you count Temple of the Frog.)

It is self consistent, and looks at some of the ramifications of widely available magic, then builds cultures around this. Something that neither Greyhawk nor Forgotten Realms did to my satisfaction.

It adds a lot of variants for folks who are bored with 'just another elf'.

A dynamic history that looks to have repercussions in the future.

That said I am not likely to buy it, not because it isn't good, or possibly excellent, but because I have too many settings already, from my own and from other companies. (Iron Kingdoms, whooey!)

The Auld Grump


----------



## Incenjucar (Aug 6, 2004)

Something people need to get used to (unless, like me, you intend to eventually try and change it, in which case, be annoyed as you can be to keep you goin'), is that intellectualism, in general, gets no respect anymore.  The lowest common denominator is the modern power.  This is the tail end of the Renaissance.  While the time between has led to the pleasantness of equality (the intellectual masters of old were largely a bunch of bigoted, egotistical nutcases).  Everything is 'pop-' now.  A scribble mark is considered the finest of art (Picasso's Dove of Peace), while few would pay a thousand dollars for a Tony D masterpiece.  Television is full of commercials for "Girls Gone Wild".

D&D is no longer an itty bitty niche product.  We've managed to spread it to much of society.  That means that it's exposed to the same forces that allow Soap Operas, The Fox News Channel, Cow & Chicken, Trash Romance Novels, and all the rest to thrive.  While it's nice to see so many people in book stores these days, many of them really aren't going to be buying a book thicker than one of your fingertips.  Of course, there ARE a number of people with a very high vocabulary -- many of them have no idea how to use it (we've all seen the string of big, obscure words to express a three-word idea... and the people who actually use 'oculars' instead of 'eyes' to try and impress people).

This is going to shape the future of D&D, whether we like it or not.  The best bet for, say, a 2e-style setting is a 3rd party group that manages to spend on a boxed set to get our attention.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 6, 2004)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Something people need to get used to (unless, like me, you intend to eventually try and change it, in which case, be annoyed as you can be to keep you goin'), is that intellectualism, in general, gets no respect anymore.  The lowest common denominator is the modern power.  This is the tail end of the Renaissance.  While the time between has led to the pleasantness of equality (the intellectual masters of old were largely a bunch of bigoted, egotistical nutcases).  Everything is 'pop-' now.  A scribble mark is considered the finest of art (Picasso's Dove of Peace), while few would pay a thousand dollars for a Tony D masterpiece.  Television is full of commercials for "Girls Gone Wild".
> 
> D&D is no longer an itty bitty niche product.  We've managed to spread it to much of society.  That means that it's exposed to the same forces that allow Soap Operas, The Fox News Channel, Cow & Chicken, Trash Romance Novels, and all the rest to thrive.  While it's nice to see so many people in book stores these days, many of them really aren't going to be buying a book thicker than one of your fingertips.  Of course, there ARE a number of people with a very high vocabulary -- many of them have no idea how to use it (we've all seen the string of big, obscure words to express a three-word idea... and the people who actually use 'oculars' instead of 'eyes' to try and impress people).
> 
> This is going to shape the future of D&D, whether we like it or not.  The best bet for, say, a 2e-style setting is a 3rd party group that manages to spend on a boxed set to get our attention.



Well, seeing modern TV (or better, avoid seeing much parts of the TV - but far from all), I might be willing to agree to you, but I don`t think this applies to Eberron. But I like it, so I am biased. 

Mustrum Ridcully


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 6, 2004)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Would you see any meaning in the statement that one of the most devoted myrmidons of Eberron didn't like the most commercially successful setting ever?




Not really. I love Eberron and dislike FR. I know people who love both. I know people who hate both. (And for the record, I don't _hate_ FR. I just have no liking for it, either.)

Not sure I really feel the phrase "most devoted myrmidons" is appropriate either. I'm a fan of the setting, nothing more. Believe me, there are plenty of people out there more "devoted" than I.



> Anyway, I've tried reading my copy several times and I see the same thing each time.  A world where you are told where everything goes.  How that increases adventure options, I will never understand.  I've yet to see an actual example of adventure that can be done in Eberron, but not in my homebrew.




Odd. I see a new plot hook or adventure idea every few pages, and haven't yet once run across something that made me feel "I can't do this" or "I'm limited in that."

As far as comparing Eberron to homebrews, I've found stuff I can do in Eberron that I couldn't do in my previous homebrew settings as written. I've also got things in the homebrew settings that I couldn't do in Eberron. I'm not looking for the perfect setting in which to play all my future campaigns. No such thing exists, not even of my own creation. I love the feel of Eberron, and I will play many games in Eberron, but I will continue to tell stories in my own setting, and other published settings, as well.

I do not believe that "the perfect" campaign world exists, because my tastes in campaigns and stories varies.



> There is an amazingly developed, detailed and tangled political world in Eberron.  And I can completely understand the appeal of that.  But beyond that its just telling me what I can and can't do.  Who needs that?
> Of course I can ignore any of it I want to.  But if I start doing that, then what is the point of buying the stuff in the first place?




I like having an amazingly developed, detailed and tangled political world, because that's one of the primary things I look for. I want a world that fits together and feels like an actual, cohesive place. One that doesn't feel slapped together.

Again, I've never once felt that the book was telling me what I could or couldn't do, unless the book saying "Most orc tribes live in these locations" is a limiting factor. I don't find it to be such.



> I love FR.  I've never actually PLAYED in FR that I can recall.  FR is a mountain of mix and match classic fantasy elements.  So much that it doesn't even make sense as a single world.  But it is all modular and I shred it and toss the stuff I don't like and blend the cool stuff into my home brew.




That's just the point, to me. If I buy a campaign setting, I want a campaign setting. Sure, I'll probably steal bits out of it and use them in my own homebrew as well, but I want the setting to stand as a world. The fact that FR doesn't is a failure on its part, IMO.

(To be fair, I don't attribute that failure to Greenwood. I attribute it to the fact that this single fantasy setting has had dozens if not hundreds of different creative directions and developers at one time or another.)

But a setting that doesn't hang together as a world isn't a setting, IMO. It's a toolkit. Toolkits are great, but not when you expect to be buying a setting. 



> Eberron is the opposite.  An extremely consistent and rational world that gets there by linking everything in one giant gordian knot.




Sounds like the best parts of real-world history/historical fiction to me.


----------



## Incenjucar (Aug 6, 2004)

A note:  I never said Eberron was bad.  However, it's not what I consider a good direction.  I consider concepts like Planescape or Dark Sun a good direction.  If you put that sort of creativity behind the notion "Classic fantasy", you'd have a heck of a good setting.

However, instead, we have Eberron, which, while not bad in and of itself, is market-driven, not concept-driven.  They're not trying to make art, they're trying to make money.

That's also why they have shows like "Aqua Teen Hunger Force".  I watch it.  But it's not anywhere near what I consider high quality.  It does make it easier for me, though, since I'll be leaving my TV home when I go to college in two weeks.

Interesting how that works.


----------



## Ahrimon (Aug 6, 2004)

Belegbeth said:
			
		

> The fact that the world was designed to appeal to "Johnny Playstation" (by resembling Final Fantasy) and support a MMORPG are two pretty damning criticisms of Eberron...




I wouldn't say that it is "designed" to support a MMORPG, but by being new and having fewer details set in stone, it gives the computer game desingers more leway to build a workable MMO game.  Room to adjust is always a good thing when crossing genre's.

Ahrimon


----------



## Asmo (Aug 6, 2004)

I always thought that the MTG world was called Dominiara?

Asmo


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Aug 6, 2004)

There's a time and a place for everything. GH and FR had theirs. Now it's time to move on. I don't think it's healthy for a gaming company to sit on the same ol' same ol' campaign worlds indefinitely. Eventually people acquire enough source materials and simply run their own homebrew campaigns, limiting future sales of new source materials.

While I'm not a fan of Eberron, I do congradulate WotC for taking the next step and moving on with their business. In order to survive in business, you've always got to grow. And Eberron potentially allows them to do that in a manner FR and GH does not. And you've got all the marketing advantages of having something brand new as well.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Aug 6, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> For those who don't much like Eberron, Greyhawk is well supported in Dungeon, these days, and the realms still gets material.  Dragonlance is outsourced, and Planescape is fan supported.  There are always options.




Yeah, I still think Midnight is the best new setting but then again FFG was lucky enough to get their hands on it for publishing... not WOTC.  I honestly think Eberron is being pushed because of all the third party campaign settings.  Then again, wasn't Kalamar the first WOTC endorsed 3.X edition setting?  It certainly seemed to drop below the radar... I just don't hear that much about it these days.  I guess WOTC decided that they'd show Kenzer how it was done.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 6, 2004)

I think it is not a good idea to use Eberron, basically because the Forgotten Realms are so highly reckognized out there.

 A MMORPG is not "just a computer game". It is highly expensive to develop and maintain and you need a huge customer base to run it properly.

 Chances to get there are simply better with FR.

 Now, the really important factor is how good the game itself is, regardless of the world it is set in, but the already big name of the Forgotten Realms in the computer market would surely have helped to get more customers to take notice.

 Then again, maybe it's enough to say it's a D&D game. Because most people will use D&D and FR synonymously, anyways. And as long as it is cool, noone will really care whether it is Dark Sun, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms or Eberron. 

 I only hope they do it right and don't end up on the huge pile of unsuccessful or cancelled MMORPGs out there. That would be a pity.

 About Eberron: I think it is build with the 3rd edition in mind, unlike the other settings, which already existed before and are merely converted. That's the biggest advantage I see there. New ideas are always good to keep things going as well. I personally like the FR and will continue to play there, but who knows, maybe we'll play an Eberron campaign eventually, too.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Reynard (Aug 6, 2004)

Belegbeth said:
			
		

> The fact that the world was designed to appeal to "Johnny Playstation" (by resembling Final Fantasy) and support a MMORPG are two pretty damning criticisms of Eberron...




By whose standards?  Yours. Right.  I guess they aught to close it down then.



> These features alone demonstrate why it will not appeal to many traditional fantasy enthusiasts.




Again, who says? By and large, 'tradational fantasy enthusiaists' read Robert Jordan and dog eared copies of the Lord of the Rings.  They don't play D&D, and if they do it is a lot more likley they are doing it on their computers and playstations, where it is accessible and only as effort and time intensive as one desires it to be.



> But as a gimmick to attract new gamers?  Sure, the kids will love it.




Which is the whole point, if you want to, you know, have a RPG industry or even hobby in 10 or 20 years when all the grumpy old gamers finally buy the farm.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Aug 6, 2004)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> However, instead, we have Eberron, which, while not bad in and of itself, is market-driven, not concept-driven.  They're not trying to make art, they're trying to make money.




Man.  Curse these companies for trying to turn a profit, pay their employees AND provide entertainment for the unwashed masses.  White Wolf and Wizards of the Coast must be the devil incarnate.  How could they do this to us?


----------



## Reynard (Aug 6, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> I think it is not a good idea to use Eberron, basically because the Forgotten Realms are so highly reckognized out there.




But the brand they are selling isn't Eberron, it's D&D, which is certainly far more recognizable than the Forgotten Realms.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 6, 2004)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> Yeah, I still think Midnight is the best new setting but then again FFG was lucky enough to get their hands on it for publishing... not WOTC.  I honestly think Eberron is being pushed because of all the third party campaign settings.  Then again, wasn't Kalamar the first WOTC endorsed 3.X edition setting?  It certainly seemed to drop below the radar... I just don't hear that much about it these days.  I guess WOTC decided that they'd show Kenzer how it was done.



_Midnight_ is great, but it could never have been a WotC setting.  Not only is the twist to the setting to dark and esoteric to appeal to "the unwashed masses" but it relies on several major changes to the core rules to make it work.  Part of the whole point of the setting search, and the resulting Eberron campaign setting, is that it works with quintessentially D&D elements, and is designed to incorporate them all.  _Ergo_ a setting where using magic is difficult and dangerous and the only clerics are evil, to use one example, simply would never have flown.


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 6, 2004)

Reynard said:
			
		

> But the brand they are selling isn't Eberron, it's D&D, which is certainly far more recognizable than the Forgotten Realms.



Actually the amount of people are familiar with the Forgotten Realms and have no clue about D&D is huge. You would be surprised at how lopsided it is. Matter of fact ask 10 people how they came to play D&D and 8 will tell you it's from reading an FR novel. Or that damn BG game.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 6, 2004)

Reynard said:
			
		

> But the brand they are selling isn't Eberron, it's D&D, which is certainly far more recognizable than the Forgotten Realms.



 I actually said something similar later in my post. 

 Still, I think D&D/FR would attract more people to "take a look" than D&D/Eberron.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 6, 2004)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> D&D is no longer an itty bitty niche product.  We've managed to spread it to much of society.



When did this happen? D&D is still an itty bitty niche product last I heard. More people get together in sewing circles than play D&D week to week.


----------



## Destil (Aug 6, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Of course, I have not heard any development problem from Turbine Entertainment (the folks creating the _Eberron_-based _D&D_ MMORPG). We all remember have remembered the _Master Tools/e-Tools_ debacle with Fluid. Perhaps it is a good thing Atari is managing the electronic licensing of _D&D,_ since they have a longstanding record in that area of expertise. (Then again, I'm biased. My first videogame system is Atari 2600.)



Just one note from a game-buff: the old atari's been dead since 1996. Hasbro bought out their few remaining assets at that point and has been using the name recognition ever since.

A game's developer has more to do with the game than the publisher, though, and Turbine knows what they're doing these days (having learned the hard way).


----------



## Tolen Mar (Aug 6, 2004)

*I'm no expert here...*

All I can give you are my opinions.

1.  I like Eberron, I dont like FR.  At the moment, FR has too much 'power.'  FR is TOO well known.  You can't do anything in it without upsetting someone who has memorized every little fact everywhere.  Eberron is new.  Eberron is full of politics, and no one yet knows where the story is headed.  If I want to take my Diamond Throne campaign and drop into a fairly unexplored region of Eberron, I can.  (In fact, that what I plan to do.)

2. I was not interested in Eberron when I first heard about it.  I saw the campaign search (and I kick myself for not entering!), and when they annouced the winners, I looked to see.  I got the pre-release pamphlet.  The art looked interesting, but it looked disjointed.  Then it came closer to time to release, and the hype started.  I watched, I listened, I was not interested.  It wasn't until I mentioned here that I was looking for a changeling for a PC that someone recommended I look into it.  Then I went to work on a homebrew, and someone told me how the artificer would work well in it.  So I started thumbing through the book to see.  Every time I looked at it, I found more I liked, until I eventually ended up with a copy of my own and plenty of ideas on how to use it.

(Coincidentally, the same thing happened with Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed.)

The only reason the hype and advertising and WOTC's 'push' to sell it worked on me is because it was always out there, I ignored it for a while, but eventually the book itself convinced me.

Now, I have never enjoyed forgotten realms.  I have yet to read any DnD novel that was worth my time (there may be some out there, I dont claim to have read many of them).  One of my players loves FR, but only the pre 3E stuff.  He knows the setting frontwards and backwards.  He runs awesome games, and I play in them, but only because its the only game in town when he's GM.

Eberron at least tries to tie most of everything that already out there into the setting.  I can run an orc or hobgoblin campaign easily enough.  No one is going to complain if I drop a mind flayer into an adventure.  Then add on top of it all the political climate.  I don't like p[olitics in the real world, but I love the intrigue that a good game sets up.  Of course, politics IRL are rarely anything like a good game, but that's beside the point.  I like the idea of a power group I can align myself with and not be 'lost in the crowd'.  

FR, especially in the 3E days, has suffered from power creep.  Interestingly enough, the RIFTS anaolgy works for me.  I quit playing RIFTs for the very same reason.  Why play a street rat when eveyone else is running around in glitter boys and SAMAS armor? Every new book added some new overpowered toy.

And as far as using the FR name recognition to sell books and video games?  Yeah it may be true that more people recognize the FR logo these days.  But guess what?  When I see that logo on a game or book, I usually put it back on the shelf.  'Oh ANOTHER forgotten realms game. yuck.'  Sometimes name recognition can have the opposite effect, and I really doubt that I am the only one who passes on FR materials.  Selling Eberron is new, you dont have the legions of rabid fans worried about upsetting their favorite details, and my limited budget just might make room for a new setting over anything that came from Faerun.

One last thing, before you think Im just some 3E fanboy or a wet behind the ears newbie:  I cut my teeth on the 1E books, the ones with two column small print on every page and the random dungeon tables in the back.  Where it was a trial to get psionics, or become a monk.  I have played many 2E games, including several in FR.  I picked up 3E for a variety of reasons that have been thoroughly discussed elsewhere.  My favorite settings previously were wierd settings (Spelljammer, Ravenloft), or full of politics (Birthright).  With Monte Cooks Arcana Unearthed and Eberron, we now have new settings that aren't clones of other settings.  I don't have to worry about Drizzt in funny clothes showing up, or Elminster, or any of the clones created by fans of FR who want to do the same thing.

Sorry for the length of this rant, Ill return you to your regularly scheduled web surfing now...


----------



## Belegbeth (Aug 6, 2004)

Reynard said:
			
		

> By whose standards?  Yours. Right.  I guess they aught to close it down then..




People can do whatever they want.  Heck, someone is producing a second DnD film now.  Thinking that something is not very good is not the same thing as thinking that people should be prevented from "doing it."



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> Again, who says? By and large, 'tradational fantasy enthusiaists' read Robert Jordan and dog eared copies of the Lord of the Rings.  They don't play D&D, and if they do it is a lot more likley they are doing it on their computers and playstations, where it is accessible and only as effort and time intensive as one desires it to be...




Well I don't know where you're getting your data here...  

But in any case, IMO it is pretty clear what a "traditional" fantasy world looks like.  Think about the inspiration behind DnD itself: works by Tolkien, Howard, Leiber, Vance, et al.  Contrast that with the "Final Fantasy" character of Eberron, and the downright silliness of MMORPG worlds.  The difference is clear.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> Which is the whole point, if you want to, you know, have a RPG industry or even hobby in 10 or 20 years when all the grumpy old gamers finally buy the farm.




*Sigh*  So we grumpy old gamers have to grin and bear it, for the sake of the "greater good" of the hobby?  Whatever.


----------



## myrdden (Aug 6, 2004)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> Kind of like how you'd much rather meet Ms. Hawaii in person than, say, me.




Oh...I dunno.  Your signature has sold me!


----------



## grimslade (Aug 6, 2004)

*Eberron and on and on*

As for the original scope of this thread: Eberron is being pushed because it is new and built for the 3.5e age. It is a setting where everything can have a home, but is not straight-jacketed by years of shared world detailing. Plus the setting search was a big success for WotC PR with players, not so much with former WotC designers. It has a bit of hype so they follow the buzz until it fizzles.

As to the side issues about Eberron:
  I believe, IMHO, that Eberron hearkens back to classic fantasy pulp better than Greyhawk or FR. I see more of Lankhmar and Shem in Eberron than the other two. 
I love Greyhawk but it is more nostalgia than the actual setting. It is the campaign I cut my rpg teeth in. I still play in Greyhawk because I have over a quarter century of gaming memories. 
Forgotten Realms has always seemed like a collection of separate campaigns cobbled together. You want ancient egypt, you got it. You want super high magic as technology, have Halruaa. The setting is well presented, has beautiful art, and has some fantastic NPCs. It also suffers from almost two decades of ever-increasing detail and power creep. The old grey box set was great and the 3.0e hardcover was a milestone of how good a campaign book could be, but all the hundreds of supplements have left the Forgotten from the realms.
  I like Eberron because it evokes a level of mystery and discovery. It is not comprised of anything groundbreaking or estranged from D&D. It is not Planescape or Dark Sun. It simply weaves a lot of disparate ideas into a cohesive and refreshing whole. It also has a different focus than the other WotC settings. The focus is on the PCs. The focus is on creating a better story for the characters, not advancing through a meta-plot or dodging the actions of other uber-NPCs. My feelings for this setting may change as the crushing weight of years of supplements confine and codify Eberron, but for now I like it and recommend it.

Grim


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 6, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Perhaps it is a good thing Atari is managing the electronic licensing of _D&D,_ since they have a longstanding record in that area of expertise. (Then again, I'm biased. My first videogame system is Atari 2600.)



As Destil said, different company, though I didn't realize Hasbro was the parent company, though it explains a bit.

The current incarnation of Atari is regarded as being less than developer-friendly by many, and I definitely find them to be less than customer-friendly.  Though not much worse so than the original Atari by the end.  Right before the video game crash, Atari was a _nightmare_.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 6, 2004)

Belegbeth said:
			
		

> The fact that the world was designed to appeal to "Johnny Playstation" (by resembling Final Fantasy) and support a MMORPG are two pretty damning criticisms of Eberron...
> 
> These features alone demonstrate why it will not appeal to many traditional fantasy enthusiasts.
> 
> But as a gimmick to attract new gamers?  Sure, the kids will love it.



I don't understand why it can't appeal to both.  Sure, if it has any minor magi-tech tropes, it can't appeal to the hard-core traditional gamers who insist that everything since Greyhawk sucks.  And simply by being a role-playing game, it can't appeal to hardcore video gamers who don't play anything but Hideo Kojima's latest "classic."  But the inability to appeal to a closed mind isn't necessarily a failure of the product.

Commercial does not necessarily equal bad, you know.  There's a great tendency around here to assume that anything "the great unwashed masses" like is inferior.  It's probably the only thing I dislike about ENWorld.



			
				Belegbeth said:
			
		

> But in any case, IMO it is pretty clear what a "traditional" fantasy world looks like.  Think about the inspiration behind DnD itself: works by Tolkien, Howard, Leiber, Vance, et al.  Contrast that with the "Final Fantasy" character of Eberron, and the downright silliness of MMORPG worlds.  The difference is clear.



Tolkien, Howard, and Vance are more self-similar than say Tolkien, Lineage, and WarCraft?  Only if you look at the audience for each.  Tolkien is an entirely different type of literature from Howard, Lieber, and Vance, and despite their similarities, I have trouble thinking of Vance as at all similar to Howard and Lieber (though to be fair, it hurt to read Vance so much that my experience is sorely limited).

And in what way is the WarCraft world, or that of Lineage, or even that of Dark Age of Camelot, any sillier than Vance's?  Or that of D&D itself?  Most MMORPG worlds (barring Everquest) are a LOT less silly than the world implied simply from reading the Monster Manual.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 6, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> Commercial does not necessarily equal bad, you know.  There's a great tendency around here to assume that anything "the great unwashed masses" like is inferior.  It's probably the only thing I dislike about ENWorld.



Well, you know how it is.  Those meddling moderators make us play all nice all the time, so we have to act superior to folks who aren't around, and all that.


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 6, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> Commercial does not necessarily equal bad, you know.  There's a great tendency around here to assume that anything "the great unwashed masses" like is inferior.  It's probably the only thing I dislike about ENWorld.




Well good golly make sure you NEVER go to RPG.net then.  Enworld is downright populist by comparison.

Nisarg


----------



## Spatula (Aug 6, 2004)

DarkCrisis said:
			
		

> I admit I never really cared for it.  I had my Forgotten Realms and my Dragonlance and wa content.
> 
> I then recently heard that thier is a new D&D MMORPG coming out and it's set in Eberron.  What?  Why?  Greyhawk and Faerun have dedicated fans and tons of history that legions of fans are familiar with, so why the new kid on the block.  I was gonna play it but not now... be playing EQ2 anyways =D
> 
> Also I saw a D&D RTS coming out, also set in Eberron, again!  I'd love to have an RTS set in Faerun!  But nah, New kid on the block again.



So, let's see... since the mid-80's, 95% of all D&D computer games have been set in the Realms: nearly all of SSI's "Gold Box" games, 100% of Bioware's games (Baldur's Gate series, Neverwinter Nights), 2/3 of Black Isle's games based on the Bioware engine (Icewind Dale 1 & 2)... I'm probably forgetting a few... It doesn't look like you have much to complain about, to me.

There's been exactly ONE computer game set in Greyhawk (Temple of Elemental Evil), and a year or two ago there were NONE.  One relatively-recent Planescape game, 2 (?) Dark Sun games and 2 (?) Dragonlance games from the old Gold Box days...that's it for the non-FR D&D games (of the games that actually have a setting).

In any case, now you know how the die-hard Greyhawk fans felt during FR's time in the sun.


----------



## Belegbeth (Aug 6, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> ... Commercial does not necessarily equal bad, you know.  ...




Not NECESSARILY.  Just generally!    



			
				Canis said:
			
		

> Tolkien, Howard, and Vance are more self-similar than say Tolkien, Lineage, and WarCraft?  Only if you look at the audience for each.  Tolkien is an entirely different type of literature from Howard, Lieber, and Vance, and despite their similarities, I have trouble thinking of Vance as at all similar to Howard and Lieber (though to be fair, it hurt to read Vance so much that my experience is sorely limited).
> 
> And in what way is the WarCraft world, or that of Lineage, or even that of Dark Age of Camelot, any sillier than Vance's?  Or that of D&D itself?  Most MMORPG worlds (barring Everquest) are a LOT less silly than the world implied simply from reading the Monster Manual.




I am not sure what your point here is (aside from unfairly criticizing Vance -- try reading his Lyonnesse novels, they are as good as fantasy gets!).   Whatever the differences between, say, Howard and Tolkien (and yes there are huge differences), they both treat magic as something mysterious, dangerous, and rare, and they both describe recognizably 'non-modern' or 'non-contemporary' worlds.  With respect to magic, DnD (IMO) already renders it into 'pseudo-technology' -- Eberron only pushes that unfortunate feature even farther.  And one feature of Eberron that many fanboys are touting over at the WotC boards is that they can run "modern" adventurers, and their characters can have "modern" attitudes and abilities in it.  

Anyway, back to the question of the thread: the reason why Eberron is being pushed so hard is that it combines a number of features that appeal to the 'new generation' of gamers, viz. those weaned on 'Final Fantasy' and similar video games, with their rapid power-ups, gimmicky magic/tech items, and so forth.  (Eberron does this quite well -- it is a fine beast.  But it is the species of the beast that I dislike.)


----------



## Henry (Aug 6, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Well, you know how it is.  Those meddling moderators make us play all nice all the time, so we have to act superior to folks who aren't around, and all that.





Yeah, those fussbudgets, with their meddling and their pedantry. Well, I say to them, _KISS OFF!_    


?!?!

Oh, sorry... Stockholm flashback.


----------



## Olorin (Aug 6, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> As Destil said, different company, though I didn't realize Hasbro was the parent company, though it explains a bit.
> 
> The current incarnation of Atari is regarded as being less than developer-friendly by many, and I definitely find them to be less than customer-friendly.  Though not much worse so than the original Atari by the end.  Right before the video game crash, Atari was a _nightmare_.




Just a note, AFAIK Hasbro has nothing to do with Atari. The Atari name was purchased by Infrogrames a while ago and to capitalize on the name recognition, Infogrames changed their name to Atari.

Atari/Infogrames is a D&D licensee.

[edit] I see that Hasbro purchased the Atari name in 1998, and Infogrames bought it from Hasbro in 2002.


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 6, 2004)

Well, coincidentally I have just gotten my copy of Eberron... my initial opinion is not exactly glowing.

Its a lot of what I worried about.  First of all, the setting seems to suffer from identity crisis. Is it "medieval"? Is it "swashbuckling"? is it "pulp action"? Is it "steampunk"?  

One of the things I had hoped about Eberron is that it would positively differ from FR by showing how you CANNOT have a "medieval" culture when you have magic so powerful that it mimics industrial technology.  Unfortunately, Eberron doesn't do this at all. Sure, we get flying cities and mobile cities, and magickal trains, etc. etc. but the author goes out of his way to say its still a "Medieval" setting.  IT CAN'T BE.  As soon as you transform a medieval society that much it would not be medieval anymore. Why didn't they have the guts to make it a kind of medieval-esque industrialized society, an enlightenment, or at least a renaissance? Oh wait, right, because "medieval" sells better than any of those things... part of the "trying to be all things to all people" syndrome.

Regarding contents: god damn, it really IS RIFTS.  It literally says its got everything in it. I'm surprised there are no Jedi (yet).

On a plus note, I'm pleased to note that the Warforged are NOT as horrifically overpowered as I thought they would be.  As it turns out they aren't the "dragon hatchlings" of the Eberron world, just the "Glitter boys".

Oh, and it has psionics. I hate psionics. Also, how stupid is that? Taking the new "flagship" setting for D&D and basically forcing anyone who wants to play in it to have to get the psionics handbook? way to be accessible.

Now, another plus side, I do like what they do with Clerics. Or rather, what they do with deities. 

Action points: like force points, but more complicated and less relevant to the setting. Hoo-ray.

Is it just me, or does the dragon-marked stuff and the names of the feats seem like blatant rip-offs of Exalted? That's not a good thing, btw, its enough for me to be totally turned off the setting right there.  I don't think its a winning strategy in general, though:  if a gamer wanted to be an Exalted fan, he'd play Exalted, and if he already is an Exalted fan, he'll play Exalted.  Running around imitating Exalted is only going to turn off the people who don't like exalted, and not win many fans from the ones who ALREADY have exalted.

The prestige classes are broken, but then, ALL prestige classes are broken and have been for a very very long time in D&D.  They went from being about reflecting specific cultural groups and specialized paths, to being "ADVANCED EXTRA POWERFUL classes" quicker than a gamer can down a mountain dew.   They're part of the overall power creep that is infesting D&D 3rd, that will eventually render the game unplayable, and that Eberron seems to embrace with all the joy of a suicidally depressed guy embracing an oncoming freight train (or should that be magic train?).

Oh, and the "RIFTS Dragon hatchling" of Eberron? The Warforged Juggernaut. I knew my initial hopefulness had to have a catch.  
Great. So you don't get to start as a powergamers wet dream, you have to wait till at least level 5 to get there. 

And if Warforged Juggernauts are the "dragon hatchlings" of Eberron, I guess Weretouched Masters are the Dog Boys?

The stuff on the Planes of Eberron are ok, but I have to wonder why they couldn't have just used the Manual of the Planes instead, and added more material on some other topic? its also unfortunate that while you need the Psionics book to fully play Eberron you specifically can't use the Manual of the Planes, a sourcebook I actually like. How dumb is that? And yeah, I know they say its optional, but its right there all over the book, and hell there's an entire CONTINENT ("Riedra") that you pretty much need psionics for. 

The actual world (ie the geography) is ok, but adds to the setting confusions in some way.. you have nations like Breland, its a monarchic parliamentary democracy, with a capital full of SKYSCRAPERS, a "lightning rail train", and a giant mobile town-fortress, but its "Medieval". 
Yeah.
Ok.
And this isn't some wierd far-off place that you might find in the distant corner of the FR.  No, its the place the book TELLS YOU TO START YOUR GAME. Ie. the most normal place available. 

The more I read it the more I think Eberron would have been a great sourcebook, for D20 MODERN.  To make it "medieval" requires such a level of suspension of disbelief that your spleen would explode in the mere attempt.

Another plus side: the "dms tips" section is mercifully short, though in no way inspiring.

You'll note in this review I've skipped the standard "crunchy" spells, items, and monsters (as if using every monster ever made in any WoTC book ever wasn't enough) sections.

In concluding, I would have to say I'm surprised that the writers of Eberron don't appear to thank their chief influence, Kevin Siembieda, anywhere. I also have to say that Eberron to me shows very clearly what the weaknesses of a "pre-fab" setting are.. in other words, when you let a group of marketing professionals vet the setting to figure out exactly how to make it as profitable, demographic-satisfiable, spin-offable, happy-meal-toyable, as possible. Eberron screams "pre-fab" in a bad way. Not even in the Monkees yea-they're-fake-but-they're-still-likeable way, no.. we're talking "New Kids On the Block" bad here.  
I'm a firm believer in giving the playing public what it wants, in populism in other words, but I don't think that translates into creating a setting meant to offer every possible aspect of D&D in one horrifying pastiche of broken unbelievability.

My initial concern with Eberron was that it was going to try to be "wierd for wierd's sake", one of those settings that tries so hard to not be bog-standard medieval fantasy that it ruptures something and becomes too wierd to live.  Instead, the result is something even worse: a setting that has clearly ruptured something, is clearly too wierd to live, and is freakily trying to insist that its perfectly normal medieval fantasy at the same time. Like the guy with the gaping chest wound with tentacles sticking out of it insisting to you that "no he's perfectly fine, just a normal guy".  What's more, he then goes on to try to insist to you that not only is he still "normal", but that having arms and tentacles and a gaping chest wound all at once is somehow a great thing.

May the gaming gods have mercy on our souls.

Nisarg


----------



## Brisk-sg (Aug 6, 2004)

I just want to point out to those who say WOTC is putting all of their eggs in one basket that Forgotten Realms has as many products coming out as Eberron is. Video game wise they have Neverwinter Nights 2 and supposedly Baldur's Gate 3 (read this on gamespy last week, said it would be revealed in the next issue of PC game I believe) in developement for the PC. They likely have several console games in developement as well.

They have 9 Forgotten Realms novels listed for 2005, and one Accessory for the 1st quarter so far.

Eberron on the other hand has 2 Novels, 1 Accessory, and 1 Adventure.

Doesn't seem like they are abandoning Forgotten Realms to me, and I seriously doubt they will as long as it is profitable. 

Forgotten Realms has had all of the eggs in its basket for a while now, I don't think it is unreasonable for some of those eggs to be shared with other campaigns.


----------



## Incenjucar (Aug 7, 2004)

1) I have no issue with WotC making a profit.  My issue is that art doesn't sell anymore because so few have an appreciation for art, in the same way that a beautiful work by someone nobody has ever heard of is automatically worth less than Picasso's spit in a jar, and a setting that has 'power ups' is going to get more press than a setting with complex, well-considered backgrounds, economies, and linguistics (does anyone even give their fantasy characters novel accents that aren't 'ye olde'?).

2) I'll agree that Eberron is like Exalted, especially in appearance.  Seriously, crack open both books, and you'll find they feel very very similar, and even have the same little 'comic scenes' and such, with the same general art styles.


----------



## kdanger (Aug 7, 2004)

I just wanted to say that I think a lot of what Eberron was designed to do was change the image of DnD.  Is there a real difference between Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms?  I love em both, but they are both high fantasy worlds.  Elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes and all that good stuff pretty much in the same roles.  Eberron has taken the high fantasy and changed it to a pulpy-steam punk type of setting.  They are also changing trying to change the external image from "the party goes and to kill the dragon" to espionage, mixed with an Indiana Jones type feel, after the war to end all wars, with a some Cthulhu thrown in there for good measure, and lets not forget the changes to religion (clerics and deities don't necessarily have the same alignment)...lotsa fun!

I do think that there are some trade offs for the MMORPG (has anyone thought the banking system in Eberron is just a little too much like Everquest?) and we all know that as a high fantasy setting EQ2 is really going to be the 800 pound gorilla.

Anyways, I like all three for different reasons, but that is just my two cents.


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 7, 2004)

Paradigm said:
			
		

> Never underestimate the culture of a large company. Nobody at WotC can point to Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms and say, "I did this."




I think that's a good point, but at the same time, they still went "outside" to get the idea for the setting.  Granted, there are WotC employees who undoubtedly added great value to Eberron, but the same can be said for the 3E version of the Forgotten Realms.


----------



## Sir Elton (Aug 7, 2004)

DarkCrisis said:
			
		

> I admit I never really cared for it.  I had my Forgotten Realms and my Dragonlance and wa content.
> 
> I then recently heard that thier is a new D&D MMORPG coming out and it's set in Eberron. What? Why? Greyhawk and Faerun have dedicated fans and tons of history that legions of fans are familiar with, so why the new kid on the block. I was gonna play it but not now... be playing EQ2 anyways =D
> 
> ...



 I hate Eberron.  I'm still Jealous.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 7, 2004)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I think that's a good point, but at the same time, they still went "outside" to get the idea for the setting.  Granted, there are WotC employees who undoubtedly added great value to Eberron, but the same can be said for the 3E version of the Forgotten Realms.



Well, when _FR_ was just a series of _Dragon_ articles, it was all Ed Greenwood. Then it was later acquired by TSR, and assigned Jeff Grubb to work with Ed to collaborate on the _FR Campaign Setting_ boxed set. Later, many other designers have added to the world, (e.g., David "Zeb" Cook found a place for _Kara-Tur_)

_Greyhawk_ got the same treatment. In addition to Gary Gygax the creator, Carl Sargent have been the second-most notable names attached to the _GH_ line. In fact, there is an ongoing debate whether Sargent's _GH_ is better than Gygax's.

Let's face it. They have to do this to attract new gamers, while the old gamers are retiring or ... no longer here. Although it does perpetuate a generation gap. For example, I grew up listening to Run-DMC and LL Cool J's rap music, but this generation's Eminem is just noise to me.

"_Eberron_ ... It's not your daddy's _Greyhawk._"


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 7, 2004)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> 2) I'll agree that Eberron is like Exalted, especially in appearance.  Seriously, crack open both books, and you'll find they feel very very similar, and even have the same little 'comic scenes' and such, with the same general art styles.




I have both, I've played both, I enjoy both, and I didn't get that impression at all. Exalted is anime/wuxia-style fantasy taken to the extreme. Very Asian, very animated. Eberron is pulp fantasy, far less over the top, and with a very different style.

*shrug* Guess it's all in how you look at it. Honestly, until someone mentioned it earlier in this thread, the notion of anyone thinking Eberron and Exalted were similar never even occurred to me. I still don't personally see it.


----------



## schnee (Aug 7, 2004)

I really don't see what the stink is about. 

Classic fantasy has been done *to death*. FR may be exceptionally detailed and rich, but it's basically the same old fantasy schtick - wizards, warriors, dragons, extra-planar bad guys - with a coat of paint. Greyhawk may bring back a lot of fond memories, but it's still been around forever. 

Is Eberron gaudy? Sure, but so was all the pulp fantasy it all came from. Just because Tolkein approached fantasy with the attidude of a reverent scholar doesn't mean we should forget any other way of looking at things and paint everything a tasteful, muted forest green. Here's another analogy... historians are up in arms over the restoration of the Last Supper because the colors are way more vivid than they grew up with... how shocking! The original vision was so _gaudy_! OMG! Heresy!

I think they're pushing it because Greyhawk and FR are... IMO... stale. Same old. Done before. They have to push *something* new - that's just life, evolve or die - and they have to go beyond the 'same old same old' to expand the current (and very, very small) pool of gamers.

Also, they have to make it splashier because ALL media is splashier. We're a visual, stimulated society, right or wrong... we all want the shiniest thing we see. Wag your fingers, sigh in dismany, but that's human nature. If you want to look down your nose at it, go right ahead, but I bet the people who don't care about your elevated standards will be having a lot of fun... maybe even more than you. It's not like Elvis fans listened to their parents either.

Anyway, some random musings from a 35-year old who started with the blue boxed set... coloring in the numbers of my dice with a crayon. I don't fear change, or Eberron, or 'Jonny Playstation' or whatever. Bring it on.


----------



## Cheerful Coffin (Aug 7, 2004)

Ebrreon feels like Final Fantasy or Chrono Trigger, that's probably why it's doing so well..

Techno and Fantasy go good together. I especially like Dark Sun (The dune of D&D.) and SpellJammer.


----------



## Belegbeth (Aug 7, 2004)

schnee said:
			
		

> ... Classic fantasy has been done *to death*.  ...




The sad thing is that TSR/WotC has NEVER done a classic fantasy setting.   

After pushing FR for many years -- an "over-the-top-with-uber-magic-and-everything-you-could-ever-want-except-coherence" setting if ever there was one -- they decide to go ONE STEP FURTHER.  

I would be delighted if WotC took a risk, and tried a "classic fantasy setting" for once!


----------



## Belegbeth (Aug 7, 2004)

Cheerful Coffin said:
			
		

> Techno and Fantasy go good together.  .




Like pickles and ice cream ... :\


----------



## schnee (Aug 7, 2004)

Belegbeth said:
			
		

> I would be delighted if WotC took a risk, and tried a "classic fantasy setting" for once!



You want Beethoven. The world wants Rock & Roll.


----------



## Incenjucar (Aug 7, 2004)

Belegbeth said:
			
		

> The sad thing is that TSR/WotC has NEVER done a classic fantasy setting.
> 
> After pushing FR for many years -- an "over-the-top-with-uber-magic-and-everything-you-could-ever-want-except-coherence" setting if ever there was one -- they decide to go ONE STEP FURTHER.
> 
> I would be delighted if WotC took a risk, and tried a "classic fantasy setting" for once!




Agreed.  This is what I've been waiting for for quite awhile.  If D&D actually did classic fantasy for the first time in its existance, it would be worth buying.  But I'm not sure WotC is capable of that, considering their tendancies for tentacles and machines rather than hedge wizards and mystery.

I'm still waiting for a psuedonatural warforged.


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 7, 2004)

schnee said:
			
		

> That wouldn't be a risk... it'd be suicide. Nobody would buy it.




Really? Because Midnight seems to be doing quite well.

Nisarg


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Aug 7, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> Really? Because Midnight seems to be doing quite well.
> 
> Nisarg




By the scale of a largish 3rd party company?

Or by the scale of the industry's 800 pound gorilla?


Even with the weight of WotC's marketing and market penetration, would Midnight have enough legs to support the widespread media blitz that's desired?

I think Midnight is a great setting, but I think it's also far too focused to support year after year of novels, video games, game supplements, miniatures, MMORGS and so on and so forth. 

Plus, I don't think it's theme is broad enough to attract the numbers of players/readers/collectors that WotC needs from their new, heavily pushed setting. 

Patrick Y.


----------



## s/LaSH (Aug 7, 2004)

Something to consider about my Johnny Playstation argument:

Is it necessary to produce a dumbed-down product for JP? Perhaps I should have suggested the name Norton Vidia instead, as MMOs are primarily a PC phenomenon. Anyway, either for JP or NV, there are things that Simon Tabletop just doesn't consider. Things like overrunning aesthetic principles in scene design for regions, or linguistic variation (place a pimp, a priest, a policeman, a mayor, and an ex-con in a room; ask them to, in their own words, request that you travel over the hill for Farmer Robert's estate and wipe out the orcs there for a reward; what would they say today? What would they say five hundred years ago? If your answer to the latter question is substantially less varied than those to the former question, you have discovered why modern language stylings could be considered important to cultural diversification in a fictional work) are things that are important. But when this filters back to Simon Tabletop, it's an improvement. In a way, JP and NV have required a better experience, and ST has reaped colateral benefits.

On the other hand, it might be stoopid and less developed than another setting. But I doubt it.



			
				Asmo said:
			
		

> I always thought that the MTG world was called Dominiara?




Dominia and Dominaria (sp?) are two different but related things. One (Dominia, I think - not sure) is a world. The other is a multiverse, supplementing Dominia (?) with Phyrexia, Rath, and a bunch of other worlds that came since I stopped playing. There are plenty of worlds out there, and planewalkers tend to visit them all in the process of gathering power. And cool monsters to summon.

It's a needless complication in my book.


----------



## Belegbeth (Aug 7, 2004)

Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> ...
> I think Midnight is a great setting, but I think it's also far too focused to support year after year of novels, video games, game supplements, miniatures, MMORGS and so on and so forth.
> 
> Plus, I don't think it's theme is broad enough to attract the numbers of players/readers/collectors that WotC needs from their new, heavily pushed setting.
> .




I agree.  Midnight is a great setting.  But is a great setting in the same way that Lagavulin is a great single-malt whisky -- only those with a "refined taste" will enjoy it.  

But that doesn't mean that a "classic fantasy" world could not be created that would appeal to a large audience.  IIRC those LotR films seemed to do okay at the box office.  Mongoose's Conan game is doing well (despite the non-editing involved). 

As for MMORPGs -- well, I think those have built-in limitations.  It simply does not make sense to have 1000's of Gandalfs running around, camping for monsters, etc.


----------



## Belegbeth (Aug 7, 2004)

s/LaSH said:
			
		

> ... Anyway, either for JP or NV, there are things that Simon Tabletop just doesn't consider. Things like overrunning aesthetic principles in scene design for regions, or linguistic variation (place a pimp, a priest, a policeman, a mayor, and an ex-con in a room; ask them to, in their own words, request that you travel over the hill for Farmer Robert's estate and wipe out the orcs there for a reward; what would they say today? What would they say five hundred years ago? If your answer to the latter question is substantially less varied than those to the former question, you have discovered why modern language stylings could be considered important to cultural diversification in a fictional work) are things that are important. But when this filters back to Simon Tabletop, it's an improvement. In a way, JP and NV have required a better experience, and ST has reaped colateral benefits.
> ...




What precisely is your point here?  

(This might be a vice of my profession as an analytic philosopher, but if I cannot restate any paragraph as a single proposition with a truth-value, I am hopelessly lost.)


----------



## Rauol_Duke (Aug 7, 2004)

Belegbeth said:
			
		

> This might be a vice of my profession as an analytic philosopher...




Just out of curiousity, how much does that pay?


----------



## schnee (Aug 7, 2004)

> If D&D actually did classic fantasy for the first time in its existance, it would be worth buying.



Is Vance not classical fantasy? Did I miss a memo?



			
				Belegbeth said:
			
		

> IIRC those LotR films seemed to do okay at the box office.  Mongoose's Conan game is doing well



Hence, the LOTR role playing game I saw at my FLGS. Do you think a WOTC 'generi-' oops, 'classic' setting could really compete with LOTR at this point? Do you think kids getting Greek myths and King Arthur shoved down their throat at school will turn around and go back there for fun? I seriously, seriously doubt it. Not when they can choose things like Final Fantasy and World of Warcraft.

'Classic' fantasy is for history buffs and sophisticates... it's almost a dry academic pursuit at that point. I look at the Eberron CS and see a wild riot of energy, liveliness and vitality. A library or a rock concert? I know which one I want to go to for enrichment, and which one I want to go to for fun. Games are fun. Games are escape.


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 7, 2004)

schnee said:
			
		

> 'Classic' fantasy is for history buffs and sophisticates... it's almost a dry academic pursuit at that point. I look at the Eberron CS and see a wild riot of energy, liveliness and vitality. A library or a rock concert? I know which one I want to go to for enrichment, and which one I want to go to for fun. Games are fun. Games are escape.




well, while its obviously not to my liking, i have to admit that the more I think about it, the more I realize that a "lite D&D" rules-set combined with the Eberron setting could be a magic formula for getting 14 year olds into the hobby. 

After all, RIFTS was hugely appealing to young teens in its prime. Eberron is the new RIFTS.

Nisarg


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 7, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> well, while its obviously not to my liking, i have to admit that the more I think about it, the more I realize that a "lite D&D" rules-set combined with the Eberron setting could be a magic formula for getting 14 year olds into the hobby.



_Ding!_

Give this gamer a booby prize!   

Sorry, no booby. You'd settle for a _Yoda_ pez dispenser?




			
				Nisarg said:
			
		

> After all, RIFTS was hugely appealing to young teens in its prime. Eberron is the new RIFTS.



Shhh! Are you crazy! Never EVER give lawsuit-happy Kevin Sembieda more legal ammo.


----------



## Incenjucar (Aug 7, 2004)

Like I said, the current method works fine for the largest sector of possible gamers.

It's just that, no longer being niche-oriented means that old timers and certain intellectuals are out of luck.  Alas, I'm the sort of person who studies science, mythology, philosophy, psychology, and history for fun.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 7, 2004)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Like I said, the current method works fine for the largest sector of possible gamers.
> 
> It's just that, no longer being niche-oriented means that old timers and certain intellectuals are out of luck.




I'm sorry? Was the OGL rescinded when I wasn't looking?

Cheers!


----------



## Dark Jezter (Aug 7, 2004)

In response to the first post.  The reason Eberron is being promoted so heavily is because it's new; Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance already have established fan bases, Eberron dosen't.  From a buisiness standpoint, it just makes sense for WotC to heavily promote their new setting; they want to raise interest in Eberron and allow a fan base to develop so that people will keep buying suppliments for it.

Of course, this point has probably already been made several times in this thread.  I just didn't feel like reading through 5 pages of replies. 

Oh, and just so you know, Eberron isn't the only setting that has upcoming video games based on it: Demon Stone (for PS2 and XBox) and Neverwinter Nights 2 (for the PC) are both set in the Forgotten Realms.  Baldur's Gate 3 is also in development (although the official announcement hasn't been made yet), and it will undoubtably take place in the Realms as well.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 7, 2004)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> It's just that, no longer being niche-oriented means that old timers and certain intellectuals are out of luck.  Alas, I'm the sort of person who studies science, mythology, philosophy, psychology, and history for fun.



As I said, the number of oldtimers are shrinking. It's time for fresh youngblood.


----------



## Incenjucar (Aug 7, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I'm sorry? Was the OGL rescinded when I wasn't looking?




So far the only OGL product I know of that's likely to be as good as, oh, Planescape is, gasp, by the Planescape team.

I'm sure there's plenty of great OGL products, but not all of us have local gaming stores or eons to pore through books that, for the most part, are as bad as, say, the Complete Divine.  Borders hasn't shown me anything all that impressive from the 3rd party groups.  The only game that has even sounded interesting outside of WotC is "Midnight", but they don't have the bloody thing in any of the bookstores I have access to.  I only have three 3rd party books as a result of this, one of the well-known creature thingies which made tabaxi look like moondogs and alu-fiends look like featherless harpies, the Ravenloft book which, while nice, didn't inspire me towards anything, and 3rd party adventure that reminded me why I don't purchase adventures.

Now, if I'm even interested in D&D when 4th edition rolls around, and the OGL gets set up again, I might just do it myself so I won't have anything to complain about, though by then I'll hopefully have a novel out.

Trick is, most likely, the best people to create the sort of setting I would enjoy have already fallen to the populous bug because their editors want to sell to the masses.


----------



## dogboy (Aug 7, 2004)

Eberron just doesn't do it for me. Not because it's new and I can't get my old-timer's head around it, but because it sucks. What makes a setting great is one that has lots of detail, where it is obvious that the people involved gave 
everything a lot of thought. I found that with Forgotten Realms to include Al
Qadim and Maztica, but not the Horde. Planescape could have been better if there would have been more meat in it, i.e. setting-specific classes. And I agree with others on this thread that Midnight has that "something" that makes a campaign setting special. It will get better as time goes by as well. 
Now if WotC would just get back to doing Dark Sun......


----------



## Amy Kou'ai (Aug 7, 2004)

schnee said:
			
		

> 'Classic' fantasy is for history buffs and sophisticates... it's almost a dry academic pursuit at that point. I look at the Eberron CS and see a wild riot of energy, liveliness and vitality.




As a bit of a side note...  I'm a student of history, and I have to be honest -- I find the world of Eberron to be profoundly interesting because of the post-War to End All Wars parallels, and I think it's quite sophisticated in how it deals with the impact of history on everyone's lives (_everyone_ has been affected by the past hundred years, there's a "what have we wrought?" industrial cynicism-yet-optimism, and we're seeing some serious cultural barriers that are being confronted and overcome).  And while I was reading about Sharn, instantly I thought of Blake's "London."

Just felt I should point out that there's a lot of substance there for intellectuals, too.  I mean, it's got actual _economics_ tied into the game mechanics, for heaven's sake, which is more than I've ever seen from any other campaign setting for that field.  It feels like _Final Fantasy_, but it also feels like _The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen_ (the comic book that requires extensive annotations, you understand), and, while we're at it, _King Solomon's Mines_.  Tweak to your tastes -- that's the point of the thing.

By the way, Incenjucar, I notice that you seem to be suggesting that the sort of setting that you'd enjoy is a setting that won't appeal to the masses.  I think you might be out of luck in this situation, really.


----------



## Incenjucar (Aug 7, 2004)

I prefer a setting where magic is lower-key, but still available.

My perfect-for-me setting is, frankly, that which I've been working on for several years in various forms (considering I'm more interested in a story world than a D&D add-on).

It has the realism that, since magic is all over the place, people will use it for practical things, but since magic is still damnably hard to get ahold of (Most of the stronger magical methods are held by beings that charge -heavily- for it, partially because the best of them stay immortal by buying the outragously expensive life-extending venom of the "Serpent of Longevity").  Magic even has a somewhat sci-fi explanation, in that it's essentially a waveform/semi-particle, which reacts to mental vibrations, and also leads to the multiple dimensions, where differing physical laws allow such things that are more or less fiends and celestials, so on and so forth.  The fantastic creatures and races all have explanations, or such a thing is easily postulated.

It's a strongly fantastic world, where you may, in fact, run in to an elementalist using their powers to bake bread, but they're going to be there because they couldn't afford the full training of the mistress of that art, and beause more powerful effects are hard to come by.  They can definately hold their own against a similarly experienced warrior, of course, since the same power used to bake bread can bake skin, armor, weapons, and eyeballs just as easily.  Things like Fireball, however, are going to get the same reaction as someone letting off a car bomb when they've only seen firecrackers before.  It certainly isn't Shadowdale.

However, since magic isn't nearly as easy to shove in to objects as it is in D&D (where it's mostly a matter of having oodles of gold and a few connections), you don't get places like Eberron either.

It's not exactly a 'gritty' world, though I do intend to have some grit in my actual stories.  Heck, it has fancy-schmancy locations like the great libraries; I've got one smack in the middle of a lush jungle guarded by sphinxes, tabaxi-ish things, and a few humans and half-sphinxes (Basically a humanoid, medium-sized sphinx).

Now, I think that such is a fairly viable campaign setting, but it's a definate direction away from typical D&D, and there's certainly no chance of something as massive as the Lightning Rail ever occuring, nor will there be a bunch of places to do a power up tour on ala Planar Handbook, or tripping over wizard enclaves every week ala FR.


----------



## hong (Aug 7, 2004)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> It has the realism that, since magic is all over the place, people will use it for practical things, but since magic is still damnably hard to get ahold of (Most of the stronger magical methods are held by beings that charge -heavily- for it, partially because the best of them stay immortal by buying the outragously expensive life-extending venom of the "Serpent of Longevity").  Magic even has a somewhat sci-fi explanation, in that it's essentially a waveform/semi-particle, which reacts to mental vibrations, and also leads to the multiple dimensions, where differing physical laws allow such things that are more or less fiends and celestials, so on and so forth.  The fantastic creatures and races all have explanations, or such a thing is easily postulated.




Ah, so it's like Star Trek?


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 7, 2004)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> I prefer a setting where magic is lower-key, but still available.



 Maybe you'd like Destan's Valus Setting, fresh from the printers.


----------



## hong (Aug 7, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Maybe you'd like Destan's Valus Setting, fresh from the printers.



 I liked it so much, I turned Lord Victor Destan and Lady Sonia Valus into NPCs in my game.


Hong "I do not kid" Ooi


----------



## Belegbeth (Aug 7, 2004)

Rauol_Duke said:
			
		

> Just out of curiousity, how much does that pay?




Philistine!  The life of the mind is its own reward.  ($40,000 - $100,000 (U.S.D), depending on tenure status and the location of the department.)


----------



## Belegbeth (Aug 7, 2004)

schnee said:
			
		

> Is Vance not classical fantasy? Did I miss a memo?.



Did WotC produce a setting based on Vance's novels?  Did I miss a memo?  (Aside from the magic system -- which is only loosely Vancian in nature; Vance's wizards are unlikely to have more than 2-10 spells "readied" at any time -- no DnD setting is based on Vance's novels.  I would LOVE a setting as colourful and interesting as Vance's Lyonesse series.)



			
				schnee said:
			
		

> ...   'Classic' fantasy is for history buffs and sophisticates... it's almost a dry academic pursuit at that point.  ...




I weep that people actually think things like this.


----------



## hong (Aug 7, 2004)

Belegbeth said:
			
		

> I weep that people actually think things like this.




Never mind. I hear there are websites catering to lonely people with lots of time on their hands. And some of them are actually free!


----------



## Rauol_Duke (Aug 7, 2004)

Belegbeth said:
			
		

> Philistine!  The life of the mind is its own reward.



Thanks, but I'll stick to my fish-god...


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 7, 2004)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> It's just that, no longer being niche-oriented means that old timers and certain intellectuals are out of luck.  Alas, I'm the sort of person who studies science, mythology, philosophy, psychology, and history for fun.



That might be true - but you sound, mostly, like a wanker.

As a counterpoint, I'm very similar to you (yeah, probably including the wanker part), and I agree with the point made upthread about Eberron being more sophisticated than the marketing hype gives it credit.

More to the point, damn it - a setting is what you make of it. I could take the Forgotten Realms and make anything of it I want. The same applies to Eberron - and the whole damned game. You could run mindless CRPG-style dungeon crawls, intense and elegant political maneuvering, a save-the-world epic, grim and gritty war stories, colourful urban crime capers, eldritch horror, whatever.

It's called "interpretation", and intellectuals, of all people, have to possess a talent for it.


----------



## Belegbeth (Aug 7, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> Never mind. I hear there are websites catering to lonely people with lots of time on their hands. And some of them are actually free!




I don't understand this.  How does it follow from I said?  Why does a fondness for classic fantasy -- and disappointment that some people find it 'dry and academic' -- imply loneliness and lots of spare time?  Is there a point to trying to insult people you do not know anything about?


----------



## Destil (Aug 7, 2004)

Olorin said:
			
		

> [edit] I see that Hasbro purchased the Atari name in 1998, and Infogrames bought it from Hasbro in 2002.



Ah, cool. I haddn't heard of Infrogames buying the atari license from Hasbro.


----------



## Campbell (Aug 7, 2004)

schnee said:
			
		

> Is Vance not classical fantasy? Did I miss a memo?
> 
> 
> Hence, the LOTR role playing game I saw at my FLGS. Do you think a WOTC 'generi-' oops, 'classic' setting could really compete with LOTR at this point? Do you think kids getting Greek myths and King Arthur shoved down their throat at school will turn around and go back there for fun? I seriously, seriously doubt it. Not when they can choose things like Final Fantasy and World of Warcraft.
> ...




  As a fairly recent high school graduate I can verify that American secondary schools do not push works like The Once and Future King, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, or any form of mythology down students' throats. There is however very valid point within the contents of your post: Good literary worlds do not neccesarily make for enjoyable game worlds, espicially good D&D game worlds. D&D has a very solid framework for a game, but at this point I think that claiming that D&D is a generic fantasy roleplaying game does the game an injustice.


----------



## smetzger (Aug 7, 2004)

sledged said:
			
		

> Yes, but wasn't Greyhawk dropped for more... spiteful reasons?
> 
> 
> Really?  What was it called?




Pools of Radiance and others from the DOS days.


----------



## hong (Aug 7, 2004)

Belegbeth said:
			
		

> I don't understand this.




Think of it as a nice single malt whisky with an extra helping of latte. Two great tastes that taste great together!



> Is there a point to trying to insult people you do not know anything about?




There is no try, there is only do.


----------



## Kranton Zo`erth (Aug 7, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Also, the RPG and gaming market are much more competitive now than in the late 80's and 90's, with new hobby trends appearing almost every year (from TCG, to CMG, and lately CSG).




Could i get a little more MSG for my RPG...yeesh....could we shorten anthing else? I sure don't feel like a VIP not knowing all the spiffy little spurts of shorthand you guys throw around....most you can figure out....but then there are posts like this one and I just have to find some aleve or something....

Sorry not to flame anyone....just drives me nuts.....thank you for your patience....back to the normal thread....


----------



## Belegbeth (Aug 7, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> Think of it as a nice single malt whisky with an extra helping of latte. Two great tastes that taste great together!



Thanks for the clarification and enlightenment!


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 7, 2004)

Amy Kou'ai said:
			
		

> Just felt I should point out that there's a lot of substance there for intellectuals, too.  I mean, it's got actual _economics_ tied into the game mechanics, for heaven's sake, which is more than I've ever seen from any other campaign setting for that field.




Um, sorry but where?

I never saw this, and after you mentioned it, I looked through the book again, trying to find ANY economics mechanic.  Other than the tiny blurb in "life in Eberron" that talked about what percentage of the general population were lower/middle/upper class, and the section on "industry" in each country listing (which FR has too), I couldn't see anything.

Please point me to where exactly these economics MECHANICS are?

Nisarg


----------



## Knight Otu (Aug 7, 2004)

Campbell said:
			
		

> ...



 Sorry for the intrusion, but... Campbell, could you please hop over to the Living ENWorld forum, Bastards of Bluerun, and tell us if you're still in it?


----------



## jasamcarl (Aug 7, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> Um, sorry but where?
> 
> I never saw this, and after you mentioned it, I looked through the book again, trying to find ANY economics mechanic.  Other than the tiny blurb in "life in Eberron" that talked about what percentage of the general population were lower/middle/upper class, and the section on "industry" in each country listing (which FR has too), I couldn't see anything.
> 
> ...




I think he alluding to the dragonmarks, insofar as they are  character options whose background in the game world relates specifically to mercantalism. In other words, traditional character mechanics that tie into economic fluff. Don't go for the simplest interrpretation when a more viable if subtle one is right there.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Aug 7, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> I think he alluding to the dragonmarks, insofar as they are character options whose background in the game world relates specifically to mercantalism. In other words, traditional character mechanics that tie into economic fluff. Don't go for the simplest interrpretation when a more viable if subtle one is right there.



Exactly.

The Dragonmarked Houses provide the meat and bones of the Khorvaire economical system. Each family has a "monopoly" over a specific aspect of buisness. Not all family members are dragonmarked, in fact only a few are. But that gives the family an edge, and molds the rest of the bloodline to follow the same line of work.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 7, 2004)

dogboy said:
			
		

> Eberron just doesn't do it for me. Not because it's new and I can't get my old-timer's head around it, but because it sucks. What makes a setting great is one that has lots of detail, where it is obvious that the people involved gave everything a lot of thought. I found that with Forgotten Realms to include Al Qadim and Maztica, but not the Horde. Planescape could have been better if there would have been more meat in it, i.e. setting-specific classes. And I agree with others on this thread that Midnight has that "something" that makes a campaign setting special. It will get better as time goes by as well. Now if WotC would just get back to doing Dark Sun......



Now you know how those fans of _Greyhawk_ (and _Dragonlance_) felt way back in 1987 when _FR_ became a full-fledged new campaign setting and TSR started rolling accessories after accessories month after month with only a few _GH_ products popping up through the late 80 and all throughout the 90's.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 7, 2004)

Kranton Zo`erth said:
			
		

> Could i get a little more MSG for my RPG...yeesh....could we shorten anthing else? I sure don't feel like a VIP...



That's, uh, Very Important Person, right?   

No, you're not.   

BTW, CSG is Constructible Strategy Game. WizKids is leading the way with the _Pirates of the Spanish Main,_ a ship battle game.


----------



## Staffan (Aug 7, 2004)

Destil said:
			
		

> Ah, cool. I haddn't heard of Infrogames buying the atari license from Hasbro.



It was part of Hasbro's computer division (Hasbro interactive or something like that), the sales of which prompted Peter Adkison to step down as WOTC boss since the sale included electronic rights to all Hasbro games including WOTC stuff, over his objections.


----------



## MadMaxim (Aug 7, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> Well, coincidentally I have just gotten my copy of Eberron... my initial opinion is not exactly glowing.
> 
> Its a lot of what I worried about.  First of all, the setting seems to suffer from identity crisis. Is it "medieval"? Is it "swashbuckling"? is it "pulp action"? Is it "steampunk"?
> 
> ...




I have the feeling that you're blowing this subject completely out of proportion. Just because the setting doesn't work for you, it's suddenly a piece of radioactive waste that NOBODY in their right mind should ever touch with a 10-foot pole... Are you against mixing stuff, or what is it?


----------



## Kranton Zo`erth (Aug 7, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> That's, uh, Very Important Person, right?
> 
> No, you're not.
> 
> BTW, CSG is Constructible Strategy Game. WizKids is leading the way with the _Pirates of the Spanish Main,_ a ship battle game.




Well, that sounds infinitely more interesting than just the letters......I had never heard of it...appreciate the info...now I can read on it.

Oh....never worried about beind VIP....just trying to make a point....even if it seemed a little on the petty side.

I know....maybe a shorthand manual posted in the rules so people can keep track of all the abbreviating....


----------



## Jakar (Aug 7, 2004)

Does anyone know, other than the fan made one, if WotC has produced a decent sized map of the setting yet?  

I found it strange there was not one in the book.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 7, 2004)

Dungeon #113 has a poster map of Khorvaire. I picked it up at my FLGS a week ago.

Cheers!


----------



## Jakar (Aug 7, 2004)

Cool.  Will have to take a trip to the Brisvegas to have a look for it.


----------



## Cheerful Coffin (Aug 7, 2004)

They should consider making White and Red Dr@gon magizine.

White for the fluffy.
Red for the crunchy.

I'm a crunchy myself.


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 7, 2004)

BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> The Dragonmarked Houses provide the meat and bones of the Khorvaire economical system. Each family has a "monopoly" over a specific aspect of buisness. Not all family members are dragonmarked, in fact only a few are. But that gives the family an edge, and molds the rest of the bloodline to follow the same line of work.




that doesn't create any specific opportunities for sophistication. It does (maybe) provide the chance for the "defend the family trade routes" type of rp.
Most likely, it just provides a convenient background excuse for power gamers ("i want ot have the "destroy city" dragonmark.. oh, that's the House Bumquist mark, ok sure I can be from the mercantile family in charge of snail farming.. but um.. i'm one of those irresponsible ones who would rather go around killing people and refuse to do ANY family work").

Its going to lead to the average level of sophistication you find in Exalted.. ie. blatant powergaming covered by a thin veneer of in-story justification.

Nisarg


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 7, 2004)

MadMaxim said:
			
		

> I have the feeling that you're blowing this subject completely out of proportion. Just because the setting doesn't work for you, it's suddenly a piece of radioactive waste that NOBODY in their right mind should ever touch with a 10-foot pole... Are you against mixing stuff, or what is it?




No, but I am saying its a train-wreck of an identity-crisis.  It tries to be "everything" and it ends up doing nothing well, IMO.

However, you will note in a later post I have said that it might just be the perfect setting for a 14 year old new player.  Someone who wants to just have fun and play in a world  with lots of "kewl powerz" and doesn't really need consistency or believability. Note that this is NOT really an insult. The industry is in DESPERATE need of getting something that will appeal to that 14 year old, the way D&D basic once did, the way RIFTS once did. Getting a new generation of players in here.

Unfortunately, having now learned more about the upcoming new D&D Basic set, I think WoTC will be doing a crappy job with it too. Ah well...

Nisarg


----------



## Henry (Aug 7, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> However, you will note in a later post I have said that it might just be the perfect setting for a 14 year old new player...Note that this is NOT really an insult. The industry is in DESPERATE need of getting something that will appeal to that 14 year old, the way D&D basic once did, the way RIFTS once did. Getting a new generation of players in here.




I'm pleased to tell you it's appealing to the 33-year-olders, too.


----------



## jasamcarl (Aug 7, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> that doesn't create any specific opportunities for sophistication. It does (maybe) provide the chance for the "defend the family trade routes" type of rp.
> Most likely, it just provides a convenient background excuse for power gamers ("i want ot have the "destroy city" dragonmark.. oh, that's the House Bumquist mark, ok sure I can be from the mercantile family in charge of snail farming.. but um.. i'm one of those irresponsible ones who would rather go around killing people and refuse to do ANY family work").
> 
> Its going to lead to the average level of sophistication you find in Exalted.. ie. blatant powergaming covered by a thin veneer of in-story justification.
> ...




Now you are just being stupid. Almost all fantasy and pulp sci-fi see their resolution through a show of heroic strength..if i were to reduce the entirey of LotR's background to insignificance and call out a single spell by Gandalf as proof of munchkinism, i would perfectly set within the bounds of your stupid argument. Oh, but you are one of those 'fantasy' fans who couldn't care less about actual fantasy; you would instead enjoy if the author had spend 300 pages justifying and extrapolating every background detail to the point where the reader's reaction of "How could this be?", the underlying instinct that fantasy is suppossed to evoke, is squashed into to ultimatly shaky 'rationality'. But I might have missed out on all that fantasy which features storekeepers going over the books..let me go reread some Homer, i'm sure it was there.

And even if we are talking reality, coercion is a driving force behind almost all social relations. But then, I would guses that your historical knowledge is actually quite limited and it is just a pretense to condemn everything you don't dig or even understand as munchkinism. 

Or you are *gasp* a troll.

What you are essentialy saying though is that you bought a book full of fluff that you now condemn because it doesn't mind lock a group into using that ramming said fluff down players' throats..foolish.

I'm about to be called out on this, most likely, so if you would like to avoid a public thrashing, feel free to email me at:

jasamcarl@hotmail.com

Oh and have a nice day.


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 7, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> I'm about to be called out on this, most likely, so if you would like to avoid a public thrashing, feel free to email me at:
> 
> jasamcarl@hotmail.com
> 
> Oh and have a nice day.




I'm not going to "call you out" on this, or flame you or whatever you think I'd do. I'll just say that the whole "dragonmark" business is probably what I find the most distasteful and least sophisticated part of the entire Eberron setting (except for maybe the Warforged Juggernaut).

Far from being "clever", its clearly an attempt (a misguided one, if you ask me, and my reasons being made clear in the mini-review I gave earlier in this thread) to appeal to the Exalted-fanboys out there.

But particularly to equate the "kewl powerz" of being dragonblooded to some kind of "economic" element in the game is a bit absurd to me. When someone first said (might have been you) that Eberron was the first D&D setting to actually tie in economics to gameplay I opened my copy and paged desperately through it hoping there were some sophisticated rules on the economics of nations that I'd somehow overlooked on my first read.  I would NEVER have thought the poster was talking about the "dragonmark powerz".  To say that they are an "economic" mechanic with a straight face is absurd.

They're just another element of power-creep with a supposedly cool backstory, really just a cheap justification.

Nisarg


----------



## jasamcarl (Aug 8, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> I'm not going to "call you out" on this, or flame you or whatever you think I'd do. I'll just say that the whole "dragonmark" business is probably what I find the most distasteful and least sophisticated part of the entire Eberron setting (except for maybe the Warforged Juggernaut).
> 
> Far from being "clever", its clearly an attempt (a misguided one, if you ask me, and my reasons being made clear in the mini-review I gave earlier in this thread) to appeal to the Exalted-fanboys out there.
> 
> ...




1) Dragonmarks aren't particularly powerful, especially when they come at the cost of a feat. You seem so lazy on the powergamer point that you paint all new mechanics with a broad brush. The greater mark of creation might be a problem, but otherwise their use is either solely in utility or, in combat, comes at the expense of using much more potent class abilities.

2) He never said there was an economic mechanic, but that there was a mechanic that tied into the economics of the game. You immediatly jumped to a conclusion that can only illuminate your ignorance of the setting, i.e. that there had to be an economic mechanic, because...well i suppose you just like putting words together in nonsensical ways. You infact took the most hamhanded definition of "tie" I could possibly of imagined.

Oh, and by called out, I was alluding to the moderators. I wouldn't mind having it out with you right here if given the choice.


----------



## reanjr (Aug 8, 2004)

DarkCrisis said:
			
		

> I then recently heard that thier is a new D&D MMORPG coming out and it's set in Eberron.  What?  Why?




To create synergy while minimizing R&D costs and grant an opportunity to create an additional flagship franchise.

I imagine that's about how it was said to the people at Hasbro.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 8, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> 1) Dragonmarks aren't particularly powerful, especially when they come at the cost of a feat. You seem so lazy on the powergamer point that you paint all new mechanics with a broad brush. The greater mark of creation might be a problem, but otherwise their use is either solely in utility or, in combat, comes at the expense of using much more potent class abilities.




I have to agree with you (even if I might have used more diplomatic language ). Between a clear misundersatnding of what the Dargonmarks are/can do, and his constant comparison to Exalted and Rifts--_neither_ of which resembles Eberron in any meaningful way, as far as I can tell--I have to wonder if Nisarg's actually read the book, or just flipped through it.

Dragonmarks are the _last_ route a powergamer's going to take.

I'm also getting a little tired of the constant Final Fantasy/Playstation cracks. I'm neither a teen nor a newbie to D&D. I run my games plot first and mechanics a _very_ distant second. I don't like "power-ups." I'm not normally a fan of pervasive-magic settings. I don't particularly like Final Fantasy. I don't particularly like Chrono Trigger. I haven't owned a game console since my Atari 2600.

And I see in Eberron an incredible amount of story potential and room for character development. I see it as much less abusable, in terms of power-gaming, than many other settings out there.

I'm all about discussing differences of opinion with people who disagree with me. Heck, you'll find several threads where BryonD and I go back and forth on several issues about Eberron. But he appears to have actually read the material, and he's not drawing utterly ludicrous--and patently false--conclusions, so I'm happy to debate with him. But if you're just going to sling nonsense, there's hardly a point.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 8, 2004)

> Oh, and it has psionics. I hate psionics. Also, how stupid is that? Taking the new "flagship" setting for D&D and basically forcing anyone who wants to play in it to have to get the psionics handbook? way to be accessible.



Wow, actual stupidity burning bright and clear.

In fact, while the setting includes psionics, they were *deliberately* and *explicitly* located in a different, remote area of the campaign world - on Sarlona, a different continent to both the main setting location of Khorvaire and the main "unexplored wilderness" continent of Xen'drik - specifically so that people with no interest in psionics could ignore its existence in the world completely.

To say nothing of the obvious fact that nothing in the campaign setting actually *has* to be in the world.

Besides which, I suggest you look at the System Reference Document, where you will find the contents of the _Expanded Psionics Handbook_.


----------



## DarkCrisis (Aug 8, 2004)

I think the MMORPG thing is what bugs ne the most.  That's a hard market to succeed in.  Now, D&D I would think would be anatural to to make a MMORPG, even more so if it was set in an established and mega-popular world.  

As I said I was thinking about paying it cause I thought it would be set in Faerun, but no it's set in the New Game.

Why?

Seems really risky to me.  

Could have been less of a risk to just use the already huge Faerun.  Man, I;d have loved visiting Menzo in beautiful 3D!!


----------



## reanjr (Aug 8, 2004)

DarkCrisis said:
			
		

> I think the MMORPG thing is what bugs ne the most.  That's a hard market to succeed in.  Now, D&D I would think would be anatural to to make a MMORPG, even more so if it was set in an established and mega-popular world.
> 
> As I said I was thinking about paying it cause I thought it would be set in Faerun, but no it's set in the New Game.
> 
> ...




Faerun's too established for an MMORPG.  The content designers have to have alot of control over where the world is going.  They can't have that with FR, but if they come in early enough, they might be able to do it with Eberron.  From what I remember, it was the Game Company's idea to use Eberron.


----------



## Tolen Mar (Aug 8, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'm also getting a little tired of the constant Final Fantasy/Playstation cracks. I'm neither a teen nor a newbie to D&D. I run my games plot first and mechanics a _very_ distant second. I don't like "power-ups." I'm not normally a fan of pervasive-magic settings. I don't particularly like Final Fantasy. I don't particularly like Chrono Trigger. I haven't owned a game console since my Atari 2600.
> 
> And I see in Eberron an incredible amount of story potential and room for character development. I see it as much less abusable, in terms of power-gaming, than many other settings out there.





Hear! Hear!

That describes me to a 'T'.  (Right down to the 2600 remark).  See, some of us are buying and using this setting because it is different without being video gamey.  This isn't Rifts, this isn't Final Fantasy.  It is a world full of potential, interesting ideas, and cool locations.  

psst...lemme tell you a secret...Not everyone is a munchkin powergamer!  So what if there are warforged Juggernauts?  Use 'em as monsters only.  The Dm does have some control over his world, doesn't he?  If all you have is munchkin powergamers in your group AND YOU DON"T LIKE IT, find a different group, or find a different hobby.

You dont like psionics?  Dont use 'em.  Everything in the book that says you need psionics to use also includes a short description of how to get by without the book.

If you don't like it, why are you spending so much time ripping on it?  Here's another secret...go play something else if its that big of a deal.  As I thought I made clear before...I'm not 14 and I like this book.  Like Henry, Im in my 30's and I got it because I wanted something besides the standard 'classic' fantasy that nearly every game out there (including Realms and Greyhawk) has been using for years.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 8, 2004)

DarkCrisis said:
			
		

> I think the MMORPG thing is what bugs ne the most.  That's a hard market to succeed in.  Now, D&D I would think would be anatural to to make a MMORPG, even more so if it was set in an established and mega-popular world.
> 
> As I said I was thinking about paying it cause I thought it would be set in Faerun, but no it's set in the New Game.
> 
> ...



Essentially for one very simple reason:

No-one knows what is there, so the designers are free to write the world as they want and as their technology dictates.

That's why the MMORPG will be set in Xen'drik, the largely-unexplored continent. Since there's no real canon concerning that area, there's nothing for them to "get wrong".

Which they most certainly would, and would get complaints about, if they had set the game in Faerun.


----------



## Incenjucar (Aug 8, 2004)

Always fun watching people get mad and insulting because someone doesn't like what they like, and views it as being related to something else.

I've got different tastes.  I like my settings to be artful, as I feel Planescape was.  Since I don't have ready access to that sort of setting, I'm just making my own, and hopefully will make some money on it.  What D&D still offers that I like, I still purchase -- I greatly enjoyed Serpent Kingdoms, for instance.

What I like is not what most young gamers like.  I'm an oddball.  I consider a science book more engrossing than an issue of Playboy.  I consider other languages fun to play with, rather than a chore put upon me by the school system.  I prefer fine, delicate flavors to spicy bold ones.  I prefer something I can bask and ponder quietly about rather than go "Ye-ah!  Rocked it! Booyah!".

I'd love it if there was a setting or twelve designed with tastes along the lines of my own, that I could peruse and have all too many to choose from.  But since I'm increasingly in the minority, there's very little that the gaming community has to offer me right now.

And no, I'm not supporting -your- setting just to have to twist it around.  I can homebrew and keep my money if nobody out there wants my money badly enough to make something I actually want.  It's really a bit odd to tell someone to use a setting they don't like.  I, for one, don't settle.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 8, 2004)

I'm mostly pointing out that you sound like you need to get your hand off it.

When one's high standards rise to a level where catering to them would not be financially successful for any company, one should probably apply one's vast intellect to the problem and realise that complaining about the fact that their tastes *aren't* catered to is a waste of one's no-doubt valuable time.


----------



## schnee (Aug 8, 2004)

> As a fairly recent high school graduate I can verify that American secondary schools do not push works like The Once and Future King, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, or any form of mythology down students' throats.



LOTR isn't mythology. It's populist fantasy.  And I wasn't being totally serious... that stuff happened more when I went to school. Think of that rant as 'Hong lite.' 

I stand by the general idea though. It's not like 'classic' fantasy (whatever that is, really) has been done over and over in games, but... jeez... look at all the books. How many times have subtle, minimalist, tasteful fantasy realms been written about? FOUR ZILLION. We've been absolutely BURIED in 'classic' style fantasy in literature as long as I can remember. Now, something like Eberron? Mainstream? That's a bit more interesting to me.

Led Zeppelin was the best rock band ever, Clapton was God, Elvis was the King but... how many times can we listen to the same old riffs and jams and songs before they get completely stale? Are we forever supposed to bow down to tradition? Are there no more stories to tell, so we just sit around and repeat the one about St. George and the dragon forever? I wanna talk about new struggles, new dragons.

I really get sick of the old guy 'new stuff is crap it was better in my day' stuff. The new stuff builds on the old stuff. The new stuff takes the old, puts a spin on it and takes it somewhere else. Led Zeppelin was Blues with electric guitars and amplification, early Metallica was Wagner electrified... guess what, Eberron is fantasy, pulp and D&D mixed together and made electric. It's just how cultural evolution works, and of course some beautiful delicate flowers are going to be trampled along the way, but that's life.

If you hate it, nobody's stopping you from making your own home-brew.


----------



## Incenjucar (Aug 8, 2004)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> I'm mostly pointing out that you sound like you need to get your hand off it.
> 
> When one's high standards rise to a level where catering to them would not be financially successful for any company, one should probably apply one's vast intellect to the problem and realise that complaining about the fact that their tastes *aren't* catered to is a waste of one's no-doubt valuable time.




Who said I was complaining?  One is capable of accepting a fact and stating it, and telling others with similar standards that accepting the fact is a reasonable thing.

While you seem to be implying it, I don't do the sour grapes thing.  You can look on the WotC boards yourself and see that I've been on rather friendly terms with Eberron, despite not wanting to purchase it.  I can be supportive without spending money on something I don't personally want.  That it exists is good.  It's getting new money and new players in to the game.  With new money comes the possibility of future risk-taking.  Who knows, if Eberron increases the D&D playing populous by a million, maybe WotC will, by sheer chance, get ahold of something more classic, and try to market it.  While utterly doubtful, maybe they'll even bring Planescape back for a bit, and do it in a manner that the largess of Planescape fans will be happy rather than insulted (after all, PS -did- spawn one of the most acclaimed CRPGs ever made).

The current direction of D&D is what is best for the rule set.  There's no logic in making it what is best for older generation gamers.  We will die before the next generation does.  Many of us have an increasing number of distractions (college, kids, and mortgages), which younger persons usually lack.  There's also a heck of a lot more youngsters than adults that are willing to try a new game.  With Harry Potter, especially, there's a flipping bumper crop to get ahold of.

And who knows, maybe the increase in reading in the population will actually lead to a situation that we self-proclaimed intellectuals like, and we'll get what we want because, all of the sudden, it will actually be in demand.

Who knows.  But if you insist on this vision of me typing with one hand, well, just don't ask for my number, and you can draw pictures if it pleases ya.

In the mean time, I'll be happily adding to my own world for but the cost of paper, pencils, and computer power, rather than trying to jury-rig something that I can't even consider selling, that also costs me twenty or thirty bucks a pop.


----------



## Laslo Tremaine (Aug 8, 2004)

Well, since we seem to be moderator free for the time being, I'm gonna de-lurk and ask you guys to tone things down a bit.

Nisarg, please refrain from insisting that the only people who like Eberron are 14 year old power-gamers.  I think enough people have shown that the setting can appeal to all age categories and game styles.

jasamcarl, please try to respond to people's arguments without resorting to name-calling.

One of the main things that I like about the ENboards is the level of polite and well reasoned discourse.  Let's try to keep it that way, please.


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 8, 2004)

Laslo Tremaine said:
			
		

> Nisarg, please refrain from insisting that the only people who like Eberron are 14 year old power-gamers.  I think enough people have shown that the setting can appeal to all age categories and game styles.
> .




I didn't say that. I said that Eberron will particularly appeal to 14 year olds and power gamers (one need not be one to be the other, obviously).

Certainly, it will also appeal to other people; I just think that WoTC (perhaps wisely) had those two demographics especially in mind when they designed Eberron, because the fourteen year olds are a demographic they desperately need, and the powergamers are a demographic that tends to spend well and is well represented.

But certainly I could see a lot of potential settings you could play with Eberron.  I'm not mispeaking there: because what I can't see is someone playing ALL of what Eberron claims to be at the same time; is it "medieval fantasy"? Is it edwardian post-WWI angst? Is it pulp heros? swashbuckling? Magic as ultratech? It can't be all at once.

Nisarg


----------



## Ranes (Aug 8, 2004)

Eberron is what it is and what it is is whatever the beholder sees in it. It can indeed be medieval, steampunk, pulp fantasy, all the same time.

Who wants to be an intellectual? To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, an intellectual is someone who has been educated beyond his capacity to understand.

I'm autodidactic, me.


----------



## s/LaSH (Aug 8, 2004)

Going back a ways:



			
				Belegbeth said:
			
		

> What precisely is your point here?
> 
> (This might be a vice of my profession as an analytic philosopher, but if I cannot restate any paragraph as a single proposition with a truth-value, I am hopelessly lost.)




Apparently my habit of nesting parentheses (such as I'm demonstrating here in a fashion that doesn't break the host sentence but nevertheless breaks the reader's attention) and going in internal tangents is confusing. Mea culpea. I'm actually saying:

_Combining a modern cultural sensibility, with the rigid world-definition necessary to build a believable virtual world, will result in a world that is (potentially) diverse, interesting, and believable, even when you're not in that virtual world. Other worlds where the virtual was dictated rather than designed may work, but they are not as good._

Sorry, I had to throw in a nestparen there.



Upon doing more reading at Gamespy, I'm sensing that my initial instincts were right: D&D Online is all about defining its own corner of a world, and nobody involved (at Turbine or Wizards) thought they could do justice to any of the older worlds - they were too well-defined, in ways that didn't mesh with their game's underlying mechanics. Eberron was very good for them in that regard.


----------



## JoAT (Aug 8, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> I didn't say that. I said that Eberron will particularly appeal to 14 year olds and power gamers (one need not be one to be the other, obviously).
> 
> Certainly, it will also appeal to other people; I just think that WoTC (perhaps wisely) had those two demographics especially in mind when they designed Eberron, because the fourteen year olds are a demographic they desperately need, and the powergamers are a demographic that tends to spend well and is well represented.
> 
> ...




Well, yes, it can be all of those - aside from "Magic as ultratech", since the whole magic as ultratech is about as prevalent as it would be in any other D&D setting - it's closer to magic as... well, it's common magic.  Magic that's used.  Pulp heroes and swashbuckling are pretty much the same thing, and both tie well into medival fantasy, and the post-WWI angst... well, it's not really angst here - the whole noir genre isn't about angst, but about shades of grey.  So, can someone play a game where magic is common-place and used logically, hereoes tend to be larger-than-life, the world isn't painted in black and white, and is still fairly medival, culturally and techologically?  I'd say the answer is yes.

As a side note, your above statement about it not being just for 14 year old power gamers seems to be saying that ic can be for anyone of three groups - 14 year olds, power gamers or 14 year old powergamers.  You sure that there's no-one else it'll appeal to?  (though, to be frank, I really don't see how the whole power-gamer thing even works, given that most things which can be abused have some fairly serious limitations on them, like an inablity to be healed, or the ability to only be at an increased power level for maybe 4 rounds, 3 times a day...)


----------



## Staffan (Aug 8, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> 1) Dragonmarks aren't particularly powerful, especially when they come at the cost of a feat. You seem so lazy on the powergamer point that you paint all new mechanics with a broad brush. The greater mark of creation might be a problem, but otherwise their use is either solely in utility or, in combat, comes at the expense of using much more potent class abilities.



There are some interesting things that come with the dragonmarks, though. The Mark of Passage can add some mobility to a character who wants it. The Mark of Detection can give you free _identifies_, which is neat at low level. The Mark of Sentinel can get you _mage armor_, making it attractive for monks.

But I wouldn't call any of those things "broken". They're cool, they give you a tie to the game world (I'd LOVE it if the party fighter decided to go for the Mark of Warding over Power Attack), but they aren't overly powerful.


----------



## ssampier (Aug 8, 2004)

reanjr said:
			
		

> To create synergy while minimizing R&D costs and grant an opportunity to create an additional flagship franchise.
> 
> I imagine that's about how it was said to the people at Hasbro.





  I have NO idea what you just said.


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 8, 2004)

JoAT said:
			
		

> Well, yes, it can be all of those - aside from "Magic as ultratech", since the whole magic as ultratech is about as prevalent as it would be in any other D&D setting - it's closer to magic as... well, it's common magic.  Magic that's used.  Pulp heroes and swashbuckling are pretty much the same thing, and both tie well into medival fantasy, and the post-WWI angst... well, it's not really angst here - the whole noir genre isn't about angst, but about shades of grey.  So, can someone play a game where magic is common-place and used logically, hereoes tend to be larger-than-life, the world isn't painted in black and white, and is still fairly medival, culturally and techologically?  I'd say the answer is yes.




Well, I would say it cannot be all of those things. And certainly not at once.
Swashbuckling is a product of the late renaissance, its atmosphere is very different than either the grim and grittiness of a low medieval or the arthurian nobility of a high medieval setting.
While there is some overlap between swashbuckling and pulp heroes, there is also a strong difference between the two. Pulp heros tends to be about two-fisted action, "wierd tales", etc. lacking almost all of the finesse and charm of swashbuckling in the classice sense.
By "WWI angst" I didn't mean "angst" in the White Wolf sense, just the kind of nihilism and uncertainty, and the sense of the end of conficdence in institutionality, gods, and absolutisms that you saw in our culture after the great war. This especially is COMPLETELY opposite to medievalism, which is all about ABSOLUTE faith in the institutions of God and King, and a completely defined world view.  You cannot be doing something that requires renaissance culture ("swashbuckling") in a medieval world. You cannot be doing something that requires the birth of post-modernism (post-WWI noir) in a renaissance or a medieval world.

What I am saying is that Eberron's terrible mistake was trying to be too much.  If it wanted to be Swashbuckling, it should have had an early modern culture, not still be stuck in the barbarism of the middle ages.  If it wanted to be Edwardian, then go all out with the magic-as-tech and create a basically modern industrial culture (which doesn't mean the kingdoms would have to act like 20th century america, or victorian england, they just COULDN'T be "medieval").

Instead, Eberron tried to be all three, and succeeds in being none.



> As a side note, your above statement about it not being just for 14 year old power gamers seems to be saying that ic can be for anyone of three groups - 14 year olds, power gamers or 14 year old powergamers.  You sure that there's no-one else it'll appeal to?




No, I wasn't saying that. I did say that I could see how this would appeal to other people. People who aren't 14 or powergamers. One group I know it won't appeal to are people who like their setting's social structure to make sense, which is a shame because that was one of the things people kept saying was going to be Eberron's great strengths, and thus something I was hopeful about.
Instead, "making sense" gets defined as meaning "they use magic as technology".  Well, yes, which would seem to create a believable world if you know NOTHING about humanities. But by creating a world of magic=tech without creating a non-medieval world, they have AUTOMATICALLY created a world which makes no cultural/historical sense.

Eberron cannot be medieval and make sense.

Nisarg


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Aug 8, 2004)

How do people make all these comments about what Eberron is and what it isn't when the setting has only been out for, what, a few months? Just b/c the setting doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it makes absolute sense to others.

AFAIK, there is not true medieval RPG b/c no one would want to play a RPG based on the daily drudgery of living in medieval Europe. Once you add any element of fantasy, it's not medieval anymore. I can't believe people are upset the Eberron isn't medieval enough. What is? Greyhawk? Forgotten Realms? Puh-lease. Sounds like Eberron isn't what some people wanted and, to justify their belief that it isn't good, they slag it on the boards. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Pretty simple...


----------



## shock the monkey (Aug 8, 2004)

I've only read a couple pages of this thread but I wanted to chime in with a thought or two. The way I see it, even if FR and Greyhawk are both phased out, it will be Greyhawk that endures, but not because it is the better setting. Fans of the Gygax setting have had to watch their favorite setting get shunted aside for more than fifteen years and have developed the die-hard, underground instinct needed to keep their setting alive. By contrast, FR has enjoyed so much attention that its fans would reel in disbelief for some time before ressurrecting the setting. Greyhawk has its loyal adherents in the right places to keep things healthy for some time. If the FR sourcebooks taper off, who knows where fans will go for support.

my 2 coppers


----------



## Incenjucar (Aug 8, 2004)

Nisarg is merely saying that, while Eberron is open to all people, and that any sector could, potentially, find enjoyment in it, it is particularly likely to do so for a certain sector.  It's like My Little Pony; it's made for kids, but there's a creepy number of adults that make it their main form of entertainment (I kid you not, I used to know one, and she once showed me an ebay listing where someone's selling a bunch of MLP heads, because people like to mix and match).  Video games work the same way; Planescape: Torment was primarily for (people who thought supernatural angst or the planes were cool for an RPG (or something like that, I enjoyed it, either way), but it also worked for people with twisted senses of humor, people who like wordy games, and people who like to beat the snot out of things.  It worked well for teenagers and adults alike, but it was primarily for older teens, rather than grandpas or 13 year olds.

Heck, look at the demographics for Poke`mon.  There's no shame in being affiliated with something designed for a different demographic, so relax already.

--

Eberron isn't ultra tech, it's more like FF7, where they use magic (or mako) as an energy source for tech rather than steam, combusttion, and electricity, albeit primarily via trapping elementals.  Did I mention that Eberron is on a fast route to being absorbed by Ravenloft since they even shove elementals in to their weapons and armor?

--

If you have an issue with intellectuals, well, you have an issue.

Heaven forbid someone enjoy reading big words.

Wilde was speaking more about people who use intellectualism as some sort of badge of prestige.  The average intellectual is just a normal person who considers thinking a form of entertainment.  If that's somehow less valid than someone who likes to throw a football or roll dice for entertainment, then I guess we all just suck.


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 8, 2004)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> How do people make all these comments about what Eberron is and what it isn't when the setting has only been out for, what, a few months? Just b/c the setting doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it makes absolute sense to others.
> 
> AFAIK, there is not true medieval RPG b/c no one would want to play a RPG based on the daily drudgery of living in medieval Europe. Once you add any element of fantasy, it's not medieval anymore. I can't believe people are upset the Eberron isn't medieval enough. What is? Greyhawk? Forgotten Realms? Puh-lease. Sounds like Eberron isn't what some people wanted and, to justify their belief that it isn't good, they slag it on the boards. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Pretty simple...





The spanish RPG Aquelarre is authentically medieval. You are most likely to die from the black death in that game than from any other source.

I'm not saying Eberron should not be played in lieu of medieval europe. What I am saying is that it should CLAIM to be two or more things it can't possibly be at the same time.  At least not make such claims with the hope that it'll get things right. 

Anyways, to me the whole feel of Eberron is that its way too pre-fab, designed to meet as many target markets as possible. Probably wise for WoTC, probably, unless it fails to satisfy the more important of those demographics due to this identity crisis it has, in which case it'll flop.  I honestly hope it doesn't, but either way I won't be likely to ever play it myself.

Nisarg


----------



## JoAT (Aug 8, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> Well, I would say it cannot be all of those things. And certainly not at once.
> Swashbuckling is a product of the late renaissance, its atmosphere is very different than either the grim and grittiness of a low medieval or the arthurian nobility of a high medieval setting.
> While there is some overlap between swashbuckling and pulp heroes, there is also a strong difference between the two. Pulp heros tends to be about two-fisted action, "wierd tales", etc. lacking almost all of the finesse and charm of swashbuckling in the classice sense.
> By "WWI angst" I didn't mean "angst" in the White Wolf sense, just the kind of nihilism and uncertainty, and the sense of the end of conficdence in institutionality, gods, and absolutisms that you saw in our culture after the great war. This especially is COMPLETELY opposite to medievalism, which is all about ABSOLUTE faith in the institutions of God and King, and a completely defined world view.  You cannot be doing something that requires renaissance culture ("swashbuckling") in a medieval world. You cannot be doing something that requires the birth of post-modernism (post-WWI noir) in a renaissance or a medieval world.
> ...




I, on the other hand, would contend that it can be all of the above.  Just not as strongly as you seem to be stateing the various genere fragments.

Swashbuckling may have been a product of the renaissance, but there's nothing that limits the tone of a swashbuckling adventure to being merely a late renaissance - it has more to do with a certain tone than with the setting.  And that tone means that you have heroes who are flambyoant, flippant, and skilled - a swashbuckling hero has a small measure of invulnerability because they are capable of dealing with many lesser foes with ease and of performing outragous stunts - the villians are similar each one being, in essence an outragous stereotype, a ham, even.  This, more than anything, makes swashbuckling, and is why you can have a swashbuckling adventure anywhere, in any time period.

Pulp, on the other hand, is often about two-fist action, weird tales, ect - but! There is quite often a swashbuckling undertone.  Characters are larger than life, just as with the swashbuckler.  They are well-round, well educated, and quite often, are much better than your nomral person, and capable of amazing things.  Psudeo-science abounds, and so do delightfully stereotyped villians, characters who fall almost directly into one of a select amount of molds.  Though it's rarely been applied before, pulp too, can take place in any time-frame, as a genre description.

The medival atmosphere... I really don't see where the grim, grittiness even comes in - low fantasy is quite obviously not what Eberron is about, most of the time.  High fantasy...  Or, rather, high medevil... well, yes.  An Arthurian fantasy contains many tales of brave men (and women, since D&D is, of course, not sexist these days..) risking life and limb to save beatufil damsels (or.. well, you know..), with the heroes being... witty, charming and skilled.  To be quite honest, the whole thing seems to be alot like the pulp heroes and the swashbuckling ones.  One of the reasons, then, that these can all be used together is that, in essence, they are the same - the important aspects of these settings are all incredibally similar.  The horses, the rapiers, the space-ships, the guns, the armor... these are, for the most part, window-dressing.  The high adventure and the characters, the important things are all largely the same.  And these trappings, those of swashbuckling and the medival times are both available to each and every PC and enemy.

The nihlism and uncertainty... well, for the most part, there is no nihism.  UNcertainty abounds, but after reading through the book, I found that there was a sense of hope more than anything - the game can't be anything it isn;t, after all, so I'm going to leave the sense of nihlism out of it.  But the uncertainty...  This is relfected in the setting, it's there, and it's something that's fairly easy to work into.  The culture is evolving and changing - the one, invincable emprie in which everyone held their faith in has crumbled, and has been replaced by... warring kingdom-states which have so recently made their peace with each other.  The future is being looked towards, but with a sense of aprehension.  The fact that alignments have been strechted to include the mildly good and kinda evil helps this out - alignment can still be protected, but there's no way to tell the diffrenece between someone who kills and trotures people, and someone who just glowers at them sourly when they shop in his store, wishing them ill.

What we have, then at this point, is fundamentally a setting with bigger than life heroes who are better than most of the people around them, gurranteed to be able to go on adventures of all sorts, in a setting which includes a modicum of uncertainty.  It can most certainly be all of this.

And, by the way, medival means diffrent things to diffrent people.  In your case, I have this feeling that it's a Divine Right of Kings, old middle ages Europe - on the other hand I tend to see the trappings of a medival society, the time frame, or the society (in terms of there being a king, commoners and people who sell things...) In the sense of Divine Right of kings...  That ended roughly 100 years ago.  The trappings are still there, but things are changeing - one of the kingdoms is trying to push a democracy, and such-like.



> No, I wasn't saying that. I did say that I could see how this would appeal to other people. People who aren't 14 or powergamers. One group I know it won't appeal to are people who like their setting's social structure to make sense, which is a shame because that was one of the things people kept saying was going to be Eberron's great strengths, and thus something I was hopeful about.
> Instead, "making sense" gets defined as meaning "they use magic as technology".  Well, yes, which would seem to create a believable world if you know NOTHING about humanities. But by creating a world of magic=tech without creating a non-medieval world, they have AUTOMATICALLY created a world which makes no cultural/historical sense.
> 
> Eberron cannot be medieval and make sense.
> ...



 It is good to see that you're not assuming that it's 14 year old power gamers - I didn't think so, but, well, the way you were talking about the setting, the comparisons that you were drawing, the tone you've been using and the way you were talking about those it would attract... It is better to come out and say these things rather than let the fans feel insulted, isn't it?

Now, the thing is, the social structure does make sense - Eberron is thought out quite well - this is part of the apeal, to me.  the magic is NOT used as technology - it is not in the hands of the common people, nor can it ever be.  Magic is a tool of the elite, and will always be so - aside from in major cities, it is actually quite rare, though not rare enough to keep there from being someone who can use magic being in most areas.  The entire setting is designed around the fact that the magic in 3e is being used logically - that the setting evolved with all of these things existing (or comeing into existance as time went along).  It works.  And, as a side note, why does technology not make sense with the trappings of a medival culture?  I see you proclaiming this (and a great deal many other things), but I don't see any actual backup to your ideas an opinions, and am quite curious as to why this would be so - the oppportunity to be educated is always a good thing, so please enlighten us.


----------



## JoAT (Aug 8, 2004)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Eberron isn't ultra tech, it's more like FF7, where they use magic (or mako) as an energy source for tech rather than steam, combusttion, and electricity, albeit primarily via trapping elementals.  Did I mention that Eberron is on a fast route to being absorbed by Ravenloft since they even shove elementals in to their weapons and armor?




Nah, more like FF6(3), where magic is still being used as an energy source (well, for the evil emprie, anyways), but at the same time has the same basic medival trappings.  Though, I'd say that magic powering technology is closer to Iron Kingdoms - Eberron is really weird, where it's magic powering magic... (And yes, even though that sounds like I'm being snarky, I really do find that weird...  Magic normally is either used or not, or if it's powering something, it's technomacy - magic rarely is used to power other magic...)


----------



## Kesh (Aug 8, 2004)

Nisarg is a known troll on RPGnet. That's all I'll say on that topic.


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 8, 2004)

JoAT said:
			
		

> And, as a side note, why does technology not make sense with the trappings of a medival culture?  I see you proclaiming this (and a great deal many other things), but I don't see any actual backup to your ideas an opinions, and am quite curious as to why this would be so - the oppportunity to be educated is always a good thing, so please enlighten us.




Neither modern (or quasi-modern) technology nor the post WWI-intellectual environment can exist in a medieval setting. 

The former because the intellectual development of industrial technology (be it magical or otherwise) requires an intellectual environment that demands a renaissance. Industrialization itself would CHANGE the medieval society's cultural paradigm.

Likewise, the post WWI-intellectual environment led to the creation of relativist thought, something that is the exact opposite and totally anathema to the medieval absolutist intellectual environment.

Nisarg


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 8, 2004)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Nisarg is a known troll on RPGnet. That's all I'll say on that topic.




No, some people have accused me of being that. They've also accused me of being a mindless D20 and WotC-fanboy who'll buy anything they are selling, but that's obviously bull isn't it?

So you may want to think next time before you engage in personal attacks. Consider yourself reported.

Nisarg


----------



## mattcolville (Aug 8, 2004)

DarkCrisis said:
			
		

> I admit I never really cared for it.  I had my Forgotten Realms and my Dragonlance and wa content.
> 
> I then recently heard that thier is a new D&D MMORPG coming out and it's set in Eberron.  What?  Why?  Greyhawk and Faerun have dedicated fans and tons of history that legions of fans are familiar with, so why the new kid on the block.  I was gonna play it but not now... be playing EQ2 anyways =D
> 
> ...




The setting search and everything that's followed was an attempt to engineer the kind of success TSR had with FR and Dragonlance.


----------



## Jakar (Aug 8, 2004)

I think it comes down to, if you like it you like it, if you don't you don't.  I like it myself.  It is fresh and looks to be better than both FR and GH, which have become stale, IMO.

I plane to start a game set in Eberron soon.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 8, 2004)

Jakar said:
			
		

> I think it comes down to, if you like it you like it, if you don't you don't.  I like it myself.  It is fresh and looks to be better than both FR and GH, which have become stale, IMO.
> 
> I plane to start a game set in Eberron soon.



Let's just say, "To each his or her own."

Perhaps _Eberron_ is more preferable to you as _Forgotten Realms_ is more preferable to me.

Granted, resistance is futile when it comes to every fresh, new things (e.g., Debbie Gibson, which is replaced by Britney Spears, which is replaced by Avril Lavigne), but that doesn't mean I will assimilate it.


----------



## Jakar (Aug 8, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Let's just say, "To each his or her own."
> 
> Perhaps _Eberron_ is more preferable to you as _Forgotten Realms_ is more preferable to me.
> 
> Granted, resistance is futile when it comes to every fresh, new things (e.g., Debbie Gibson, which is replaced by Britney Spears, which is replaced by Avril Lavigne), but that doesn't mean I will assimilate it.




That is what I was trying to say Ranger, but it is way to early here in Oz and I am not awake yet.  LoL

By fresh I meant that there is a lot more possability in it atm than the FR or GH.  Every man and his dog has not had a product made about them yet.

FR, to me at least, has become stale.  I still enjoy our weekly games set in the great white North, but everybody knows what is around the next corner.


----------



## Laslo Tremaine (Aug 8, 2004)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Nisarg is a known troll on RPGnet. That's all I'll say on that topic.




I had pretty much gathered as much.  His style certainly seems to reflect that of the RPGnet boards...


----------



## JoAT (Aug 8, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> Neither modern (or quasi-modern) technology nor the post WWI-intellectual environment can exist in a medieval setting.
> 
> The former because the intellectual development of industrial technology (be it magical or otherwise) requires an intellectual environment that demands a renaissance. Industrialization itself would CHANGE the medieval society's cultural paradigm.
> 
> ...




The problem here, however, is that this requires that the setting be a direct paralell to earth.  We can't say that the development required to create this technology (or more specifically magic as technology) is actually required, since it's not earth, and, in fact, is a fairly big departure from earth.  Besides, the industriaization that you're talking about doesn't exist, and the development is strictly in the hands of those who are the elite, and already outside the monarchist system.

The medieval mentality doesn't actually exist, in just about any FRPG that I've ever seen - fantasy, as a general rule, does not deviate from what we know as reality enough to require that we all completly shift mindsets.  If it's not medieval, I would venture to say that its 'medieval enough' - it's enough to have fun in, enough to work as a society, and enough to make sense under it's own rules.  The whole Divine Right of Kings shift, and the other medieval-type traditions, in that fashion, I'd argue as being impossible under D&D rules altogether (or at least not makeing a great deal of sense) the medieval trappings, which, in many cases are what people refer to when they say medieval (kings, swords, knights, ect), are entirely possible.  The medieval mindset is... improbable...

And I've just realized that this is fairly pointless... Errr...  I mean a debate as to whether or not this is possible, when the whole thing really comes down to a game, and what a person's own, personal definition of what medieval is.  Hell, technically, medieval is a time period, or at least everything relating directly to that time period, and seeing as how I'm opperating off of a basic high school academic education here, one that you probably know more about then I do.


----------



## halomachine (Aug 8, 2004)

Its simple......the WotC setting search was for a setting they could use for RPGs, Videeo games, novels, etc.....it was MEANT from before it was Eberron to be a cross-media setting.


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 9, 2004)

It should be pointed out that until Final Fantasy VI, there were little to no technological elements in Final Fantasy...they were primarily classic pseudo-medieval fantasy settings.  The introduction of them came in VI, which I think was supposed to take place in the same world as one of the previous installments, and act as sort of a 'updating' of the setting, letting players explore previous countries in the game, now changed from hundreds of years of development.

 Final Fantasy VII, which was the first really huge game of the FF line (being one of the Playstation's killer apps, and having a successful PC incarnation), is the one most folks think of today as 'final fantasy', although many older players balk at that assertion, some considering it to be one of the weakest...or 'the game when eveyrthing started to go wrong'.  Both VII and VIII were really sci-fi games, with tradtional console RPG elements, and not really fantasy, at all.  One only needs to watch a few minutes of the Final Fantasy movie, Spirits Within, to see that being set in a fantasy world is not the core requirement for FF, any longer.  The game mechanics are the core, and the setting has become more and more diverse.  FF 9 was a return to a more traditional fantasy idea, but still holding some 'steam-punk' elements (such as ornate and unworkable flying ships, odd non-ergonomic subways, and so forth).  It also had the classic 'ancient society who left their technology behind' trope, which runs through many installments of the FF series.   FF X, X-2 (the only direct sequel ever made in the FF Line) are also in more of a sci-fi setting...but one that accepts that magic is a workable, powerful force.

 Really, the only binding force in Final Fantasy is that magic is a usable force.  Over time, other trends have emerged, such as being able to summon powerful beings during combat, the 'Gaea/World life force' concept and angst.  Lots of Angst. 

 The assertion that FF only appeals to 14 year-olds (carrying the thinly-vieled insult against 14 year-olds) is, of course, also inaccurate.  The lion's share of sales went to 18-34 year olds, and RPGs tend to skew well across gender lines, having a much better record with female gamers than, say, sports or fighting games.   Take a look at how successful Kingdom Hearts was, for example.

 And, as JoAT points out above, gamers don't want accurate medieval historical recreation: they want adventure.  They want an environment that sets up chances to kill monsters and take their loot.  Eberron does this extremely well, for my money. 

 As a setting, it does exactly what WotC wanted it to do: 


Advertises the D&D brand   
Provides a clean point of entry for new and old gamers (no lengthy back catalog, no huge established canon)   
Generates demand for new published works (setting detail books, modules, player options, gazeeters, organization books, etc.)   
Creates a framework for D&D licensed works (MMORPG, board game, video games, novels, movies, franchise opportunities)   
Offers a setting that is generic enough to accomdate a wide variety of play styles and tastes   
Gives WotC a setting that is purely developed under the third edition, fully under the current 3.5 rules, without legacy problems, rules quirks or retcons (and no fragmentation of the setting's fan-base, such as the Greyhawk Wars)   
Licenses and agreements that are made with respect to the publishing realities of today, with right's cleanly established in all materials (no web ambiguities or CD-rom collection legal problems, rights to video games, novels, movies and other materials clearly established with authors from day one) 
 Why is WotC pushing Eberron?  Because it makes the most financial sense for WotC to do so.  And that's why they're still in business.


----------



## herald (Aug 9, 2004)

Belegbeth said:
			
		

> The fact that the world was designed to appeal to "Johnny Playstation" (by resembling Final Fantasy) and support a MMORPG are two pretty damning criticisms of Eberron...
> 
> These features alone demonstrate why it will not appeal to many traditional fantasy enthusiasts.
> 
> But as a gimmick to attract new gamers? Sure, the kids will love it.



I've re-read this statement 5 time and I'm trying to se your point. Do you have anything to backup your point?


----------



## herald (Aug 9, 2004)

JoAT said:
			
		

> I, on the other hand, would contend that it can be all of the above. Just not as strongly as you seem to be stateing the various genere fragments.
> 
> Swashbuckling may have been a product of the renaissance, but there's nothing that limits the tone of a swashbuckling adventure to being merely a late renaissance - it has more to do with a certain tone than with the setting. And that tone means that you have heroes who are flambyoant, flippant, and skilled - a swashbuckling hero has a small measure of invulnerability because they are capable of dealing with many lesser foes with ease and of performing outragous stunts - the villians are similar each one being, in essence an outragous stereotype, a ham, even. This, more than anything, makes swashbuckling, and is why you can have a swashbuckling adventure anywhere, in any time period.
> 
> ...



Sorry, I have to go with Nisarg on this one. Saddly the Renassance is highly overlooked as a source of campaigns and should be reconsidered (Swashbuckling Adventures, anyone) as a viable setting.


----------



## Henry (Aug 9, 2004)

Ladies and Gentlemen, let's please do away with the personal attacks on one another. The thread was going along pretty well with good, yet heated, debate, and I'd like to see it continue. If it can't, then it won't continue.


----------



## Henry (Aug 9, 2004)

As for Eberron preference,



> Let's just say, "To each his or her own."
> Perhaps Eberron is more preferable to you as Forgotten Realms is more preferable to me.




That's really the bottom line in this. With all the supposition from several posters of, "Oh, the kiddies will just love this Final-Fantasy-esque setting," It's a little single-minded view of the appeal to the setting. The setting is a little more complicated than an anime designed for a 5-year-old, which a lot of people insinuated earlier this year. But no one's demanding that it be embraced by the entire D&D audience.

I also see occasional worries and fears about FR being cancelled or at least shoved to the back-burner. I take a more optimistic view even on this; even if Forgotten Realms WERE discontinued, perish the thought, there has been so much material released on that setting that people could game there for 40 years without running out of new adventures, new places to visit, or new concepts to inject. 

My group and I were just discussing which alternate setting to run in off-weeks (my DM is running a good game right now, and we're talking about an alternate setting for me to run so that we don't burn out of either one) and I had a hard choice between my existing Forgotten Realms game and a new Eberron campaign. I settled on an Eberron game because (A) I wanted to try it out, and (B) I wanted to try a different genre, and for our group using (1) the 3.5 rules, (2) the Expanded Psionics Handbook, and (3) a pulp-style game are all brand-new to us. It was an excellent opportunity to engage in something that was D&D, yet was TOTALLY on new ground. Eberron offers us the Exploration and Combat-heavy scenarios that some of us love, the Political intrigue that others of us love with the nations and houses, and the pulp-adventure idea which will be new to each of us. Accentuating the shady morals, the world-spanning, the integration of magic into everyday life, will be something we've never really done before.


----------



## shock the monkey (Aug 9, 2004)

Before it was released I was concerned about the dinosaurs, trains, and robots... er, I mean, war-forged.

Now that it has been released, I find my suspicions were correct. In my humble opinion, I think Wizards could have done a lot better.


----------



## hong (Aug 9, 2004)

Laslo Tremaine said:
			
		

> I had pretty much gathered as much.  His style certainly seems to reflect that of the RPGnet boards...



 Excuse me. ***I*** post on the RPGnet boards.

Ahem.


----------



## Henry (Aug 9, 2004)

Actually, I do, too, but that's neither here nor there; It's not there, and it certainly doesn't need to be here, and it isn't, unless it is, in which case it shouldn't, IYKWIM,AITYD.

Carrying onward, shall we?


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 9, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> Neither modern (or quasi-modern) technology nor the post WWI-intellectual environment can exist in a medieval setting.
> 
> The former because the intellectual development of industrial technology (be it magical or otherwise) requires an intellectual environment that demands a renaissance. Industrialization itself would CHANGE the medieval society's cultural paradigm.
> 
> Likewise, the post WWI-intellectual environment led to the creation of relativist thought, something that is the exact opposite and totally anathema to the medieval absolutist intellectual environment.



Because, of course, intellectual and social change can only occur on the rigid schedule exemplified by Western Europe and North America.

Bollocks.

And even if we gave you that, and all social and intellectual changes were required to occur in a specific order, (independent of the presence or absence of such reality-altering concepts as guys who can fling fireballs, control your mind, and summon living embodiments of Good, Evil, Fire, etc.) then there's still the issue of transition periods.

But those don't happen.  Overnight, the entire world became overrun by "relativist thought."  And of course, no one in the world still exists in an absolutist intellectual environment.

All of these things can and did (do) coexist in the real world.  I see no reason to assume they cannot in a fantasy world with an entirely different history, social structure, and even physics.


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 9, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> Actually, I do, too, but that's neither here nor there; It's not there, and it certainly doesn't need to be here, and it isn't, unless it is, in which case it shouldn't, IYKWIM,AITYD.



 I...
 I....


 Oooh.  My head hurts now.


 [Saizho.]


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 9, 2004)

*re*

I'm pretty displeased they didn't choose either _Greyhawk_ or _Forgotten Realms_ for the MMORPG, but I'm actually happy they are pushing a new setting.

As a FR's fan, I have everything I will probably ever need to make an interesting FR campaign. There is so much material already written about the FR whether a campaign book or novel, that the world has gone stale.

If the FR drops off the radar, it will make it easier to do what you want with it. Sure, you can do that anyway. I still feel the need to keep up with official material so as to keep setting continuity. If it drops off the market, then setting continuity is then left up to the individual DM's. I like that. That was one of the nice things about the original Greyhawk, you weren't inundated with material that made your own version of the world seem somehow lacking continuity.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 9, 2004)

Missed your comments the other day somehow...



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> That depends on your homebrew world - maybe people can`t have a wild chase through and above a lightning rail (or any other raillike vehicle) in your world?



I fail to see how the the trivial details are relevant.  I can have a wild chase on the backs of rampaging slaver caravan triceratops teams or runaway mine carts or any of an unlimited number of other options.

Also, lightning rail is the one thing pro-Eberron people point to every time "what's new" comes up.  but if you mention magi-tech and the pro-Eberron people start talking about how insignificant the lightning rail is.....



> But I think there is little point to compare Eberron to your homebrew world - you created the world to do exactly the things you like, and you spent a lot of time to do so (I guess). Though you are both biased towards your own setting, but the setting is probably better to you anyway - it suits your needs. A official setting will probably never give you that. But remember, there are many gamers out there who might just start into D&D, and lack the experience to create new worlds. And then there are gamers who simply lack the time to do so.
> So, they only question remaining is: Why not Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms?




Ah.  But I am NOT comparing anything to my homebrew.  I am comparing Eberron to FR.  

FR = useful TO my homebrew and therefore good.

Eberron = NOT useful TO my homebrew and therefore NOT good.




> That`s something I like for a world, if I want to use it. Especially if all of this knowledge is contained in a single book.
> Forgotten Realms is a big setting with a rich history and thousands of details. I could never create my own adventures there, because I would always see the risk of breaking continuity with older books or adventures. I know, I could do it and just say: "This is my FR". But I have two players in my group that are ten years older than me, and they probably know a lot about FR. If they suddenly can`t trust their own memories of the setting, it becomes incredibly difficult.
> With Eberron, I can take the book, and have all the information I need. At least for now - maybe this is wrong in 2, 5 or 10 years. But unlike with FR, I will be grown up with it.
> 
> (These things aside: I will probably not master in Eberron. And I am happy with it, because I prefer playing in it. I already have the burden to master a Diamond Throne / Arcana Unearthed campaign I would prefer playing in  )




Again, I don't play in FR, I just buy its products because they are valuable to the game world I DO play in.



> Well, he is telling what his setting makes swashbuckling action - not what you might be able to do in other settings. But see it from this point of view:
> If you`re a new gamer, you probably don`t have the Unearthed Arcana book (why should you need variant rules if you aren`t familar with the standard rules?)




I think you are being overly charitable.  He is saying that these are things that Eberron brings to the table.

Bunk.



> But the final reason for Wizards of the Coast pushing Eberron so hard:
> They have invested some money into it. They want to be sure to get it (and much more) back. They already have a strong book line with Forgotten Realms and their Complete xyz handbooks. They are not pushing only one thing. This might be a danger, if they saturate the market. But so far, it seems not to happen. We´ll see it in a few years...
> 
> 
> ...



Of course,  I have no problem with any of that.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 9, 2004)

I've not repeated replies that I put in my post to Mustrum_Ridcully



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Again, I've never once felt that the book was telling me what I could or couldn't do, unless the book saying "Most orc tribes live in these locations" is a limiting factor. I don't find it to be such.




Obviously it is a limiting factor, by its very defintion.  However, I would not claim that petty things like that are the issue.  Though when you start adding in gnolls, drow, giants, etc.... ,  etc...., etc... it starts to add up.

But the entire world is built to focus on the political dynamics and anything that would tend to take pressure off the cold war tension is pushed to the back.



> That's just the point, to me. If I buy a campaign setting, I want a campaign setting. Sure, I'll probably steal bits out of it and use them in my own homebrew as well, but I want the setting to stand as a world. The fact that FR doesn't is a failure on its part, IMO.
> 
> (To be fair, I don't attribute that failure to Greenwood. I attribute it to the fact that this single fantasy setting has had dozens if not hundreds of different creative directions and developers at one time or another.)
> 
> But a setting that doesn't hang together as a world isn't a setting, IMO. It's a toolkit. Toolkits are great, but not when you expect to be buying a setting.




I buy toolkits.  
I think a lot of other people do so as well.
If Eberron doesn't start being a toolkit, it may find a loss in sales.
FR may be a failure by your defintion of "good setting".  But it a great success by the definition of generating revenue into the gaming market for many years.



> Sounds like the best parts of real-world history/historical fiction to me.




Absolutely.  Of course great fiction tends to make for bloody awful gaming....


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 9, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> I'm pretty displeased they didn't choose either _Greyhawk_ or _Forgotten Realms_ for the MMORPG, but I'm actually happy they are pushing a new setting.



I giggled with relief.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 9, 2004)

Swashbuckling can't mix with "medievalism?"  Since when?  Haven't you ever seen Errol Flynn's _The Adventures of Robin Hood_?  Still the best take on the legend ever produced.

And as for demanding too strict a definition of medieval -- I think that's foolish.  Medievel in the D&D sense has long since been code for "we use swords and have kings" and little more than that.  It doesn't, and never has, tried to tie that to any type of historical society, culture or way of life.


----------



## Knight Otu (Aug 9, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Medievel in the D&D sense has long since been code for "we use swords and have kings" and little more than that.



http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=medieval

 I'm seeing 3 basic definitions:

 1) Relating or belonging to the Middle Ages. Doubtful that any non-historical setting will ever fulfill this one. 
 2) Old-fashioned or unenlightened. Some settings might be.
 3) Characteristic of the time of chivalry and knighthood in the Middle Ages. That sounds like a number of settings I know, including Eberron.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Aug 9, 2004)

*Eberron=non-toolkit approch*



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> FR = useful TO my homebrew and therefore good.
> 
> Eberron = NOT useful TO my homebrew and therefore NOT good.




One reason I like FR is that it dose take a toolkit approch to setting design. Still, it gets a little trite when the latest setting book details yet another sub-race of elves (Cosmic Ray Elves! Wee!), more regional feats, and more spells. 

Like you, I run homebrews. Currently I'm running 2 games, one homebrew set in a world where the inhabitants worship the Norse gods, and a new one set in Eberron. When I read Eberron, I realized that most of the new rules, spells, feats, and prestige classes were setting spicific and not teribly useful to my Norse campaign, but I really liked the setting. 

I think not taking the toolkit approch actually helps the setting. Consider:
1. Most of the new feats deal with new rules introduced to the setting, like action points, dragonmarks, and druidic orders. This gives the setting a sence of unity, that the rules really do help support the setting, rather than a setting that's being retrofitted to support the rules. 

2. All but one of the new prestiges classes are fewer than 10 levels. All the prestige classes add to the theme of the setting. 

3. We already have rules for rules stake books, the 3.0 X & Y books and the 3.5 Complete X books. WotC already has a setting that they promote as a toolkit useful for everyone. I've said it before and I'll say it again, WotC already has a campaign like Forgoten Realms, what they need is a campaign setting for people who don't use or buy FR books. 

I'm not too worried about Eberron's sales slowing because they don't offer a toolkit; I think that people buy Ebberron because it isn't a toolkit. Besides they're doing, what 1 book a quarter? Hardly a push that'll cause FR to be sidelined. 



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> lightning rail is the one thing pro-Eberron people point to every time "what's new" comes up. but if you mention magi-tech and the pro-Eberron people start talking about how insignificant the lightning rail is.....




As a pro-Eberron person, I just want to state, for the record, that I've never had a problem with magi-tech (except that I think it's a silly word, but that is neither here nor there  ) or any word similer to it. 

And common, do we really need to start divideing people into pro-Eberron, anit-Eberron people? What, next we have seperate water fountians?   (I'm sorry, I can't help myself, the whole concept of pro-Eberron people, magi-tech, and such makes me giggle.) It's a setting, some will like it some won't, some are netural, some will both like it and hate it.


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 9, 2004)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=medieval
> .
> 3) Characteristic of the time of chivalry and knighthood in the Middle Ages. That sounds like a number of settings I know, including Eberron.




Only as soon as you have magical tech, a nihilistic post-war culture, "pulp action", lightning rails, and armies of juggernauts fighting armies of undead, the whole idea of "chivalry and knighthood" surviving in such an environment requires such a huge leap of faith that you are bound to break every bone in your body in the attempt.

I would have been much more satisfied if Keith Baker and the boys at the WoTC boards had said "ok.. right, Eberron is NOT medieval, it couldn't possibly be and make any sense, but we aren't likely to lose any customers by not using that word meaninglessly, and instead just make Eberron theindustrial post-war relativist transitional world it HAS TO BE without feeling the need to put the m-word in there".

Nisarg


----------



## megamania (Aug 9, 2004)

Why is Eberron being pushed so hard?

My answer to this question is simple-  its new.

This game world has had more press because of its origins and creation than any other I know of or remember at least.

Its not worth fighting it.  Darksun has been OOP for seemily forever but I still play it and find new stories to do regularly.  FR and Greyhawk will never die.  There is just too much info out there for it to.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 9, 2004)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> One reason I like FR is that it dose take a toolkit approch to setting design. Still, it gets a little trite when the latest setting book details yet another sub-race of elves (Cosmic Ray Elves! Wee!), more regional feats, and more spells.



To be brutally honest, if I wanted a toolkit, I'd buy one those _D&D_ core products. I'd prefer something that is more setting-specific.

Which is probably why I am disappointed with _Serpent Kingdom._ I mean take away the _FR_ logos and related text, and you have Volume 2 of _Savage Species._

Although they later released the saurial material (opinion varies as to whether the material is 3.5e revised) as a free web enhancement, I'd still prefer it be in the book. Even though they are not indigenous to Toril, the saurial is one of _FR_ signature races, thanks to Dragonbait. I mean, that's like putting together a _DL_ dragon & lizardfolk book, but leave out the draconians.


----------



## deadboydex (Aug 9, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> Only as soon as you have magical tech, a nihilistic post-war culture, "pulp action", lightning rails, and armies of juggernauts fighting armies of undead, the whole idea of "chivalry and knighthood" surviving in such an environment requires such a huge leap of faith that you are bound to break every bone in your body in the attempt.
> 
> I would have been much more satisfied if Keith Baker and the boys at the WoTC boards had said "ok.. right, Eberron is NOT medieval, it couldn't possibly be and make any sense, but we aren't likely to lose any customers by not using that word meaninglessly, and instead just make Eberron theindustrial post-war relativist transitional world it HAS TO BE without feeling the need to put the m-word in there".




I think the only reason they used the word "medieval" is to emphasize that Eberron is not a setting where you can get +1 flintlocks. Yes there are knighthoods and monarchies in Eberron, but there are knighthoods and monarchies in the 21st century, too.

There are obvious parallels to be drawn between Eberron and Earth post-WWI, but there are other parallels that can be drawn to the Enlightenment and the Renaissance. One of the exciting things about Eberron is that it's a world on the brink of a lot of massive changes. It's a medieval world in many ways, but it won't stay that way for long. The Treaty of Thronehold is as much the Magna Carta as it is the Treaty of Versailles. The three remaining monarchies of Khorvaire are all unstable in one way or another -- the only reason they're still around is that there haven't been any revolutions...yet. Artificers, magewrights, the lightning rail, and warforged are all relatively recent developments, and where one development occurs, others follow shortly. Their (arcano-)industrial revolution hasn't happened yet, but it's on its way. In fact, the key phrase behind Eberron is "it hasn't happened yet". But it will. Eberron hasn't found its Cromwell, its Da Vinci or Galileo, its Martin Luther, Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson...but it will. That's what the PCs are there for.

This is one of the major appeal Eberron has for me. Many of the old TSR settings felt static to me, like the big stories had already been told and the PCs weren't included. Eberron is at the beginning of the story. Those thousands of years of history described in the book? That's the title crawl. That's over. Time for your story.


----------



## Hawkshere (Aug 9, 2004)

deadboydex said:
			
		

> Those thousands of years of history described in the book? That's the title crawl. That's over. Time for your story.



/applaud


----------



## Incenjucar (Aug 9, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> To be brutally honest, if I wanted a toolkit, I'd buy one those _D&D_ core products. I'd prefer something that is more setting-specific.
> 
> Which is probably why I am disappointed with _Serpent Kingdom._ I mean take away the _FR_ logos and related text, and you have Volume 2 of _Savage Species._
> 
> Although they later released the saurial material (opinion varies as to whether the material is 3.5e revised) as a free web enhancement, I'd still prefer it be in the book. Even though they are not indigenous to Toril, the saurial is one of _FR_ signature races, thanks to Dragonbait. I mean, that's like putting together a _DL_ dragon & lizardfolk book, but leave out the draconians.





I prefer to think of it as a "Serpinomicon", much like the 2e Draconomicon which was, in a technical sense, for FR, but applied easily to another setting.

As for the Saurials, that's just due to WotC's DVDism.  There always has to be some bloody director's cut out there so they can get you near their advertising, even if there's absolutely no reason to exclude it from the main product.


----------



## Tolen Mar (Aug 10, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> Only as soon as you have magical tech, a nihilistic post-war culture, "pulp action", lightning rails, and armies of juggernauts fighting armies of undead, the whole idea of "chivalry and knighthood" surviving in such an environment requires such a huge leap of faith that you are bound to break every bone in your body in the attempt.





Ok, so if a great war that involved all of the known kingdoms of the world just ended, if we have lighted hallways due to magi-tech, and a far-reaching fast method of travel...suddenly you cant have chivalry and knighthood?

Armies are Armies, BTW.  Take a look at the bigger picture here.  Saxon, Norman, Thayn, Zombie, Golem...an army is an army and has very little impact on whether its a midevil setting.  In fact, over the years armies have gotten smaller all the time (I mean in a battlefield sense, a few hundred highly trained fighters in tanks and machine guns where thousands swarmed with swords), so mass armies of undead and warforged really don't figure in that argument.

So it isnt medevil if we have lights...so what if the king in question has the money to hire lamplighters?  (Which incidentally is like Eberron.  Only the wealthy can afford much of it.)

I can teleport myself and companions as a wizard across the country, but if I ride a train, its not midevil?

These leaps of faith aren't that big.  They just take a little imagination.  Play the game, have fun.  If it isn't fun, find something else.  I don't expect you to suddenly change your mind simply because I like the setting.  But sometimes it does take a bit of willingness to stretch a little.


----------



## Henry (Aug 10, 2004)

I think people may be getting unnecessarily hung up on the descriptor "medieval" in reference to Eberron. "Medieval" to a lot of people means "Feudal", in reference to Kings and Nobility and Church holding lots of power over the other sectors of society. But in Eberron, the Kings hold some power, but not the majority, and the merchants and the Houses seem to hold the rest of it. The nobility is scarcely mentioned in the setting; in many ways, the society is Victorian in strata, not feudal. Everyone vies for those noble titles, but they really mean little other than some prestige.

On the other hand, there is a near-INFINITE amount of open territory in Eberron; remember all those debates on the underpopulation? A feudal society could indeed still exist quite well, even with Victorian sensibilities and political organization; anyone with a strong swordarm (or wand-arm) and a dream can get dispensation from their king or queen and go carve out a piece of wilderness for themselves - it's not like an industrial society in that population growth is rampant and there are few virgin wildernesses - there are _"huuuuge tracts of land"_ for the taking out there.

OTthirdH, land does not mean wealth in a merchant-driven and fund-driven society, which is where Eberron is thematically. The money to be made is in goods and services, not in raising crops.


----------



## JoAT (Aug 10, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> Only as soon as you have magical tech, a nihilistic post-war culture, "pulp action", lightning rails, and armies of juggernauts fighting armies of undead, the whole idea of "chivalry and knighthood" surviving in such an environment requires such a huge leap of faith that you are bound to break every bone in your body in the attempt.
> 
> I would have been much more satisfied if Keith Baker and the boys at the WoTC boards had said "ok.. right, Eberron is NOT medieval, it couldn't possibly be and make any sense, but we aren't likely to lose any customers by not using that word meaninglessly, and instead just make Eberron theindustrial post-war relativist transitional world it HAS TO BE without feeling the need to put the m-word in there".
> 
> Nisarg




Meh. We live in a setting with giant, treaded hunks of steel that blow things up, semi-demi-quasi-vamperic daydreamers, sticks that shoot dozens of projectiles at hundreds of miles per hour, winged, hollow shells which can take you across the globe in less than a day, and weapons that can level cities with the touch of a button.  And yet, there are people who are utterly loyal and devoted to thier country, are kind to women and are responsable enough to govern vast... tracts of land.  There are kings, and queens, and emporers, knighthoods and champions of the realm.  I don't see what leap of faith you're saying we have to make.


----------



## Belegbeth (Aug 10, 2004)

JoAT said:
			
		

> Meh. We live in a setting with  ... semi-demi-quasi-vamperic daydreamers ...




We do?  Or are you just referring to slackers here?


----------



## JoAT (Aug 10, 2004)

Belegbeth said:
			
		

> We do?  Or are you just referring to slackers here?



Just refering to those people who tend to act like vampires (according to the romantic/angsty vampire novels0< yet at the same time don't drink blood, don't have fangs can go out during the day-time, but only go out at night because it's cool (or else they think that they're alergic to natural light), ect, ect, ect.  I could have said vampire wannabes, but that would have just been too obvious...  Besides, it could also refer to slackers, if you want to take it that way (now that I think about it, alot of that would describe me, aside from acting like a romantic vampire...)


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 10, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> I would have been much more satisfied if Keith Baker and the boys at the WoTC boards had said "ok.. right, Eberron is NOT medieval, it couldn't possibly be and make any sense, but we aren't likely to lose any customers by not using that word meaninglessly, and instead just make Eberron theindustrial post-war relativist transitional world it HAS TO BE without feeling the need to put the m-word in there".



So, your problem is with the _marketing_   ???

Marketing = say whatever will get people to buy

This is a law of the universe, as far as I can tell.  Getting mad at the marketing will change nothing and will only give you an ulcer, my friend.

That said, Henry's analysis of the sort of necessary feudalism of the setting is rather nice.



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> OTthirdH, land does not mean wealth in a merchant-driven and fund-driven society, which is where Eberron is thematically. The money to be made is in goods and services, not in raising crops.



But there is money to be made in raw materials.  A mine within spitting distance of a lightning rail that is being laid or rebuilt is likely to become a rather profitable venture.  And if you're setting up a community of miners, well, they have to eat something, so it's worthwhile to bring some farmers, as well.

Now that I think of it, unlike most D&D settings, Eberron actually has a sink for all that metal being mined in the ubiquitous mining towns.  I mean, it seems that about 3/4 of the towns you come across in adventures or sourcebooks are based on a mine.  You'd think people would be rolling in metal by now.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Aug 10, 2004)

This thread is starting to get disenheartening.

Can everyone calm down a tad? Eberron is a fantasy setting. It doesnt have to be beleivable. Everytime we roll a d20 we are playing suspension of disbelief. Its not fair to say you cant do such a thing with the fantasy elements of Eberron. Its a written work of art from the mind of its creator like any other. 

I'm starting to get the impression that some people here dislike Eberron not because of its own faults but simply because its from WOTC. They dislike it because WOTC is trying to make money and they feel WOTC is trying to take advantage of them in some way. 

I wish you'd all take a minute and relax. If anything WOTC is far better then the dying days of TSR. True, WOTC is a buisness and its overhead HASBRO wants to see money, but there is nothing wrong with building a campaign model that will bring in money. 

Be it Marketing or the style of the campaign it doesnt matter. The tone of Eberron is set by Keith and the D&D Design team led by Bill Slavicsek. If you truly have a problem with how the setting is progressing then shoot off an email to custserv@wizards.com and ask it be forwarded to them so they know your opinion.

As for the medieval...

Any setting which features swords and sorcery, is going to be midieval. As far as D&D goes THATS what Midieval is. D&D will always be Swords and Magic, regardless of the setting. If you change that, despite what system you use, its not really D&D anymore. And I honestly belive that. Eberron doesnt change that. The heroes still wield swords, and still use Magic. How they travel and how the commoners live doesnt matter.

What amazes me is all the positive points people have overlooked.

Eberron solves the problem of wizards in their towers churning out magic items. There is no benefit for them to do this, its a drain on resources for too little reward. In Eberron we have Artificers and Magewrights who handle the majority of Magic Item Creation.

In Eberron we dont have 15 people in each city and town that are above 15th level. The ECS lists only 3 NPC's of near epic level in the entire setting. The Druid Tree (The Gatekeeper?), The Leader of the Silver Flame (who's only 18th level with in the confines of her church), and Vol the Half-Dragon Half Elf Lich who's in self imposed exile/hiding. Thats it! The majority of NPC's are actually NPC Classes and under 10th level. Most leaders of cities are no higher then 7th or 8th. If the PC's really wanted to take over a city or two, they could.

Unlike FR of AD&D2e, Eberron doesnt try to pidgeonhole everything from D&D into its pages. While Eberron WAS designed with "CORE" D&D in mind, it doesnt shove every product into it. The way its designed makes it easy for DM's to fit such things into their version of Eberron if they so please, but otherwise its pretty tame and well put together. 

Why are people complaining so much about demographics and farming and mining and marketing tactics? Who CARES. Thats not what having fun is about.

Relax, go pickup your PHB and ECS, write up that Warforged Barbarian, Shifter Cleric, Changeling Rogue, Human Dragonmarked Artificer from House Cannith and Aundairish Wizard, and go have fun!


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 10, 2004)

BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> Relax, go pickup your PHB and ECS, write up that Warforged Barbarian, Shifter Cleric, Changeling Rogue, Human Dragonmarked Artificer from House Cannith and Aundairish Wizard, and go have fun!




Thank you, no. Why would i be playing in a world who's kitchen-sinkism and lack of believability pisses me off?

If you want me, I'll be playing Midnight.  I imagine more than a few people on this list will be out there with me.

Nisarg


----------



## buzz (Aug 10, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> Regarding contents: god damn, it really IS RIFTS.



This is, by far, the second-silliest statement I've read in this thread.

The first is the original premise of the thread, i.e., "Why is a company interested in promoting a new product line?"


----------



## buzz (Aug 10, 2004)

Belegbeth said:
			
		

> The sad thing is that TSR/WotC has NEVER done a classic fantasy setting.



I'm curious as to your definition of "classic fantasy", then.


----------



## buzz (Aug 10, 2004)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> I'm sure there's plenty of great OGL products, but not all of us have local gaming stores or eons to pore through books that, for the most part, are as bad as, say, the Complete Divine.  Borders hasn't shown me anything all that impressive from the 3rd party groups.  The only game that has even sounded interesting outside of WotC is "Midnight", but they don't have the bloody thing in any of the bookstores I have access to.



The simple fact that you are posting on a Web messageboard demonstrates that you have access to every single RPG that has ever been published, not to mention a wealth of resources (reviews, previews, messageboards) to use in making a decision about what to purchase.

I'm not sure why your choosing not to take advantage of any of these resources shold imply anything about the OGL/d20 market as a whole. There are products out there that suit your needs. Vote with your dollar and buy them instead of Eberron.


----------



## buzz (Aug 10, 2004)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> [Eberron is] like My Little Pony; it's made for kids, but there's a creepy number of adults that make it their main form of entertainment.



I take it back. This is definitely the silliest statement I've seen on this thread. It's borderline offensive.


----------



## buzz (Aug 10, 2004)

deadboydex said:
			
		

> Those thousands of years of history described in the book? That's the title crawl. That's over. Time for your story.



/joins the applause


----------



## buzz (Aug 10, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> Why would i be playing in a world who's kitchen-sinkism and lack of believability pisses me off?



The more relevant question is probably: Why do you continue to post in a thread about a setting that you obviously despise and with which you want nothing to do?

Better yet: Why does your disliking Eberron mean that it's in any way flawed? Why doesn't it simply mean it's not your cup of tea, and that people who do enjoy it are not necessarily 14-year-old powergaming PS2 zombies?

Buzz (who loves Eberron, is 34, and last played video games when Pac-Man was cutting-edge)


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 10, 2004)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> I prefer to think of it as a "Serpinomicon", much like the 2e Draconomicon which was, in a technical sense, for FR, but applied easily to another setting.



At least WotC have the wisdom to make 3e _Draconomicon_ part of the core line.




			
				Incenjucar said:
			
		

> As for the Saurials, that's just due to WotC's DVDism.  There always has to be some bloody director's cut out there so they can get you near their advertising, even if there's absolutely no reason to exclude it from the main product.



Yeah, but why offer a "director's cut" for free? It makes the _Serpent Kingdom_ book less appealing to me.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Aug 10, 2004)

buzz said:
			
		

> Buzz (who loves Eberron, is 34, and last played video games when Pac-Man was cutting-edge)



RIGHT ON BROTHER!
(cept i'm 21)


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Aug 10, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> Thank you, no. Why would i be playing in a world who's kitchen-sinkism and lack of believability pisses me off?
> 
> If you want me, I'll be playing Midnight. I imagine more than a few people on this list will be out there with me.
> 
> Nisarg



Alright, thats fine.

If you dont like Eberron, by all means do not play. But do not relentlessly attack the setting in an attempt to ruin it for those that DO enjoy it, or in an attempt to convince others to why you feel its bad. You have your opinion. You've stated it. Fine, Be done with it and move on. You Enjoy Midnight, and we'll enjoy Eberron.

And some will enjoy both.


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 10, 2004)

buzz said:
			
		

> The more relevant question is probably: Why do you continue to post in a thread about a setting that you obviously despise and with which you want nothing to do?




Maybe because people keep responding to my postings and asking me questions or making statements that demand a response.



> Better yet: Why does your disliking Eberron mean that it's in any way flawed? Why doesn't it simply mean it's not your cup of tea, and that people who do enjoy it are not necessarily 14-year-old powergaming PS2 zombies?




Its not nescessarily flawed for YOU. if you don't mind Kitchen-sinkism, if you don't have the kind of humanities background I do where Eberron's social unbelievability would bug you, then go nuts. Some people really enjoy kitchen-sinkism, I'm probably in a serious minority on that count.

For most people, Medieval does just mean "kings and swords" and that's enough.  

As I've said, I hope for WoTC's sake that Eberron is a hit, and that its multiple-personality issue is something that wins more fans than it loses.

Nisarg


----------



## Belegbeth (Aug 11, 2004)

buzz said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to your definition of "classic fantasy", then.




Authors: Tolkien, Leiber, Howard, Vance, et al.  In recent years, IMO, R.R. Martin could probably be added, as well as Gene Wolf.

(Of TSR/WotC settings, Greyhawk is probably the closest to a "classic fantasy" setting, at least the Gygaxian version.  Still a bit too "over-the-top" in terms of magic IMO.)


----------



## Hellcow (Aug 11, 2004)

> Its not nescessarily flawed for YOU. if you don't mind Kitchen-sinkism...



Interesting. This is a general question, not specifically directed at Nisarg (so as not to keep forcing him to come back into the conversation about a setting he hates). But my question is this:

Is Eberron really more of a kitchen sink than any of WotC's other major settings? 

If you own the XPH and like psionics, would you as a DM not allow a player to use psionics simply because there's no nation or race where psionics are prevelant? 

Do you look at the Monster Manual -- a core book -- and say "It's too bad I can't use this creature, since it has no defined place in Greyhawk?"

In my mind, D&D has ALWAYS been a kitchen sink: because it's always supposed to have been a place where every monster, every spell, and yes, psionics, could be found. Heck, in Planescape _anything_ could be found. The goal with Eberron was not to say "Throw everything in the books into one big heap" -- but rather to create a world where you could find a logical place for the things you wanted to use. Psionics have always been in D&D -- but now your psionic character has backstory you and your DM can draw on. The monster that you want to use that just doesn't make any sense in the world could have been created by the Mourning, while the culture you want to use but that you can't place in Khorvaire (because it should have a major impact on any nearby human nation) can be found in Xen'drik. 

As I said in the other thread, the point of Eberron is not to say that everything in D&D *IS* in Eberron; it's that everything in the core books *could* be in Eberron, if you want it to be. How is this any more "kitchen sinky" than most of the other WotC settings?

The answer may be "It's not, but all WotC settings are too kitchen sinky". That may be true. But the point of the core books is to give a DM a basic set of tools to work with; WotC wanted a setting where the DM could use all of those tools. If you want a world that is going to invalidate significant sections of the core/SRD material, I'd advise you to look to third-party publishers.


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 11, 2004)

Belegbeth said:
			
		

> Authors: Tolkien, Leiber, Howard, Vance, et al. In recent years, IMO, R.R. Martin could probably be added, as well as Gene Wolf.
> 
> (Of TSR/WotC settings, Greyhawk is probably the closest to a "classic fantasy" setting, at least the Gygaxian version. Still a bit too "over-the-top" in terms of magic IMO.)



 Gene Wolfe is classic fantasy? The Wizard Knight, maybe, but that's fairly new, isn't it?  The whole New Sun series was science-fiction, and I thought that's what he's famous for. I love Martin, but I wouldn't call his material classic fantasy, either. In fact, I'd call it a direct reaction to classic fantasy, IMHO.

 Tolkien, Leiber, Howard and Vance are all direct inspirations, but it was never meant to be consistent, I think. It's a 'wouldn't it be cool if...' on a grand scale, when a miniatures game got much bigger than anyone expected.


----------



## Belegbeth (Aug 11, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Gene Wolfe is classic fantasy?  The Wizard Knight, maybe, but that's fairly new.  The whole New Sun series was science-fiction, and I thought that's what he's famous for.  I love Martin, but I wouldn't call his material classic fantasy, either.  In fact, I'd call it a direct reaction to classic fantasy, IMHO..




Whether Wolfe's New Sun series is science-fiction or fantasy is not clear.  It includes a lot of weird Cabbalist references, diferent planes, etc.  If any thing, it is a series of "gothic" novels that invoke a sense of wonder at these ancient "magical" (where science is perceived as magic) relics and places.  (Though perhaps I was wrong to include Wolfe.)

Martin's novels, with their gritty tone and moral ambiguity, might be interpreted as a reaction against Tolkien, but they do not seem like a separate beast from, say, Leiber or Vance (indeed, the political intrigues, etc., seem very similar to some of the stuff in Vance's Lyonesse novels).



			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> Tolkien, Leiber, Howard and Vance are all direct inspirations, but it was never meant to be consistent, I think.  It's a 'wouldn't it be cool if...' on a grand scale, when a miniatures game got much bigger than anyone expected.



I'm sorry, I just don't understand this.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 11, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> Its not nescessarily flawed for YOU. if you don't mind Kitchen-sinkism, if you don't have the kind of humanities background I do where Eberron's social unbelievability would bug you, then go nuts.



You have yet to explain this at all.  All you have said (if I understood you correctly) is that it does a poor job of emulating the development of philsophy as it occurred in this world.  I can't wrap my head around the notion that this problem is unique to Eberron.  Honestly, unless you can explain a) how that's different from every other setting under the sun; and b) why such parallel development would even be reasonable given the world assumptions implicit in D&D magic, then I can't even begin to imagine which games you would actually enjoy playing.

If you think this is a legitimate gripe, please explain yourself.  I, for one, am curious.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Aug 11, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> You have yet to explain this at all.  All you have said (if I understood you correctly) is that it does a poor job of emulating the development of philsophy as it occurred in this world.  I can't wrap my head around the notion that this problem is unique to Eberron.  Honestly, unless you can explain a) how that's different from every other setting under the sun; and b) why such parallel development would even be reasonable given the world assumptions implicit in D&D magic, then I can't even begin to imagine which games you would actually enjoy playing.
> 
> If you think this is a legitimate gripe, please explain yourself.  I, for one, am curious.




The idea isn't that complicated, but it is a little obtuse. Western medieval society existed at a certian technolgical level, and had certian characteristics that we are familer with: Knights, Kings, feudalism, pesents, surfs, etc... Nisarg's argument is that when increase the technology level (even thruogh magic) many elements would cease to exists, because people's philosophical outlook changes. While I don't think He's said this spicificly, the rise of a merchantile class like the Houses in Eberron did hamper western medieval society's most distinguashed feature: fedualisim. Europe's been putting the nails into feudalism for centuries now. Russia didn't free their serfs untill Tolstoy's time. (1861) Serfs in China didn't get freed until 1949.

Feudalisim is an interesting concept. As I'm sure most people know, the king (or other sovereign) owns all the land in the kingdom and parcels it out to other nobility who manage it for him and round up troops when there's a war. D&D has never handled this concept well. Indeed, most american fantasy dosn't handel it well. Because americans come from a culture where land ownership is an integeral part of the the American Dream(TM), I think it's hard to wrap our minds around some of the finer points of feudalisim. Also, true feudalisim doesn't facilitate good game play. Why? Well, if the landlord owns all the land, they one everything in it. the own the animals, the minerals, and the surfs. (Cities were an exception, but that is neither here nor there) Thus, when adventures go exploring in a dungeon, kill the monsters and take their loot, all the loot technicaly belongs to the landlord (be it a barron, duke, lord, or king). Hunting on a noble's land to feed yourself is a no no under feudalisim. 

You'll notice that there are no serfs in D&D. I've never thought to myself, "gee, you know we need to make this game more realisitic, lets add serfs!"

Many of the trapings of medieval society we think of when we think of the word medieval still existed through the Renaissance into modern times. Divine right was argued by sovereigns right up untill they were killed (some not untill after the US Constitution was signed). 

Of course, history isn't a linier progression that starts with civilization in the fertial cressant to the internet. There were lots fits and starts, parallel devlopments in diffrent cultures, and false leads.

You are right in that the problem isn't unique to Eberron, but Eberron is the only one with a tech level above the prining press intergreted into the regular society. Other D&D settings assume such magic items are rare, common for adventures maybe, but not for pesents. A potion of Cure Light Wounds is what 50gp? That's more than a years wages for a pesent. Eberron assumes larger merchant class than Greyhawk does, and a more powerful one at that. 

The problem with trying to figure out how magic would impact a world is that magic dosen't exist. Figuring out what kind of impact magic would have on human history is near imposible. Yes, people belived in magic then (and many do now) but because it doesn't exist, we don't how it's actual existance (as opposed to it's precived existance) affects humans. How would the ability to create a 40-foot diamiter ball of fire affect history? No one really knows.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 11, 2004)

Hmmm... nothing like a discussion that encompasses console RPGs, D&D _and_ the divine right of kings to draw me out of ENWorld lurker0dom.  

Calling Eberron 'medieval' depends on what you mean by 'medieval.'  It clearly isn't a feudal society, at least in the sense of a having a landed economy or widespread serfdom.  The Last War connects directly to World War I in both its methods and its scope.  The concept of nation-states is paramount.  (Technological development proceeded at a rapid clip through the high middle ages, and did not, contrary to popular belief, experience a major renaissance in the renaissance.)

If by 'medieval' you mean Eberron has kings, knights and swordsmen... so did the ancient world, and so did the world prior to actual World War I.  That war, not any social, philosophical or, goodness knows, technological development, ended the preponderance of monarchial governments in Europe.  France and the United States were the only powers involved that didn't have monarchs, and of the constitutional monarchs, only England's did not possess (or at least did not use) executive powers.  WW1's aftermath, the spread of communism and fascism, finished off most of the rest.

If by 'medieval' you mean Eberron has the trappings of medieval legends - heroic knights, chivalry, paladins, swords and sorcery - it has those in spades.  Since that's really all any D&D setting (and most other fantasies) have of the medieval period, Eberron has as much claim to being medieval as Greyhawk or the Realms.

As for its appeal to console gamers (or video gamers, if you prefer), by which I mean people who play _Final Fantasy_, _Xenosaga_ and _Wild ARMs_, yes, the presence of magical technology, especially airships, does endear it to that market, as does the 'pulp' flavor.  This 'Joe Playstation' segment seems WotC's most likely target since, unlike PC gamers, they've been conditioned to expect a hearty serving of storytelling and character development to go with their hack-'n'-slash.

I do shudder to think what kind of players an MMORPG will bring in to Eberron, though.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Aug 11, 2004)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> If by 'medieval' you mean Eberron has kings, knights and swordsmen... so did the ancient world, and so did the world prior to actual World War I. That war, not any social, philosophical or, goodness knows, technological development, ended the preponderance of monarchial governments in Europe. France and the United States were the only powers involved that didn't have monarchs, and of the constitutional monarchs, only England's did not possess (or at least did not use) executive powers. WW1's aftermath, the spread of communism and fascism, finished off most of the rest.




I think you have a point. We have a tendancy to overlook WWI in America, and I think understanding of pre-WWI Eruope isn't wide spread. I know that I didn't understand a lot of it untill I took a college level history class, and I'm still shaky on some details. Everyone alive today lives in a post industrial revolution, post WWI world, but I think that it is WWII that people most think about shaping our current culture.


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 11, 2004)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> I think you have a point. We have a tendancy to overlook WWI in America, and I think understanding of pre-WWI Eruope isn't wide spread. I know that I didn't understand a lot of it untill I took a college level history class, and I'm still shaky on some details. Everyone alive today lives in a post industrial revolution, post WWI world, but I think that it is WWII that people most think about shaping our current culture.




Not being American, I don't share that historical fault.

And that's my point. WWI led to a total shattering of what was already a very shaky confidence in the institutional value of western civilization.  A confidence that had been eroded over centuries since the time of the renaissance.  Each technological innovation led to shifts in society, because the intellectual environment DEMANDED these shifts. It was impossible to retain a medieval society in the face of the printing press, and mercantilism.  It was impossible to retain a renaissance society in the face of industrialization, and it was impossible to retain an absolutist intellectual environment in light of WWI. This was what caused the rise of artistic and intellectual movements like dadaism and surrealism, philosophical concepts of relativism, and counter-movements like fascism.

I'm not talking about "swords" as in medieval. Swords does not medieval make. A certain intellectual "feeling" is what makes a medieval setting. And what I'm saying is that its intellectually impossible for me to believably buy the idea that people could go through WWI or many of the other events/technologies Eberron proposes and still have that medievalist "intellectual attitude". 

(at least in the regions where these developments took place, of course there could be backwards regions still wallowing in medievalism; within credible limits of distance and interaction though, since as long as they were on the same continent inevitably these developments would catch up with all but the most backward societies)

It would have been so much better if Breland and the other main nations in Eberron had a kind of deeply cynical, hedonistic Georgian attitude.. so not just Doc Savage and Indiana Jones but the Great Gatsby and Farewell to Arms. If they'd made the setting live up to the real consequences of the events of its timeline, and you had real social chaos as a result of the Last War, instead of this "oh well wasn't that horrible but we're still medieval" business...

Nisarg


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 11, 2004)

So, it seems to come down to the fact that there are different interpretations of what "medieval" actually means, right?

Nisarg (and probably some others) thinks it is the philosophy of the time, many other think it are more the elements of "Knights, Swords and Kings". 

While I think Nisargs point of view is not wrong, I think it does also invalidate some other "medieval" settings. 
To me Forgotten Realms don`t seem to be that medieval in philosophy - hell, they even seem to believe even in in equal rights for women! 

But the "everything and the kitchen-sink" approach seems to be more fitting for other D&D settings. (Excuse me if I use Forgotten Realms again - I know the setting best from all "classic" D&D settings - but even then my knowledge is not that firm). Forgotten Realms does have the same - even worse - doesn`t te world also contain  Kara-Tur and Matztica and its unique races and monsters? And doesn`t it also include all those subraces (who are currently unused in Eberron - though it introduces a few new races)?

Mustrum Ridcully


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 11, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about "swords" as in medieval. Swords does not medieval make. A certain intellectual "feeling" is what makes a medieval setting. And what I'm saying is that its intellectually impossible for me to believably buy the idea that people could go through WWI or many of the other events/technologies Eberron proposes and still have that medievalist "intellectual attitude".



However, that's also where your position's credibility starts to crumble.  _Nothing_ in D&D is truly medieval in that regard, so to take Eberron to task for this is silly.  If you want medievel fantasy (a contradiction, I know, since there was nothing fantastic about the medieval period) then Hârn is the only game/setting that even really _attempts_ to deliver.

Also, your insistence that a fantasy world follow all the same steps as our own for intellectual development: a little silly.


----------



## Dogbrain (Aug 11, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> And that's my point. WWI led to a total shattering of what was already a very shaky confidence in the institutional value of western civilization.




Now you are indulging in the essentially the same parochialism.  This may have been the result in Europe, but it was certainly not the result in the USA, in most of Asia, etc.


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 11, 2004)

Belegbeth said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I just don't understand this.



 Sorry, should have been more clear.  I meant that most of the authors on your list were a direct inspiration for the original designers of D&D, and elements of their work can be found throughout the game.  Many items, monsters and spells come directly from these sources, and much of the feel of the orignal game and 1e were directly taken from said sources.  

 Greyhawk isn't internally consistent, because it was never built to be that way.  It was a junk drawers of 'cool ideas' that Gary, Rob, Ernie and others tossed together while playing.  They grabbed Vance's magic system, Moorcock's alignment ideas, Tolkien's races and other elements, and threw them together in a 'stone soup' kind of way, for a fun game.  It was never meant to bear the scrutiny of a socio-anthropologist. 

 My point, mainly, was that you said that you didn't think that TSR had ever done a 'classic fantasy' setting, and yet Greyhawk takes elements from at least a half-dozen such entities.  I think it would be more appropriate to say that TSR/WotC has never done a direct translation of a specific 'classic fantasy' world, but they've certainly done what I'd consider classic fantasy.  Several times, in fact.


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 11, 2004)

Dogbrain said:
			
		

> Now you are indulging in the essentially the same parochialism. This may have been the result in Europe, but it was certainly not the result in the USA, in most of Asia, etc.



 Beavis: _Heh heh.  He said parochialism.  heh heh.
_Butt-head:  _Shut up, Beavis._


----------



## buzz (Aug 11, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> Maybe because people keep responding to my postings and asking me questions or making statements that demand a response.



Discretion is the better part of valor.



			
				Nisarg said:
			
		

> Its not nescessarily flawed for YOU. if you don't mind Kitchen-sinkism, if you don't have the kind of humanities background I do where Eberron's social unbelievability would bug you, then go nuts. Some people really enjoy kitchen-sinkism, I'm probably in a serious minority on that count.



So, you're saying that I don't see it as flawed because I have bad taste and am not as well educated as you are? 

I guess we're seeing the "unwashed masses" argument being applied to yet another D&D product.



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Nothing in D&D is truly medieval in that regard, so to take Eberron to task for this is silly.



Bingo.



			
				Hellcow said:
			
		

> As I said in the other thread, the point of Eberron is not to say that everything in D&D IS in Eberron; it's that everything in the core books could be in Eberron, if you want it to be. How is this any more "kitchen sinky" than most of the other WotC settings?



Bingo, redux.

Buzz, holder of a humanities degree


----------



## fanboy2000 (Aug 11, 2004)

*D&D Setting Design 101*



> It was *impossible* to retain a medieval society in the face of the printing press, and mercantilism. It was *impossible* to retain a renaissance society in the face of industrialization, and it was *impossible* to retain an absolutist intellectual environment in light of WWI. This was what caused the rise of artistic and intellectual movements like dadaism and surrealism, philosophical concepts of relativism, and counter-movements like fascism.




"You keep using that word. I don't not think it means what you think it means."

You also seem to misunderstand the meaning of fantasy. I'd define it, but what's the point?

Mr. Baker said it best: "[Eberron] is a fantasy world as opposed to an exercise in sociology..."

You know, that bears repeating:

*"[Eberron] is a fantasy world as opposed to an exercise in sociology"*

Oh, I know "It would have been so great that if they had made it an exersize in sociology! If only they made it more realisistic! Oh *HOW* could they create a setting that dosen't take into acount all of Earth's history! Oh the pain!"

I understand the argument quite well. And quite frankly, the argument has a few gaping holes in it:

1. Eberron, unlike Earth, has magic.
2. Eberron, unlike Earth, is made out of the body of a dragon.
3. Eberron, unlike Earth, has alternate planes of existance that influance it.
4. Eberron, has cultures who don't nesesarly corispond one-to-one with Earth cultures. 
5. Eberron, unlike Earth, has multiple inteligant species living on the world.

It is safe to say that Eberron is not Earth, thus it is not required to follow Earth's history. 

The Last War, while analogus to WWI, isn't WWI.

Ok So what have we leard today in Game Design 101?
1. Eberron is *not* an exersize in sociology.
2. Even if it was, Eberron is fantasy.
3. Eberron is not Earth.
4. The Last War isn't WWI
5. People who are humanities majors can enjoy Eberron (See post above, and the author of this post, Stephen Nicholson, is both egotistical and a humanities major who is currently dating a history major.)
6. Sales of Eberron show that some people want Doc Savage and Indiana Jones
7. Posts at ENWorld.org show that some people want Doc Savage and Indiana Jones 

That all for today class. Tonight your homework will be to scoure the internet looking for posts by people who think that world that includes 40-foot diamiter fireballs have a chance of being realistic.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 11, 2004)

By the way, I didn't know you can major in humanities.  Don't you need something more specific?  I have a major in Economics and a minor in history, does that count?  My dad has a Ph.D. in history, and that rubbed off on me too; that must count for something, right?  I also read tecnical linguistic journals for fun.

None of which I think qualifies me to speak on the relative "realism" of Eberron's social development.  But maybe my background doesn't qualify as sufficiently "humanities" centered.


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 11, 2004)

Dogbrain said:
			
		

> Now you are indulging in the essentially the same parochialism.  This may have been the result in Europe, but it was certainly not the result in the USA, in most of Asia, etc.





No, I'm not, because Eberron's trope is clearly European.  The "big war" happened in the main continent, not a far off land.
Also, the "medieval" theme is specifically European.. you can certainly have "medieval china", but you're talking about a whole different thing.

Nisarg


----------



## Kestrel (Aug 11, 2004)

If anything, this thread has made me very curious about Eberron.  The idea of a world where magic item creation is a part of the setting and where I can use swashbuckling, pulp, and standard dnd elements all at the same time sounds great.

The core rules of DnD have never really made sense anyway, especially if you try to view from a true dark-ages perspective.  Better to scrap the dark-ages and just play the game.  Honestly, if you want to play dark-ages, you should just play Harn.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 11, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> No, I'm not, because Eberron's trope is clearly European.  The "big war" happened in the main continent, not a far off land.
> Also, the "medieval" theme is specifically European.. you can certainly have "medieval china", but you're talking about a whole different thing.



Here you're further trying to relate the development of a fantasy world to the real world.  I think that's the root of your disconnect -- divorce the two and you'll be fine.  There's absolutely no reason to dictate a specifically earth-like development of social structures in a fantasy world, so relating it so tightly to medieval Europe is a misguided attempt to begin with.


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 11, 2004)

buzz said:
			
		

> Discretion is the better part of valor.
> So, you're saying that I don't see it as flawed because I have bad taste and am not as well educated as you are?
> 
> I guess we're seeing the "unwashed masses" argument being applied to yet another D&D product.




No, that's not my point at all. 

I'm saying that your INTEREST in an rpg sense might be different from mine. You could be just as well educated, but if your interest skews toward technology, or the sciences, or what have you, it might just not bother you that Eberron is sociologically unrealistic. It doesn't make you less educated at all. It just makes your needs and priorities different.

I am personally a great believer in the "masses" of roleplayers, and that they generally pick good stuff to play. I think Eberron will probably be fun for many of them, it just won't be fun for me.

Nisarg


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 11, 2004)

Kestrel said:
			
		

> The core rules of DnD have never really made sense anyway, especially if you try to view from a true dark-ages perspective.  Better to scrap the dark-ages and just play the game.  Honestly, if you want to play dark-ages, you should just play Harn.



Now, now, Kestrel.  Who said anything about the Dark Ages?  That's quite distinct from the Medieval period.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Aug 11, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> No, I'm not, because Eberron's trope is clearly European.  The "big war" happened in the main continent, not a far off land.
> Also, the "medieval" theme is specifically European.. you can certainly have "medieval china", but you're talking about a whole different thing.
> 
> Nisarg



 No. Eberron's trope is clearly an american view of medieval Europe.


----------



## Kestrel (Aug 11, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Now, now, Kestrel.  Who said anything about the Dark Ages?  That's quite distinct from the Medieval period.





Hehe...I just use the term Dark Ages because I always misspell medieval


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 11, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Here you're further trying to relate the development of a fantasy world to the real world.  I think that's the root of your disconnect -- divorce the two and you'll be fine.  There's absolutely no reason to dictate a specifically earth-like development of social structures in a fantasy world, so relating it so tightly to medieval Europe is a misguided attempt to begin with.




The reason to link these things is because the tropes being used; be it "king", "kingdom", "princess", "sword", "knight", "Duke", and even "wizard" and "dragon", are all taken from history or literature.  
NOT the history or literature of the planet Neptune, the history or literature of EARTH.

So your argument that there is "absolutely no reason" is absurd.
The reason is that Eberron posits a society that imitates in many ways a real historical society ON EARTH. If it mimics that society, then you have to posit, if you wish the social element of Eberron to be "realistic", that similar circumstances led to the creation of those tropes on Eberron as they did on Earth (and by "circumstances" i dont mean specific events as much as social, intellectual, economic and technological conditions).   Likewise, similar circumstances would HAVE TO lead to the end of those tropes.

Do you understand what I'm saying?
Keith Baker said Eberron is "Medieval": he didn't just make up that word or pull it out of his ass, or get it from another planet. He got it from earth. 
One then must assume one of two things; either Keith used the word "medieval" incorrectly, or Keith intended "medieval" to mean what it really meant here on earth as far as the social, technological, intellectual and economic conditions of Europe in the middle ages.  If we assume the latter, it means that Keith intended Eberron to be socially, technologically, intellectually, and economically similar to Europe in the middle ages, and that Eberron must have got that way because of those conditions arising. If things happen that make those conditions impossible to remain (the social devastation of the Last War, the intellectual environment required for the concepts of democracy, or for the widespread "technological" use of magic, the economic prevalence of the dragonmark houses), it means it would likewise become impossible for the overall "Medieval" condition to persist. 

So, either Keith was wrong in calling Eberron medieval in the first place, or he is wrong from a social design perspective in trying to make Eberron still "medieval" but add all the other changes.

Some people have asked "how is Eberron doing anythign different from FR or other RPG worlds"? Well, the key is I'm not asking for Harn here, I'm asking for a setting where the overall tropes are intact.  Does FR have things that really stretch the limits of what is credibly "medieval"? Yes.. but usually in the areas of the realms where they do, the culture is specifically explained as NOT medieval or not Medieval anymore (places like Amn or Calimsham, or the more fantastic areas away from the FR "heartlands").

Also, the mere presence of magic does not disqualify a "medieval" society. Our own historical medieval society believed in magic, remember.  You can certainly argue, of course, that widespread prevalence of magic would seriously disrupt the medieval social fabric.. in fact, I HAVE argued that, and I was DESPERATELY hoping Eberron would address that very issue.  The fact that it (or WoTC or the people on Enworld) promised it would, and then failed miserably to do so is part of what has left me so bitter about it.  Eberron doesn't address the impact of magic on society from a sociological viewpoint AT ALL... their idea of saying it "addresses" it is saying "well now there's lightning rails and magical gazettes but we're still medieval!!", which is even less realistic than what the realms does.

So I'm not saying that Eberron does things worse on this note than other fantasy settings, I'm just saying that the hype made it sound like they'd do it better, like they'd address it, and then they didn't, at all.

Nisarg


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 11, 2004)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> No. Eberron's trope is clearly an american view of medieval Europe.




touché.

Nisarg


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 11, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> One then must assume one of two things; either Keith used the word "medieval" incorrectly, or Keith intended "medieval" to mean what it really meant here on earth as far as the social, technological, intellectual and economic conditions of Europe in the middle ages.



You left off an option: that Keith/WotC used Medieval to represent a romanticized and generalized view of the Middle Ages rather than a strictly historically "accurate one.  Hell, half the historical fiction written about the Medieval period romanticises rather than redacts the actual medieval conditions, and here you are saying that a fantasy world with it's own development which do not closely mimic anything that happened on earth must do more?

I understand what you're saying, I suppose, I just don't understand _why_ you're saying it.


----------



## Kestrel (Aug 11, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> Keith Baker said Eberron is "Medieval": he didn't just make up that word or pull it out of his ass, or get it from another planet. He got it from earth.
> Nisarg




I could be totally wrong, Im not Keith, but I would assume when someone uses that descriptor, they are using it rather loosely.  The term, Medieval, brings to mind, kings, queens, knights in platemail, sword, and longbows, possibly even wizards and dragons. I know its what comes to mind when I think of the term.  My guess is that its the same for the "great unwashed" which Im proud to be a part of.  So, since Eberron has all of these things, then it fits that he uses the term to describe the game.

Now, if you are a professor of Medieval Lit or a history buff, then it may drive you nuts.  For the rest of us, we'll still be happy with the use of the word.

(Or you could just read Josh's post which says the same thing but with better wording)  Get out of my head!


----------



## buzz (Aug 11, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> No, that's not my point at all.



When you make blanket statements that Eberron "is RIFTS", suffers from "kitchen-sinkism", couldn't possibly appeal to people with humanities degrees, and make assumptions about the designer's intentions, it obscures your supposed point that you're just trying to say Eberron isn't for you. The whole reason that you're embroiled in this long thread is because you're trying to prove that your comments are absolutes and the rest of us just aren't seeing the truth. If anything, you're making a lot of claims about Eberron as a setting that were never put forth by WotC nor were part of the expectations of its audience in order to make your point.

Naturally, this draws criticism.


----------



## Henry (Aug 11, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> So, either Keith was wrong in calling Eberron medieval in the first place, or he is wrong from a social design perspective in trying to make Eberron still "medieval" but add all the other changes.




I'm willing to accept the former just as much as the latter. Medieval means two different things between your definition and the product presented using the term "medieval" in reference to itself.

_Does FR have things that really stretch the limits of what is credibly "medieval"? Yes.. but usually in the areas of the realms where they do, the culture is specifically explained as NOT medieval or not Medieval anymore (places like Amn or Calimsham, or the more fantastic areas away from the FR "heartlands")._

I'm willing to accept that, based on the book material, Eberron is just as deviant as those societies you just listed. The only difference between the two is (and this is Keith's words from a previous thread here) that Eberron was designed to get away from Real-world analogs as much as possible. He conceived of the religions, the prophecies, and (I'm speculating here) the societies to be different from real-world examples, so as to avoid the cross-references. In Amn, Mulhorand, etc. in the FR, there are cross-references to Islamic Africa circa AD 500 to 1000 , Ancient Egypt, etc. If Eberron does have a cultural equivalent, it is late 18th to 19th century in the Galifarian Nations/Regions- but because there is not (CANNOT be, I propose) an exact correlation between technological development and its social impact, and magical development and its social impact, you don't get a perfect map from one to another.

With alterable printing press, you get literacy, and I don't see anything in Eberron to suggest you DON'T have widespread literacy in the Galifarian Nations. However, no one says that the Lhazaar Principalities, or Talenta Wildlands, or Drooam has anything equating to it - still too new, for one thing.



> Eberron doesn't address the impact of magic on society from a sociological viewpoint AT ALL... their idea of saying it "addresses" it is saying "well now there's lightning rails and magical gazettes but we're still medieval!!", which is even less realistic than what the realms does.




There are several points that do address it - when looking at the advanced capitalistic theory and mass-market effect of the houses (which had no medieval equivalent - you don't get that until the 14 to 1500's) you see elements of the 1700's move from cottage industry to modern industry. When dealing with the attitudes of other parts of Eberron, it ranges from 10th to 12th century technology in places like Drooam and the Shadow Marches, all the way to the freaking Bronze Age and Stone age in the Demon Wastes and the wilds of Xendrik.

But then, Eberron was not designed with a strong eye to simulation, admittedly by the author. If you really want to see the break between a simulation-model setting and Eberron's narrativist outlook, look at Keith Baker's opinions on the level advancement of Player characters versus NPC's. He explicitly says that (on the WotC FAQs and forums) that PC's WILL and SHOULD gain levels faster than NPC's because they are the heroes. Not some overarcing reason that all should advance or that they should be held back, but they should advance like relative lighting to high levels, because they are the PC's!


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 11, 2004)

Eberron's medievalism aside, saying that it's impossible to retain 'absolutist' philosophies following as cataclysmic an event as the First World War ignores historical evidence.

The vast majority of the human population outside Europe, and a majority outside of France and perhaps Austria, Germany and England, _did_ maintain absolutist philosophies following WW1.

Aside from isolated (and often self-proclaimed) intellectuals who competed with their eugenicist, Christian Progressive, communist, socialist, ultra-capitalist, proto-libertarian and other radical counterparts for the hearts and minds of the relatively small elite college-attending population, the United States remained absolutist through the 1920s.  Much of the country remained in the thrall of (absolutist) Wilsionian democratic evangelism during that period, and (absolutist) religious faith remained a prime mover in American life.  The Great Depression did far more to dampen these sentiments than WW1.

Most of Asia, independent Asia Minor and Africa either retained or established (absolutist) monarchial governments.  Imperial Japan became one of the world’s great powers in the aftermath of WW1, while the Middle East experienced relative prosperity under the equally relative stability of its early Hashemite and Saudi monarchies.

Much of Europe, including almost all of the Scandinavian and Mediterranean countries, followed a similar course between WW1 and WW2.  The major war powers split about evenly between (absolutist) extreme nationalism and (relativist) extreme internationalism.  Austrian culture disintegrated after losing its stable monarchy, laying the stages for its absorption into Nazi Germany, but like England, Austria retained a significant minority of nationalists loyal to its own (absolutist) history and cultural identity.  Germany, of course, experienced a huge growth of nationalism that merged with eugenics, class warfare and neo-pagan culture to form the National Socialist movement.  France clearly distanced itself from nationalistic trappings, and became a hotbed of many of the nihilistic movements Nisarg describes - many of whom, incidentally, were backed either knowingly or not by the Soviet Union, which hoped to weaken the nations of Europe by doing so.

And the Soviet Union itself?  It and its widening circle of client states espoused a different form of absolutism, but a form all the same.  Certainly their power increased in the aftermath of WW1.

That’s ignoring the cataclysmic events of prior conflicts – and their non-relativist aftermaths.  The Taiping Rebellion in China killed more people than WW1… but left the (absolutist) Chinese empire intact for some time afterwards.  The 30 Years War impacted Europe’s population more than WW1, and tore apart the religious unity of Christendom in the process… yet Europe remained almost monolithically monarchial and religiously absolutist for centuries afterwards.

As for technology, well, firearms and mercantilism did kill European feudalism... and ushered in the modern era of absolute monarchy.  If anything, the emphasis on air power in WW1, with its accompanying force multiplication of lone, highly trained elites, would have pushed Germany and Austria back in the direction of feudalism, had France, England and the United States not dismantled those previous successful and stable monarchies.  Same with Russia if the Czarist government had not been duped by England and France into serving as a punching bag for Germany, an ideological ally.

Korvaire’s reaction to the Last War isn’t entirely clear from the Eberron world book, but at a glance it appears to be a far more historically ‘normal’ one than France, England, Austria and Germany’s reactions to WW1.

That Eberron is medieval is open to debate.  That its social order is at the very least as plausible as that of most fantasy worlds appears obvious.  Which is doubly a credit to Keith Baker and his team when you consider that they weren't focusing on the creation of a realistic world.


----------



## Incenjucar (Aug 11, 2004)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> <much said>




In regards to absolutism, it was -extremely- present after WWI, considering that one of the big reasons for the NAZI movement was a nasty version of Christian absolutist views (the same the Passion plays are meant to push -- Read Chaucer to see how the mindset was in the near 1400s as a result), not at all unlike the excuse we Americans (and, frankly, all conquering peoples) have been using when dabbling in genocide -- divine right.  The methods change, but the excuses don't change, to this very day, considering our own president claims to be doing holy work when bombing overseas.  Absolutism has lost some power, sure but it's still very very strong.  Relativism was almost a fad.


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 12, 2004)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> In regards to absolutism, it was -extremely- present after WWI, considering that one of the big reasons for the NAZI movement was a nasty version of Christian absolutist views (the same the Passion plays are meant to push -- Read Chaucer to see how the mindset was in the near 1400s as a result), not at all unlike the excuse we Americans (and, frankly, all conquering peoples) have been using when dabbling in genocide -- divine right.  The methods change, but the excuses don't change, to this very day, considering our own president claims to be doing holy work when bombing overseas.  Absolutism has lost some power, sure but it's still very very strong.  Relativism was almost a fad.




When I was talking about Absolutism, I meant in reference to a paradigm or world-view.  There was a complete faith in the institutionalism of western civilization prior to WWI that was just gone after WWI.  Fascism, communism, relativism, etc were all reactions to that fundamental loss of confidence.

The US suffered this less than Europe, and this is the cause of many of the basic ideological differences between the two today, but its become an inevitable process of institutional collapse. 

Are there still absolutists around? Of course.
Is there an overwhelming society-wide absolute faith in the paradigms of the christian world view, or the "reality" of divine right? Or the correctness of western culture? 
No. Those are gone.


Nisarg


----------



## Jakar (Aug 12, 2004)

I like Eberron because it looks fun and it is full of potential.

Does everything have to be realistic?  I have enough realism in my everyday life.


----------



## Incenjucar (Aug 12, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> When I was talking about Absolutism, I meant in reference to a paradigm or world-view.  There was a complete faith in the institutionalism of western civilization prior to WWI that was just gone after WWI.  Fascism, communism, relativism, etc were all reactions to that fundamental loss of confidence.
> 
> The US suffered this less than Europe, and this is the cause of many of the basic ideological differences between the two today, but its become an inevitable process of institutional collapse.
> 
> ...




I mostly just see it as a shifting from minority/majority opinion to 50/50.  It's just that people tended to get killed for disagreeing more often in earlier days.

There's a quote somewhere that said, more or less, the only reason that a 'savage' culture has more polite people than a 'civilized' culture is that people in a 'savage' culture are much more likely to get an axe in the face if they insult someone.

Same goes for protesters.  WW2 largely just made people much more wary about tyranny, rather than accepting of it, and made those who are tyrants feel bad enough to give the tyrannized a bit of leeway once in awhile.


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 12, 2004)

Jakar said:
			
		

> I like Eberron because it looks fun and it is full of potential.
> 
> Does everything have to be realistic?  I have enough realism in my everyday life.



  Fun?  What is this '_Fun_' you speak of Earth-man? 
 Does it have something to do with the D&D of which you speak?


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 12, 2004)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> In regards to absolutism, it was -extremely- present after WWI, considering that one of the big reasons for the NAZI movement was a nasty version of Christian absolutist views (the same the Passion plays are meant to push -- Read Chaucer to see how the mindset was in the near 1400s as a result), not at all unlike the excuse we Americans (and, frankly, all conquering peoples) have been using when dabbling in genocide -- divine right.  The methods change, but the excuses don't change, to this very day, considering our own president claims to be doing holy work when bombing overseas.  Absolutism has lost some power, sure but it's still very very strong.  Relativism was almost a fad.




Totally wrong, aside from saying that relativism was almost a fad.

National Socialism is an intensely secular ideology based in ethnic nationalism (a concept whose modern form basically owes its beginnings to pre-WW1 Serbia), the eugenics movement (popular all over Europe and the US prior to WW1), and, at least in its public form, Wagnerian neo-paganism (a 19th-century German development).  It's equally hostile to practicing Jews, secular Jews, Jews converted to Christianity, etc.  It's also hostile to practicing members of any other religion, as are all virulently secular ideologies (communism, secular humanism, etc.).

Anti-Jewish sentiment in the middle ages and persisting in some regions up through the 20th century was almost completely religious.  Jews who converted were, by and large, embraced and welcomed into mainstream society; in Czarist Russia, the last major country to maintain popular religiously-grounded hostility to the Jews, Jewish converts to Christianity sometimes held high positions and no one thought twice of it.

The only connections between ethnic anti-Semitism (the sole element of statist, modernist secular Nazism that could be linked in any way to the 14th century) and religious anti-Judaism is that they both negatively impact Jews, and they both have an undercurrent of class warfare.

The present US position has nothing to do with either.  It has everything to do with Wilsionian evangelical democracy, which, in the Christian Progressive tradition of which Wilson was a peripheral part, makes extensive use of religious imagery while, in actuality, promoting Enlightenment political thought through diplomacy and force of arms.  Essentially, it's a function of rhetoric.  That's not to say that Presidents Bush and Wilson are/were not truly religious men - only that their use of religious imagery in public speaking is more Progressive than Christian.

Most conquering peoples, an oft-honorable title for which neither medieval Europeans nor modern Americans qualify, did not use the kind of ideological justifications seen in the 20th century.  Conquest was not seen as evil prior to the 19th century at the earliest, when, in opposing the conquering Napoleon, the major powers found it prudent to decry conquest itself.  When, Napoleon defeated, they wanted to return to their own conquests (19th-century England being itself a successful conquering nation), they found ideological justification more comforting than taking back what they'd said of the French Emperor.  The presumption against conflict almost universally shared by modern 1st-world peoples is also a fad and an aberration - neither Saladin nor Richard would understand it, Caesar and Nobunaga certainly wouldn't, and Alexander would laugh in your face if you presented it to him.


----------



## Henry (Aug 12, 2004)

Jakar said:
			
		

> I like Eberron because it looks fun and it is full of potential.
> 
> Does everything have to be realistic?  I have enough realism in my everyday life.




We're gamers - fun comes in some really weird shades of color, whether it's hacking Emerald Claw cultists apart to save the day, or _discussing absolutist paradigms among general populace in post-WWI western culture and its relation to EBerronian Khorvairian societal development_.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Aug 12, 2004)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> The only connections between ethnic anti-Semitism (snip) and religious anti-Judaism is that they both negatively impact Jews, and they both have an undercurrent of class warfare.




I've seen some imbecilic statements in these boards, but this takes the cake. 

Also, isn't this both religious and political?

DB


----------



## Incenjucar (Aug 12, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> I've seen some imbecilic statements in these boards, but this takes the cake.
> 
> Also, isn't this both religious and political?
> 
> DB




Indeed, Bob.

My point was simply that the absolutist mindset hasn't gone anywhere, it's just that it's currently having to deal with upstart concepts.  You can very easily have a culture that never gets in on the faddish notion that someone born somewhere has any rights if their neighbor can beat the tar out of them.

Anyways, Eberron's claim to medieval-ness is mostly that they still use swords and bows rather than mechamobiles and plasma rifles and horse-drawn carts still exist in fair numbers.

A better term is "while magictech exists, technology itself is no more advanced than in default D&D".

But that's not nearly as much of a buzzword.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 12, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> I've seen some imbecilic statements in these boards, but this takes the cake.
> 
> Also, isn't this both religious and political?
> 
> DB




Yes, it's both religious and political, which makes sense seeing as it came in response to an erroneous post regarding the religious background of a political ideology.  

As for it being imbecilic... well, you're welcome to your opinion, but I'm certainly not following what, exactly, it is.

Do you believe there's a tighter ideological connection between the two?  Or do you consider the end-result connection strong enough to override the idealogical differences?

(All of this is far off-topic, but I'm very curious what you're getting at)

Of course, unlike the general discussion of post-WW1 ideologies in Europe and abroad, this doesn't really have anything to do with Eberron... unless the Lord of Blades started a, say, anti-Dragonmarked House movement in constructs and organics alike.

I can see the LoB appealing more to the unwashed peasant in Breland or the common laborer in Sharn more than "those snooty 'Marked SoBs thinkin' their better than everybody else because they're different... I'll bet they're scheming to bring down our beloved (insert country here), ever since they stopped us from winning the Last War!"

Although, the Blood of Vol or some other organization might be more appropriate for *that* kind of Eberron "Nazis"...


----------



## fanboy2000 (Aug 12, 2004)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Yes, it's both religious and political, which makes sense seeing as it came in response to an erroneous post regarding the religious background of a political ideology.
> 
> As for it being imbecilic... well, you're welcome to your opinion, but I'm certainly not following what, exactly, it is.
> 
> ...




Off topic? Nah, we're just discussing the real-world implications of, ummmm, stuff.   <----- I love this smiley.



> Of course, unlike the general discussion of post-WW1 ideologies in Europe and abroad, this doesn't really have anything to do with Eberron...




What do you mean!? It has everything to do with this thread (well, everyting to do with it sence it's been highjacked)



> unless the Lord of Blades started a, say, anti-Dragonmarked House movement in constructs and organics alike.
> 
> I can see the LoB appealing more to the unwashed peasant in Breland or the common laborer in Sharn more than "those snooty 'Marked SoBs thinkin' their better than everybody else because they're different... I'll bet they're scheming to bring down our beloved (insert country here), ever since they stopped us from winning the Last War!"
> 
> Although, the Blood of Vol or some other organization might be more appropriate for *that* kind of Eberron "Nazis"...




You know, you may be on to something.

Or, possibly, on something   

Man I love that smiley.

I should ignore this thread. Really, haven't we (well, I. Because I'm ego-centric.) hashed this out enough? Nahhhhh....


----------



## Jakar (Aug 12, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Fun?  What is this '_Fun_' you speak of Earth-man?
> Does it have something to do with the D&D of which you speak?





Heeheehee.  Ok, I needed that after a crap day at work....


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 12, 2004)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Indeed, Bob.
> Anyways, Eberron's claim to medieval-ness is mostly that they still use swords and bows rather than mechamobiles and plasma rifles and horse-drawn carts still exist in fair numbers.
> 
> A better term is "while magictech exists, technology itself is no more advanced than in default D&D".




Well need I point out that swords and bows were around for literally THOUSANDS of years before the medieval period, and (along with horse-drawn carts) right up until last century were used, so long after medievalism ended.

There's NO reason why Eberron couldn't have been at least Renaissance and thus have been more culturally realistic...

Nisarg


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 12, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> Well need I point out that swords and bows were around for literally THOUSANDS of years before the medieval period, and (along with horse-drawn carts) right up until last century were used, so long after medievalism ended.
> 
> There's NO reason why Eberron couldn't have been at least Renaissance and thus have been more culturally realistic...
> 
> Nisarg



But when we hear about bows and swords and horsedrawn cards, we associate it with medieval.

If we here about gladiators, we associate it with the Roman Empire.
If we here about great philosophers, we associate it with the Old Greek. 

It´s just the way people think, "connect the dots", so to say. If someone says medieval, we will always think of knights in shining armor, bows and swords, even if there were several thousands of years in which they were used.


----------



## Belegbeth (Aug 12, 2004)

_Stop The Insanity!!!_


----------



## Staffan (Aug 12, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> Does FR have things that really stretch the limits of what is credibly "medieval"? Yes.. but usually in the areas of the realms where they do, the culture is specifically explained as NOT medieval or not Medieval anymore (places like Amn or Calimsham, or the more fantastic areas away from the FR "heartlands").



You don't get more heartlandy than the Dalelands in FR, and those are pretty darn non-medieval, what with not having kings and stuff. Beyond that, you have many, many city-states around in the Heartlands - the Moonsea, the Vast, the Dragon Coast, and the Western Heartlands basically consist of city-states, and those aren't any more medieval than Breland with its infant democracy. The *only* area of FR that's "credibly medieval"  is Cormyr.


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 12, 2004)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> There's NO reason why Eberron couldn't have been at least Renaissance and thus have been more culturally realistic...



 Except that cultural realism would have had a major impact on 'teh fun', IMHO, without much benefit.

 I mean, Eberron (and in truth ALL D&D settings) grants women equal rights and priveleges to men.  That, by itself, is a massive difference from cultural reality...one which should have vast ripples across the cultural spectrum...but we ignore it, because it doesn't make the game more fun to include such aspects.  The same applies for infant mortality, medical technology and whole schools of cultural thought.  I mean, Faust as a cautionary tale loses some of it's punch when the Dragonmarked exist, doesn't it?  

 The concept of selectively finding concepts that do or don't fit for a given world-setting merely strikes me as somewhat odd, I guess.  Eberon is fairly internally consistent for a RPG game-world, which is what it is and what it was designed to be.  I know that I'd be pretty unhappy if five pages were wasted making excuses for why a given cultural paradigm is different from real world history, rather than be given more chances for adventure.  YMMV.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 12, 2004)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Of course, unlike the general discussion of post-WW1 ideologies in Europe and abroad, this doesn't really have anything to do with Eberron... unless the Lord of Blades started a, say, anti-Dragonmarked House movement in constructs and organics alike.
> 
> I can see the LoB appealing more to the unwashed peasant in Breland or the common laborer in Sharn more than "those snooty 'Marked SoBs thinkin' their better than everybody else because they're different... I'll bet they're scheming to bring down our beloved (insert country here), ever since they stopped us from winning the Last War!"
> 
> Although, the Blood of Vol or some other organization might be more appropriate for *that* kind of Eberron "Nazis"...



Hmmm...  I like the way you think.

Not that I'll be running Eberron anytime soon, but those are some nifty ideas there.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 12, 2004)

I LOVE ENWorld   

Whenever I have an inkling that someone is off the wall, 6 people with the right knowledge pop out of the woodwork.

Couple of things, though...



			
				Nisarg said:
			
		

> There's NO reason why Eberron couldn't have been at least Renaissance and thus have been more culturally realistic...



So, changing the word "medieval" in the marketing to "renaissance" would solve your problem?


			
				Nisarg said:
			
		

> Does FR have things that really stretch the limits of what is credibly "medieval"? Yes.. but usually in the areas of the realms where they do, the culture is specifically explained as NOT medieval or not Medieval anymore (places like Amn or Calimsham, or the more fantastic areas away from the FR "heartlands").



And breaking your rules is OK, as long as the fluff text cops to it?  

This whole mess is an overblown _semantic_ issue?!

Yep.  You're an academic.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 12, 2004)

Before posting, please think about puppies, butterflies and kittens.  

Then try to post politely without calling people names.  

Thanks.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 12, 2004)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Before posting, please think about puppies, butterflies and kittens.
> 
> Then try to post politely without calling people names.
> 
> Thanks.



If this was directed at me, I do apologize.  Though, really, I'm an academic, so I'm not sure I can be called on the carpet for calling someone else one, vile appelation though it be. 

Of course, as a mere biologist, I can but aspire to the level of discourse on the subject of fantasy world sociology and real world history evident in this thread of late.

I give good developmental biology, though.

Anybody up for neuroanatomy of the Shifter?


----------



## fanboy2000 (Aug 12, 2004)

Heck, while we're going wildly off topic, I have a story. 

Dr. Jacques Benveniste, a famous and well respected scientist, made a claim sometime ago that water had memory. IOW, if you took a substance and diluted to the point where the solution is just water, the water would have some kind memory of the substance and could still be effective. He wrote an article for Nature, a famous scientific journal published in the UK. Nature said they would print it, but only if they could come to his lab and over see an experiment. To Nature's suprise, Benveniste said yes.

Nature got a team together to test the extraordinary claim. The team included the editor of Nature, several scientists, and a stage magician named James Randi. Dr. Benveniste had never heard of Randi before and was trying to find a scientist named Randi, when he found out Randi was a stage magician, he was very unhappy. Only real scientists were supposed to be there. 

Well, the Nature team was watching Benveniste's lab do an experament when Randi noticed that the experamentors knew which samples were supposed to be diluted water and which were supposed to be just plain water. Well, if you know which samples are which, it's posible to see something that isn't there to skew the results in your favor. Randi sugested the test tubes be coded and the code hidden so that the experamenters didn't know which was which. They got a member of the team to code the samples and they put the code in an envelope and taped it to the ceiling.

Well, taping stuff to the ceiling isn't science. Dr. Benveniste was very unhappy, here was a man who isn't a scientist, and he's coding his test tubes and taping the code to the ceiling. Who does Randi think he is? Dosen't he know who Dr. Benveniste is? Well the experament was a flop, and Dr. Benveniste wasn't happy. He latter complained that his phone stopped ringing, so to speak, after this stunt. 

I think of this when ever I see academic snobery (even, as in the above post, when in jest). Randi calls it Ivory Tower Syndrome.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 12, 2004)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> I think of this when ever I see academic snobery (even, as in the above post, when in jest). Randi calls it Ivory Tower Syndrome.



My colleagues and I are absolutely LOADED with Ivory Tower syndrome.    

Goes with the job.  Though I like to think we biologists do a better job of staying grounded <polishes his monocle>

But, for the record, taping things to the ceiling IS standard scientific practice nowadays, at least in biology and psychology, as I can't speak for other disciplines.  Whether Randi taught us that observer bias is a big problem or we figured it out on our own, double-blind experiment structure is part and parcel of the way things run.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Aug 12, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> Anybody up for neuroanatomy of the Shifter?




Since you mentioned it and the thread has left its original topic in the dust anyway, sure, that would be fascinating.


----------



## Nisarg (Aug 12, 2004)

Staffan said:
			
		

> You don't get more heartlandy than the Dalelands in FR, and those are pretty darn non-medieval, what with not having kings and stuff. Beyond that, you have many, many city-states around in the Heartlands - the Moonsea, the Vast, the Dragon Coast, and the Western Heartlands basically consist of city-states, and those aren't any more medieval than Breland with its infant democracy. The *only* area of FR that's "credibly medieval"  is Cormyr.




Hmm.. apparently you are not familiar with the Swiss Cantons.  Or the Italian  city-states.

If you're saying the only area credibly medieval is Cormyr, I'm guessing your only awareness of "medieval" is medieval england?

Nisarg


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 12, 2004)

Mishihari Lord said:
			
		

> Since you mentioned it and the thread has left its original topic in the dust anyway, sure, that would be fascinating.



Unfortunately, I was being facetious.  Anything with rapidly changing physiology like that is impossible to model, especially if they claim to be a vertebrate.  But that's par for the course with D&D.  Heck, Darkvision as it's described nowadays is impossible by all reasonable biology.  Infravision was better biologically, but sucked to adjudicate in game, which is one of the reasons I don't worry about biological accuracy in game very much.  

If I was going to pretend to outline the neurological differences between a human and a shifter, it would have to be a terribly dry outline of peripheral sensory systems, alterations of the limbic vs cortical relationship in primate brain development (the blurring of lines between primate and carnivore would have some interesting consequences), and other nonsense that would bore even me pretty quickly.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Aug 12, 2004)

*Refresher course*



			
				Nisarg said:
			
		

> Hmm.. apparently you are not familiar with the Swiss Cantons.  Or the Italian  city-states.
> 
> If you're saying the only area credibly medieval is Cormyr, I'm guessing your only awareness of "medieval" is medieval england?
> 
> Nisarg




Well, gee, I don't know. Let's see here hmmmmmmm

Ok,  Tatical Studies Research (TSR) was located in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin. When TSR went out of business it was bought by a company called Wizards of the Coast located in Renton, Washington. One of, David Arneson's, co-creator of Dungeons and Dragons (and Chainmail) , hobbies is American Civil War re-enactments. Most of the authors that influanced early D&D were either American or English. 

So I don't know, do you think that it is posible that when an American company, runs an advertisment in America refering to medieval, they mean an American view of medieval England? 

Words have more meaning then the definations in the dictionary. When you say medieval to most Americans (and I think you know this) they draw a certian picture in their head that has nothing to the dictionary defination of medieval. It dosen't have to be spelled out, the book dosen't have to have cavets, because the book is written with people who understand the connotative meaning of medieval is. If the reader dosen't understand the connotative meaning of medieval, then it's safe to say that the book is not written for that partiular reader. 

Not to worry though. There are plenty of settings for such a person. Personaly, I'm still waiting for the D&D setting that portrays serfs accurately.

Again, it's not suprising that a game written in America, by Americans, to be sold (mostly) in America has certian american conotative meaning. 

Now, I don't want people to think that I have some high and mighty view that America is better than anything else. Far from it. I think most people don't understand that the US has it's own culture. (Even in the US) Yes, The US's roots are western Europe, but a few hundred years of settalment will cause some cultural drift, and that's an important concept. Western Civlization isn't one culture divieded among many nations, is thousands of cutures divided among every conceivable geographic and political boundry there exists and few that don't. To think that words don't have diffrent meanings (connotative or otherwise) even to people who speak the same language (even to people with close cultural roots) is ludicrous.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Aug 12, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, I was being facetious.  Anything with rapidly changing physiology like that is impossible to model, especially if they claim to be a vertebrate.  But that's par for the course with D&D.  Heck, Darkvision as it's described nowadays is impossible by all reasonable biology.  Infravision was better biologically, but sucked to adjudicate in game, which is one of the reasons I don't worry about biological accuracy in game very much.
> 
> If I was going to pretend to outline the neurological differences between a human and a shifter, it would have to be a terribly dry outline of peripheral sensory systems, alterations of the limbic vs cortical relationship in primate brain development (the blurring of lines between primate and carnivore would have some interesting consequences), and other nonsense that would bore even me pretty quickly.



 Interesting. I'm so used to people attemting to explain all but the sillyist things in fantasy away, that (untill I read your post) I forgot that the reason Shifters can shape change is magic. 

If magic did exist, it would be interesting to find out how someone born with supernatural powers would think, and how their brain workd. I think it would be facinating if all the D&D humanoids _were human_ but magic alters their physiology. And, of course, gives them their supernatural abilites.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Aug 13, 2004)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Yes, it's both religious and political, which makes sense seeing as it came in response to an erroneous post regarding the religious background of a political ideology.
> 
> As for it being imbecilic... well, you're welcome to your opinion, but I'm certainly not following what, exactly, it is.
> 
> Do you believe there's a tighter ideological connection between the two?  Or do you consider the end-result connection strong enough to override the idealogical differences?




It is imbecilic to assume that the varying rationalizations for the continued legacy of repeated massacres of jews in Europe for centuries upon centuries are utterly seperate from each other simply because you cannot reconcile it within your own sophomoric system of ideas about secular humanism or Wilsonian expansionism or whatever the hell you are talking about.  To imply that, for example, there is no connection between Chrisitian religious persecution of Jews and that of the Nazis is more than imbecilic, it is highly irresponsible at best.  The Nazi's could never have gotten away with what they did in a predominantly Christian Germany without the consent and enthusiastic cooperation of the Christian populace.

If I thought you were not either a Troll or someone who didn't have any interest in historical truth I might question you about your perception of the lack of any link between religion and religious culture in Europe, and in the United States, with anti-semitic, anti immigrant, and quasi fascistic societies and groups since the 19th cenutry.

But your comments in the thread mark you as some kind of warped idealogue, perhaps even something truly vile like an Objectivist.  Carrying on any kind of disucssion with you would be as pointless as arguing with a particularly persistant Imp or some other minor Devil right out of the 9 hells, and I'm only answering you for the sake of other readers of the thread.  

DB


----------



## molonel (Aug 13, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> To imply that, for example, there is no connection between Chrisitian religious persecution of Jews and that of the Nazis is more than imbecilic, it is highly irresponsible at best. The Nazi's could never have gotten away with what they did in a predominantly Christian Germany without the consent and enthusiastic cooperation of the Christian populace.




Or indeed, without the strong unpinnings of anti-semitism intrinsic in German Protestantism. That wasn't a later development, either. It comes straight from Martin Luther, as anyone who has read "On the Jews and Their Lies," written toward the end of Luther's life, can attest:

http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm

Or some selections:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/luther-jews.html

There is a STRONG current of anti-semitism in Christianity. The term "Christ killer" has a very old and diabolical lineage.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 13, 2004)

molonel said:
			
		

> There is a STRONG current of anti-semitism in Christianity. The term "Christ killer" has a very old and diabolical lineage.



The term "thread killer", on the other hand, is a much later invention.

I'd hate to see it pop up 'round here, but it seems sadly inevitable.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Aug 13, 2004)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> The term "thread killer", on the other hand, is a much later invention.
> 
> I'd hate to see it pop up 'round here, but it seems sadly inevitable.




I'm sorry, I don't mean to contribute to the thread getting killed, but I think MoogleEmpMog crossed the line, I pointed it out, and it didn't change anything.  Some people take Nazis pretty seriously and I'm one of them.

DB


----------



## fanboy2000 (Aug 13, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I don't mean to contribute to the thread getting killed, but I think MoogleEmpMog crossed the line, I pointed it out, and it didn't change anything.  Some people take Nazis pretty seriously and I'm one of them.
> 
> DB



 Don't worry Bob, this thread has been in it's death throws for a while now. Now all we need are for people to start posting things like, "This is a really big thread." Then they tell their friends, who post "Wow, this is a really big thread!"

Then the thread passes on into legend. And now when people bring up Eberron, most of the posts will be actually related to Eberron, because all the sillyness was expressed here.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 13, 2004)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> Interesting. I'm so used to people attemting to explain all but the sillyist things in fantasy away, that (untill I read your post) I forgot that the reason Shifters can shape change is magic.
> 
> If magic did exist, it would be interesting to find out how someone born with supernatural powers would think, and how their brain workd. I think it would be facinating if all the D&D humanoids _were human_ but magic alters their physiology. And, of course, gives them their supernatural abilites.



Well, with very few exceptions, we all roleplay them as funny-looking humans, anyway.  So, effectively, that's what they are.

Take Dwarves.  An excerpt I just read from "Races of Stone" tries to talk about the effect of Darkvision on their culture.  Sure there a few things you can say about their outlook, but think about this: No Dwarf, Ever, has been afraid of the dark.  That sounds silly and trivial, but think about the reams of mythology, literature, nursery rhymes, and even therapy sessions built around dealing with fear of the dark.  That's going to be a big, fat psychological difference.  D&D doesn't address this in the slightest.  Critters that have fear effects because of their "dark" nature are preying on a primal fear humans have, yet you never see "Dwarves are immune to this effect because they have no innate fear of the dark."

I couldn't begin to tell you how a Shifter's mind would be different because they have more limbic brain structures.  Oh, I can say things like, "scent will be a viable form of communication" but we can't really wrap our heads around that one as a general rule.  Example: Hamsters determine whether they want to mate with someone or something exclusively on scent from specific flank glands.  The scent and the nature of scent marks left by males in the environment tells a female how healthy they are and how tough they are, because dominant males overmark less dominant ones.  A lot of carnivores operate on similar systems.  So I could theorize that a female shifter would tend to place a lot of emphasis on the scent of males, both for mating, and for questions of leadership and social dominance.  How would that operate in a social situation among humans?

Can you imagine a player using that knowledge in a mature way that wouldn't send the table into giggles?


----------



## fanboy2000 (Aug 13, 2004)

> Can you imagine a player using that knowledge in a mature way that wouldn't send the table into giggles?




I can. In fact, this is the first physical manifestation of the charisma ability score I've seen that didn't involve looks. In fact, I would imagin that shifters with low cha scores would fit into human society better because they don't mark their teritory they way a high cha shifter would. This could lead to a general perseption that shifters arn't very charismatic, but in reality all the high charisma shifter are leaders of their tribe and don't go adventuring into human society much. 

Wow, this thread is really big!


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 13, 2004)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> I can. In fact, this is the first physical manifestation of the charisma ability score I've seen that didn't involve looks. In fact, I would imagin that shifters with low cha scores would fit into human society better because they don't mark their teritory they way a high cha shifter would.



Well, not all scent-marking is urine, you know.  Hamster have special glands in their flanks.  I believe cats have them under their jawline.  When your cat rubs its head on you, you're being marked.  We just don't have the equipment to detect these scents and pheromones.  Downregulating olfactory and limbic structures in our brains allowed for some fancy cortical disco, but it took away a whole way of socializing for which we no longer have a context.

Hmmm...  Seems to me a Shifter would be able to tell who your pets were pretty easily.  Not sure how useful that is, but there you go.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Aug 13, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> environment tells a female how healthy they are and how tough they are, because dominant males overmark less dominant ones.  A lot of carnivores operate on similar systems.  So I could theorize that a female shifter would tend to place a lot of emphasis on the scent of males, both for mating, and for questions of leadership and social dominance.  How would that operate in a social situation among humans?
> 
> Can you imagine a player using that knowledge in a mature way that wouldn't send the table into giggles?




actually, I saw a piece on the Discovery channel the other day about how humans make the same judgemnts based on pheremones, only without knowing it.  One of the things they did in this study was look at incest, normally brothers and sisters don't like each others smell, those prone to incest were the same ones who reacted positively to the smell, supposedly.

DB


----------



## fanboy2000 (Aug 13, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> Well, not all scent-marking is urine, you know.  Hamster have special glands in their flanks.  I believe cats have them under their jawline.  When your cat rubs its head on you, you're being marked.  We just don't have the equipment to detect these scents and pheromones.  Downregulating olfactory and limbic structures in our brains allowed for some fancy cortical disco, but it took away a whole way of socializing for which we no longer have a context.
> 
> Hmmm...  Seems to me a Shifter would be able to tell who your pets were pretty easily.  Not sure how useful that is, but there you go.



 I learn something new everyday.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 13, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> actually, I saw a piece on the Discovery channel the other day about how humans make the same judgemnts based on pheremones, only without knowing it.  One of the things they did in this study was look at incest, normally brothers and sisters don't like each others smell, those prone to incest were the same ones who reacted positively to the smell, supposedly.



I'm not familiar with that work, though olfactory stuff isn't my speciality.  I do know that pheromone work in humans is really, really iffy.  Our vomeronasal organ is just this side of vestigial.  However, there are some interesting things.  Women in the most fertile part of their menstrual cycle are more attracted to the odors of young, symmetrical (read: "consistently healthy") men.  When they're not in that part of their cycle, they seem to be attracted at random (or at least, on something no one has coded for).  So our scents are at least providing some information, much of it immunohistory and genetic information.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 13, 2004)

> Take Dwarves. An excerpt I just read from "Races of Stone" tries to talk about the effect of Darkvision on their culture. Sure there a few things you can say about their outlook, but think about this: No Dwarf, Ever, has been afraid of the dark. That sounds silly and trivial, but think about the reams of mythology, literature, nursery rhymes, and even therapy sessions built around dealing with fear of the dark. That's going to be a big, fat psychological difference. D&D doesn't address this in the slightest. Critters that have fear effects because of their "dark" nature are preying on a primal fear humans have, yet you never see "Dwarves are immune to this effect because they have no innate fear of the dark."




Wow. That's one of the coolest concepts I've heard in a long time.

Take that to its logical conclusion. Dwarven culture has no concept of true darkness, or fear thereof. Thus, dwarves are not frightened by darkness--_but_, a dwarf would be driven to an absolute hysterical panic by a _darkness_ spell, because it's a completely foreign experience.

Geez. I'm already thinking of dwarves in a way I never have before. I would love to see a book that dwelt with all the major races on a cultural/psychological/societal level, taking this sort of thing into account. I don't know if it would sell, but I'd sure as hell be willing to buy it. (Or even write parts of it.)

Kudos on an absolutely brilliant concept.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 13, 2004)

_I'm_ trolling?  

In any case, there isn't an _ideological_ connection between the intensely secular, extremely anti-Christian Nazi party and its anti-Semitic activities and Christian anti-Semitism (I prefer to be precise and not use this term, which implies ethnic rather than religiously-grounded hatred, but...).

Was there a ready ground for Nazi anti-Semitism because German Protestantism carries a strong anti-Judaic undercurrent?  Presumably.

Does that make Nazi anti-Semitism ideologically connected?  Not necessarily.

Both extremely religious Quakers and many extremely irreligious internationalists abhor military action of any sort.  One does so on religious grounds, the other on secular grounds.  They agree on the result.  One might even be inclined to support the other to achieve the same result.  They do not, however, have any ideological connection beyond their objective.

Now, in the post-war years, a convergence of ethnic and religious anti-Semitism seems to have occurred.  It's seen in European and American fringe groups and, much more noticeably, in the Islamic world.  The combination doesn't really make much sense, but fanatics rarely do.  It has certainly caused much harm, although thankfully not, to date, as much as purely secular anti-Semitism did.

Keep in mind that I never said anything in _defense_ of religious anti-Semitism; my objective here was to clarify _definitions_.  Nor, to be sure, would I deny the role of religion in 20th-century Western life (although its role in Western Europe has been in decline since before WW1).

Keep in mind also that I've studied WW2 and the period leading up to it principally as they relate to WW1.  As such, I won't pretend to be an expert on the average's German citizen's opinions in the 1930s.  Certainly Germany's intellectual community, one of the hotbeds of Nazism in the '30s, found it appealing more for its secular, eugenicist elements and its connection to Wagner and Nietzsche.

And BTW... this thread is really long, huh?


----------



## Mythtify (Aug 13, 2004)

Isnt it time to close this thread?  It's been awfully full of real world politics and religion for a while now.  I though it was supposed to be about WoTC pushing Eberron.  Which, I don't think that they are going to have to push very hard. It is good enough to sell itself.  I hope it continues for a long time.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Aug 13, 2004)

*Wow, this thread is really long!*



			
				MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> _I'm_ trolling?




Not really. I might be trolling, you're just bringing up politics and religion. Not the same thing.



> _Snip politics and religion, going straight to the point:_
> 
> And BTW... this thread is really long, huh?




You know, that's about the smartest thing any us intellectuals have said.  



			
				My Girlfriend said:
			
		

> I therefore say "Wow, that is a very long thread".




She dosen't have an account.


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 13, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> Sure there a few things you can say about their outlook, but think about this: No Dwarf, Ever, has been afraid of the dark. That sounds silly and trivial, but think about the reams of mythology, literature, nursery rhymes, and even therapy sessions built around dealing with fear of the dark. That's going to be a big, fat psychological difference. D&D doesn't address this in the slightest. Critters that have fear effects because of their "dark" nature are preying on a primal fear humans have, yet you never see "Dwarves are immune to this effect because they have no innate fear of the dark."



 I don't buy that argument for a second.  Being able to see in the dark for 60' does not equate not being afraid of the dark.  You could just as easily argue that being able to see in the dark makes utter darkness even more terrifying to a dwarf.  If you've ALWAYS been able to see in the dark, and then suddenly you _can't_, that might be one of the most horrifying things, ever.  Fear of the dark is fear of the unknown.  My children have night-lights...but they're still afraid of what they can't see beyond the limit of that light.  The same would hold true of some dwarves, and dwarven children especially.  Unlike above-worlders, Dwarves have to learn to adapt to the fact that, outside of torch or lantern-light, they cannot see nearly as far as above-worlders can...and there are creatures in the deep that don't need to see at all.  

 I mean, at best Dwarves exchange one set of phobias for another.  Consider how terrifying unidentifiable noises are, or random earth tremors.   Was that a thoqqua?  Will it burst through the wall and come get me?  Could it be an umber hulk or a xorn, moving silently through the walls???  AAAHHHH! 

 Either direction works.  The fact is, that every race in D&D are essentially humans in funny bodies...since the last time I checked, only humans were playing them.  Alien outlooks are highly overrated.


----------



## Numion (Aug 13, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Thus, dwarves are not frightened by darkness--_but_, a dwarf would be driven to an absolute hysterical panic by a _darkness_ spell, because it's a completely foreign experience.




...not unlike _closing ones eyes_


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 13, 2004)

Is it really not surprising there are no half-dwarves?


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 13, 2004)

That hold music is hilarious.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Aug 13, 2004)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> It's younger and prettier.
> 
> Kind of like how you'd much rather meet Ms. Hawaii in person than, say, me.




but...but...YOU'RE SEXY!!!


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 13, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Wow. That's one of the coolest concepts I've heard in a long time.



Thanks!    It was just a passing thought.  Let's see if it holds up to scrutiny...



			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> I don't buy that argument for a second.  Being able to see in the dark for 60' does not equate not being afraid of the dark.  You could just as easily argue that being able to see in the dark makes utter darkness even more terrifying to a dwarf.  If you've ALWAYS been able to see in the dark, and then suddenly you _can't_, that might be one of the most horrifying things, ever.




As Mouseferatu pointed out, magical darkness (as per the spell) would likely be truly horrifying, as it would be outside Dwarven experience, but mundane darkness or the simple dimming of illumination wouldn't affect a Dwarf at all.

btw, 60 ft is at the very edge of actionable distance for anyone but superb athletes.  Heck, even with a bow the average person can't consistently affect things 60 ft away.  We use different depth cues for things at little more than that distance.  60 ft is a LONG way.  Further, you're thinking of it as a limitation because you can often see further than this.  Dwarves never do in their mountains.  When they are at home in their cities and mines in the mountain, they NEVER see more than 60 ft.  This is not going to bother them.  It's like you getting upset that you can't consciously smell pheromones.  You NEVER HAVE, so you have no frame of reference.

Really, the 60 ft thing is very silly.  There's just an impenetrable curtain at 60 ft?! If you're explaining it as Infravision, then a tight range limit makes some sense, though you'd be able to see strong heat sources from substantially further away.  You wouldn't necessarily be able to identify them, but you'd know SOMETHING was there.  (God, Infravision was a pain).  Darkvision simply doesn't have any science to fall back on and must be magic.  For game balance reasons, their vision just stops at 60 ft.  That's idiotic.  Does your vision just STOP at a certain point?  Of course not.  It's sharp to a certain distance and acuity breaks down after that.  The curvature of the earth limits your vision more than any properties of light or your eyes.  If Darkvision relied upon even pseudo-science, it would do the same thing. 

*Hey physicists!*  What's a ubiquitous sub-atomic particle that would be bouncing around like light does, but everywhere, even underground?  Preferably something that moves nearly as fast, but has a limited range.  (Yes, I know, probably doesn't exist)  But, if we could base Darkvision on something like that, we could treat Dwarves as simply being near-sighted and color-blind in the dark.  And magical Darkness would be stopping the motion of said particles.  Which, unfortunately, really starts to push magic into the science realm, and then how many midi-chlorians your 10th level wizard has gets to be an issue.

But that's beside the point.  We're supposed to be talking about the marketing of Eberron, after all.  And midi-chlorians and the adjudication of Darkvision are pretty far afield, don't you think?



> Fear of the dark is fear of the unknown.



But for Dwarves, the darkness is NOT unknown.  To the limit of their vision (however arbitrary that may be) they can see.  Their fear of the unknown would be tied to something else entirely.  I would guess silence.  Let's say you're a Dwarf.  You've lived in an echo-ey mountain all your life, constantly filled with the noise of busy, working Dwarves, as well as falling water, etc.  Shut all that off with a Silence spell.  Probably would drive you buggy.  

Hey, I think I defended that reasonably well.  There might be something to it 



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Geez. I'm already thinking of dwarves in a way I never have before. I would love to see a book that dwelt with all the major races on a cultural/psychological/societal level, taking this sort of thing into account. I don't know if it would sell, but I'd sure as hell be willing to buy it. (Or even write parts of it.)



That might actually be fun.  I've got the bio and some of the psych background.  No experience writing gaming supplements, though.  Heck, I've only ever written 2 adventures.  Still, it could be fun.  I might even put that on the burner to toy with after I get the paper I'm supposed to be writing right now out the door.  I haven't written anything but journal articles in months.  This could make for some nice drunken discussion with my colleagues in the psych department.  

EDIT: poor spelling


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 13, 2004)

Numion said:
			
		

> ...not unlike _closing ones eyes_




Sigh...

Okay, I thought it was implicit, but...

"...because _involuntary or uncontrolled darkness_ is a completely foreign experience."

Better?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 13, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> That might actually be fun.  I've got the bio and some of the psych background.  No experience writing gaming supplements, though.  Heck, I've only ever written 2 adventures.  Still, it could be fun.  I might even put that on the burner to toy with after I get the paper I'm supposed to be writing right now out the door.  I haven't written anything but journal articles in months.  This could make for some nice drunken discussion with my colleagues in the psych department.




If I ever find an interested publisher, you're first on my list to call.


----------



## Navar (Aug 16, 2004)

I think that the entire argument that has been made and carried out in this thread is one of semantics.  What difference does it make the word Medieval is used?  A couple of pages back someone hit the nail on the head when they said something like "so if you replaces Medieval with Renaissance you would be happy" sometimes there is no pleasing people.  Someone also said that the main person arguing about the definition of medieval is a troll from another forum, and I would believe that as well because some of his points are like "if you are stupid then Eberon is great" etc.  Simply put, some people will never be happy.  He chooses to nitpic the definition of a word and that keeps him from enjoying an entire setting.  And it is a fantastic setting. Any further argument is moot because he has already made up his mind he is not going to agree with any valid point put to him.  When someone mentioned that the definition of Medieval was just an Americanized one he said Touché and went on arguing his pervious point.  He is obviously a Troll who can’t stand for anyone else to be happy, so he has to FIND THINGS WRONG with a product.  With this one he finds a word misused.  “It would be a fantastic setting, but that misuse you one word just makes it crap.” about sums up his argument.  

Thank you Mr. Baker and WOTC for this fantastic product.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 16, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Sigh...
> 
> Okay, I thought it was implicit, but...
> 
> ...




What also would be a foreign experience for underground-dwelling dwarfes might be seeing beyond 60 feet - not only because of their vision, but also because of the size of most rooms and cities. 
Probably most dwarfes are agoraphobic (did I spell that right?), at least at first, once they enter the "free world". Where is the ceiling? Where is the next wall?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 16, 2004)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> What also would be a foreign experience for underground-dwelling dwarfes might be seeing beyond 60 feet - not only because of their vision, but also because of the size of most rooms and cities.
> Probably most dwarfes are agoraphobic (did I spell that right?), at least at first, once they enter the "free world". Where is the ceiling? Where is the next wall?




Indeed, my wife and I were just discussing that the other day. How cool would it be to play a dwarven warrior, unafraid of an orcish axe, willing to stand toe-to-toe with a dragon, but terrified of an open field on a cloudless day?

The unfamiliar is often the basis for fear, and few things would be less familiar to an underground-dwelling race. In fact, I can see the dwarves being far more comfortable at night, precisely because they _can't_ see as far.


----------



## myrdden (Aug 16, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Indeed, my wife and I were just discussing that the other day. How cool would it be to play a dwarven warrior, unafraid of an orcish axe, willing to stand toe-to-toe with a dragon, but terrified of an open field on a cloudless day?




Wasn't there a character from David Eddings' "Belgarid" (or however it is written) series with such a reaction?


----------



## William Ronald (Aug 16, 2004)

myrdden said:
			
		

> Wasn't there a character from David Eddings' "Belgarid" (or however it is written) series with such a reaction?




I think there was a clautrophobic dwarf in the Sword of Shannara, where dwarves lived in the woodlands and the elves lived underground.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 16, 2004)

myrdden said:
			
		

> Wasn't there a character from David Eddings' "Belgarid" (or however it is written) series with such a reaction?



Yeah, if I remember right, he was a kinda Morlock-ish, pale white kinda guy.  Haven't read that in a long time, though.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 16, 2004)

myrdden said:
			
		

> Wasn't there a character from David Eddings' "Belgarid" (or however it is written) series with such a reaction?




Indeed. Still one of my favorite fantasy series, along with the Elenium and the Tamuli. (I'm less fond of the Malorean, but it's still decent.) Eddings isn't a very good plotter--all his stories are basically the same--but I love his writing and his dialogue. Some of the most fun I've ever had reading a series.


----------



## Knight Otu (Aug 16, 2004)

William Ronald said:
			
		

> I think there was a clautrophobic dwarf in the Sword of Shannara, where dwarves lived in the woodlands and the elves lived underground.



 It's been some time since I read the books, but I believe the elves still lived in woodlands (more or less). The dwarves lived in the woods, too, after surviving the cataclysm in the depth of the earth, but never wanted to return there, I think. Am I so off-base in my memory?


----------



## malladin (Aug 18, 2004)

Appologies for coming late to the party, but I just had to join in...



			
				Incenjucar said:
			
		

> A note: I never said Eberron was bad. However, it's not what I consider a good direction. I consider concepts like Planescape or Dark Sun a good direction. If you put that sort of creativity behind the notion "Classic fantasy", you'd have a heck of a good setting.



With respect, I think you are mistaken on this point.  Eberron is exactly the same basic concept built on classic fantasy ideas.  Instead of adding the Post-Apocalyptic concept (darksun) or planar/horror concept (Planescape), Eberron works itself into developing a pulp/noir feel on top of the classic fantasy basic structure.  Pretty much all the big elements in the history are set up to create that feel - the war (like WW1), the Daelkyr and Quori (like Cthulu), Xendrik (like indiana jones). I've just not quite figured out who the Nazi's are going to be.  My guess is the Warforged...

Whether or not this will work or is to each individual's taste is another matter... Maybe fantasy and noir don't mix well, maybe these 'alternative' settings don't last (as an earlier poster commented on), but I don't think you can say that this is different to DarkSun or Planescape.

Cheerio,
Ben


----------

