# Eberron-as corny as I think?



## WarlockLord (Jul 4, 2006)

How did Eberron become a major D&D setting? It doesn't seem like fantasy at all.  I mean, it has robots warforged and airplanes airships.  It seems like somebody was trying to make "science fictasy"


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 4, 2006)

I take it you're not terribly familiar with the 'pulp' literature of the early 1900s?


----------



## Crothian (Jul 4, 2006)

No it is not as corny as you think.  It is not traditional fantasy, but there are plenty of settings that are.  It is about time someone really tried something different.


----------



## WarlockLord (Jul 5, 2006)

Um, no.  Is this like that one "Planet of the Vampires" movie I found at Blockbuster once?


----------



## IronWolf (Jul 5, 2006)

Well the poll options are pretty limited, so I didn't vote.  I have flipped through the campaign setting and listened to a couple friends talk about wanting to play it.  Meanwhile I continue to make fun of the warforged, air ships and trains (mainly to harass my gaming group ... shh.......    ).  

I recently (Sunday) played my first Eberron game (DM'ed by Keith Baker at Origins).  It was a good game and it all seemed very D&D like to me - even though there were warforged and a crashed airship involved.  And from what I have heard and read it seems to me that each of those have pretty reasonable justifications for their existence.

I am not sure it would be my preferred setting of choice, but I wouldn't turn down an Eberron game either.  Sometimes a setting with something a bit different about it can be a lot of fun to play in.


----------



## Jaguar (Jul 5, 2006)

It is a world were the magic is taken to the level of technology. It feels like would it be the technowizard world from RIFTS.

It is cohesive and works inside itself.

I have played it and I liked it a lot.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 5, 2006)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> Um, no.  Is this like that one "Planet of the Vampires" movie I found at Blockbuster once?



No.

Pulp fiction gets its name from the poor quality paper used when publishing magazines full of adventure stories. It is a genre that includes the Shadow, Doc Savage, John Carter of Mars, Conan the Barbarian, and many other familiar heroes. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is a good example of a modern movie that embraced the feel of pulp fiction: larger than life heroes, non-stop action, dastardly villains, cinematic fights.

That's what Eberron is shooting for. In my opinion, it succeeds nicely.


----------



## Kafkonia (Jul 5, 2006)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> How did Eberron become a major D&D setting? It doesn't seem like fantasy at all.  I mean, it has robots warforged and airplanes airships.  It seems like somebody was trying to make "science fictasy"




"Science fantasy." Popular authors include Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe, and China Mieville, as well as James P. Blaylock and Michael Moorcock. Titles to look for include _Big Planet_, _The Shadow of the Torturer_, _Perdido Street Station_, _The Iron Dragon's Daughter_.


----------



## Psion (Jul 5, 2006)

Well, I don't play it or "love it", but I certainly don't think it's "corny."


----------



## A'koss (Jul 5, 2006)

Ever since Eberron hit the scene I've called it the _Anti-A'koss_ campaign. It's just about everything I've tried to strip out of my own games (a setting _derived_ from the rules, the potluck ecology, magic ingrained into society...). I'm not sure if I'd call it "corny", but "icky" comes close...


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 5, 2006)

Eberron is cool. It's an awesome setting with a lot of background AND a lot of crunch to play with, with a lot of opportunities for varied types of adventuring. That sums it up, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 5, 2006)

It's been out for a couple of years now, and to be honest, I'm still trying to fully grok it, but I like almost everything I've seen. The only thing I could have lived without was the dragonmarks (which, incidentally, will be excised from my Eberron game, if I ever get around to running it). Everything else is hella-cool.


----------



## MadMaxim (Jul 5, 2006)

I love it! It's a great setting and it has become my favorite setting ahead of Forgotten Realms. Sure, the living construct subtype and the like are a bit strange, but I love the overall flavor of the setting.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jul 5, 2006)

I really like it. It's smart, consistent, stylish, and fun. It has some wonderful ideas and very few flaws.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 5, 2006)

Of the current WotC settings Eberron is likely my favorite. It does not try to overlay magic on a quasi medieval setting, but tries to extrapolate some of the changes that a world might develop with working magic.

The Auld Grump, some more poll options would have been nice.


----------



## Turjan (Jul 5, 2006)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> It's been out for a couple of years now, and to be honest, I'm still trying to fully grok it, but I like almost everything I've seen. The only thing I could have lived without was the dragonmarks (which, incidentally, will be excised from my Eberron game, if I ever get around to running it). Everything else is hella-cool.



Interesting. This might be the only thing I'll pick up from the Eberron menu .


----------



## snotling (Jul 5, 2006)

I was suprised by it.

I was not looking forward to playing in the Eberron world.. It did not seem fantasy to me either.. but the more I am playing, and reading some of the novels (The Dragon Below and The Dreaming Dark are both good sets of stories) the more I am enjoying it.

A couple gaming sessions ago, I was able to have a good ol' fashion chase on the top of a moving train, with my dwarf running at top speed.. jumping from car to car, his axe in his hand.  It was fun   

Some of the new races I am not as comfortable with, but they are growing on me.  I am liking the Shifter.  The Warforged and the Changeling are growing on me.. but the Kalashtar, I am still not sure about.  But then again, I never did like Psionics.


----------



## Asmor (Jul 5, 2006)

I hate published settings. Hate them. Hate hate HATE them.

But I like Eberron.

Greyhawk? Forgotten Realms? Scarred Lands? Iron Kingdoms? Ptolus? YAAAAAAWWN. To be fair, I haven't really given a deep look at most of them, but they pretty much all seem to be the exact same. Might as well be called "Generic Medieval High Fantasy Setting #X"

In fact, I'd say it's a close second for my favorte setting of all time (number one being Planescape).


----------



## Spatula (Jul 5, 2006)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> How did Eberron become a major D&D setting?



There was this big setting contest thing a couple years back.  You might have heard about it.



			
				WarlockLord said:
			
		

> It doesn't seem like fantasy at all.



Define "fantasy."



			
				WarlockLord said:
			
		

> I mean, it has robots warforged and airplanes airships.  It seems like somebody was trying to make "science fictasy"



If you think regular D&D doesn't have robots, then you need to take another look at your Monster Manual.


----------



## rounser (Jul 5, 2006)

> Define "fantasy."



This is a problematic word.  I've gone to pains in a recent thread to differentiate Fantasy as an all-inclusive thing from Fantasia to Wonderland from D&D swords & sorcery-style fantasy, which is mainly concerned with wizards, monsters, swords, spells, and pseudomedieval society and technology levels.  True, departures can be made from these core themes, but that's where the heart of D&D lies.


> If you think regular D&D doesn't have robots, then you need to take another look at your Monster Manual.



This reminds me of another thread recently...I think some things fly as NPCs, but not really as PCs to some people.  Golems, half-dragons and drow as NPCs is cool, but as a 24/7 PC, it might jar a bit for those looking for a more "straight guy heroes" feel to the campaign, rather than a pack of monstrous randoms.  Others would say, "But I want to play one of those, it'd be cool".  Both are right depending on taste.


----------



## Cith (Jul 5, 2006)

It's somewhere in between for me, but as I like it, and see it as playable, in spite of (or perhaps pulling the stick out of my arse and embracing) the corny, pseudopulp aspects, I guess I would be far more inclined towards a positive opinion than to hop on the hate train.  (What is with all the hate?  Geek culture can be so petty and ugly at times).


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jul 5, 2006)

It doesn't feel like sci-fi or steampunk to me. The warforged don't feel like robots to me at all.

But I have to say, I hate elemental carts, and I don't like elemental submarines.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jul 5, 2006)

I haven't read Eberron or played in a Eberron-based game, so I didn't vote.  However, from what I've heard, it sounds pretty cool to me.  Not your traditional D&D world, by any means, but I've got several of those, and I'm quite attached to (my version of) Greyhawk.  I like pulp, and I like science fantasy, and I like lost worlds and such.  It could see using Eberron in a campaign and going for a Burroughs/Wolfe feel.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jul 5, 2006)

Elemental carts I could do without as well..

 What has sold me on Eberron isn't the new crunch, altho some of the stuff is pretty 'kewl'.
Instead its the cohesive backstory. In alot of other settings you could drop a 'generic' module in..but not have any in game reason for it to fit. An example is the Coils of Set module. This could be dropped into any setting, and in most it would stand out like a sore thumb. With Eberron, a couple minor tweaks and the entire module fits into the world tapestry.

[sidetrack]The tweaks include: Placing both 1st and 2nd chapters in Q'Barra. Place the 3rd chapter, which already has a dilated time/space thingy and savage halfings co-existing with dinasours, into Ebberon's past during the Age of the Demons. A couple name changes later and it looks like the module was created specifically for Ebberon![/sidetrack]

The other thing that sold me on the setting is its depth. Already built into the setting are a plethera of convienant plot devices. Create a character with race, class, and home country. Instantly I have at least 2 potential plots to work with. If I am lucky enough to have a player willing to make a character background, the adventure arc tends to write itself!

But anyway.. YMMV


----------



## BadMojo (Jul 5, 2006)

When I first heard the setting described (back when first introduced) I thought, quite frankly, that it sounded awful.

As silly as it sounds, I purchased it on a whim mostly because of the really nifty art and thinking maybe there were some setting bits or rules I could use for something else.

It turns out that Eberron reads and plays a lot better than a one paragraph blurb can convey.  I *love* the idea that it's "pulp" D&D.  The lightning rail (train) allows the PCs to travel quickly without resorting to teleportation spells and as mentioned before just begs to be the setting for a chase scene, ditto on the skyships, the warforged were built for a war that's now ended and are a constant reminder of decades of destruction, etc.

Lots of great stuff.  Of course, if you are looking for a more traditional setting then stuff like Scarred Lands, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, and Ptolus should do nicely.

One last bit:  the way the setting handles the availability of magic reminds me a bit of Steven Brust's Dragaera books.  This is a good thing.


----------



## Arashi Ravenblade (Jul 5, 2006)

well i have played exactly one game of eberron and have read most of the book, ( i even own magic of eberron), but i think it's corny how they went about it. I think it could have been better, but while i wouldnt DM an eberron game i would play in one and even use it in an up coming campaign with world hopping villains.


----------



## Christian (Jul 5, 2006)

To me, the pseudo-technology is one of the best parts of Eberron. In traditional D&D, you have a tech level that's entirely medieval, except for the technology of war, which is at roughly WWI levels. OK, not the literal technology. You don't have artillery (but you do have _fireballs_), or tanks (but you do have bulettes), or poison gas (but there's _cloudkill_), or limited air support (but ... well, do I have to go on?) ... The 'magic tech' added to the regular tech gives an early 20th century 'feel' to the strategy of war and combat--which is then out of place with the tech in the rest of the areas of the campaign. (Fortresses were not of nearly the same strategic value in 1915 that they were five hundred years earlier.)

Eberron takes this 'magic tech' effect and spreads it through the rest of the setting. There aren't railroads (but there's the lightning rail), or telegraphs (but there's the House Sivis speaking stones), etc. The end result is that the effective technology level is consistently in a narrow range, roughly somewhere from the late 19th to early 20th century. This makes it relatively easy to maintain a coherent setting, not only because the different parts of the economy and culture fit together, but because they're closer to our real life. Early 21st century life is quite a bit different from early 20th century life, but not nearly as different as it is from early 15th century life. And information about the culture of one hundred years ago is much more accessible to us than information about medieval Europe, which is naturally much less complete.


----------



## Corsair (Jul 5, 2006)

I agree with a couple of the posters above:

I actively AVOIDED Eberron when I first heard about warforged.  I thought the whole thing was stupid.  Then I looked at the gallery on the wotc site, and saw a Warforged Juggernaught and re-thought my position.  I decided to start poking around and found an "Ask kieth baker" thread, and was hooked fairly quickly.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jul 5, 2006)

It's not my cup of tea.

We had a DM in our group run through the published modules and while starting off well, the campaign eventually went downhill. While not for everyone, I certainly would not call it cheap or corny. A lot of good effort went into the setting by a talented guy (as well as many others) and so I'm certainly not going to vote that way. Put in a more neutral option and I would have voted.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 5, 2006)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> Is this like that one "Planet of the Vampires" movie I found at Blockbuster once?



No, Eberron isn't nearly as cool as a Mario Bava movie.  

I'm not sure that I agree about Eberron being like early twentieth century fantasy - I'd need a pretty thorough list of examples before I'd accept that premise.

It is the most navel-gazing of _D&D_ settings in that it takes the rules of the game and builds a world around them - since I'm not a fan of many of the core _D&D_ assumptions about how the world works, it follows that the setting doesn't appeal to me.


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 5, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that I agree about Eberron being like early twentieth century fantasy - I'd need a pretty thorough list of examples before I'd accept that premise.




There are strong elements of it, but also elements of the medieval assumptions as well



> It is the most navel-gazing of _D&D_ settings in that it takes the rules of the game and builds a world around them - since I'm not a fan of many of the core _D&D_ assumptions about how the world works, it follows that the setting doesn't appeal to me.




I've heard this a lot recently, and I think it's wrong.  Eberron wasn't built by taking the core D&D rules and building a game around them.  It doesn't have that feel.

However, I do think Keith (and the other designers) did understand that the fewer things that break your willing suspension of disbelief in a setting, the better the campaign.  Thus, they limited the number of things that break that.  

For example, one thing that tends to seem odd in D&D settings are the number of high level characters (especially magic-using types) who don't seem to actually do anything.  Keith and company could have said "this world should work on the D&D principles, so we'll make sure they are prominant in the campaign."  They didn't.  Instead, they tweaked the demographics and made PC classes rare, and high level characters rarer.  No more running to find a high level archmage when you need a _wish_ spell to save the kingdom, because there aren't any that are handy (there's that guy isolated in the country run by monsters, who seems to be Dr. Moreau type, that might not be safe to bother him).

Keith developed the feel he wanted for the world, then the designers developed the world, keeping the rules in mind.  They didn't start with the rules and then developed the setting they thought would arise from that.


----------



## Soel (Jul 5, 2006)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> I take it you're not terribly familiar with the 'pulp' literature of the early 1900s?




I don't see the connection between pulp and Eberron, except for the fact that the ad copy tells you that it has a pulp feeling. Piratecat's summation of pulp-" larger than life heroes, non-stop action, dastardly villains, cinematic fights," seems to fit just about every setting I've ever seen (seems more of a play-style than a "setting" issue.) 

As far as how good it is, well, I played in a short campaign there, and thought it was ok. Seemed to be missing something, but what, I cannot determine. I'm not too keen on some of the asthetics, either.


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 5, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> There are strong elements of it, but also elements of the medieval assumptions as well.



Could you be more specific? What early twentieth-century writers would you say inspire Eberrron? H.G. Wells, perhaps? Edgar Rice Burroughs? Abraham Merritt? If any of these click, could you explain a bit about how Eberron incorporates concepts from these writers?

I'm trying to get a handle on where this opinion comes from, because as *Soel* notes, the repeated pulp comparisons in the hype machine ad copy don't make much sense to me.







			
				Glyfair said:
			
		

> I've heard this a lot recently, and I think it's wrong.  Eberron wasn't built by taking the core D&D rules and building a game around them.  It doesn't have that feel.



To you, perhaps - it feels very contrived around the core rulebook to me.







			
				Glyfair said:
			
		

> Keith developed the feel he wanted for the world, then the designers developed the world, keeping the rules in mind.  They didn't start with the rules and then developed the setting they thought would arise from that.



I disagree - one of the constraints from the initial search was that the setting needed to be playable using the core rules, which means there had to be elves and dwarves and orcs, fire-and-forget magic, divine magic and its dedicated practitioners, paladins and monks, and so on. The setting seems to follow the recent trend in the fantasy genre as a whole of extrapolating what aworld would be like with safe, reliable magic as technology, but because that magic is required to be the magic of _Dungeons and Dragons_, there are certain inherent limitations on what the final product would look and feel like.


----------



## rounser (Jul 5, 2006)

> It doesn't have that feel.



Eh?  It brags about how it turns magic into industry (like that's a _good_ thing or something).


----------



## jasin (Jul 5, 2006)

I just posted this on another forum the other day:

What I first heard about Eberron, sounded either really silly or uninspired. There was a Last War. There's dungeons to explore, monsters to kill, and treasure to take. There are hard-boiled dwarf detectives, but they use battleaxes instead of handguns. Meh.

But it works.

Eberron manages to consider the impact of magic on everyday life without going too far and devolving into _The Flintstones_ with magic standing in for rock. The political map looks natural and grounded in the history of the world and not just the fact that "we wanted to have an Egyptian-inspired adventuring area, and also a Russian-inspired adventurgin area, an also..." and yet, it's easy enough to tack our world sterotypes onto people of Eberron, so that it's not "eh? Aundair? Karrnath? what's the difference, they're all kingdoms in Eberron". It brings an interesting twist to the elves while still keeping the core (for D&D at least) concept of tree-hugging warrior-mages intact. It has dungeons, dragons, demons, multinational corporations that don't defer to state authority, Dr. Fu Manchu, the Man in the Iron Mask, air pirates, German/East-European vampires, Joan of Arc, evil Joan of Arc, Nazis and goblin ninjas... without being a parody!

What's not to like?


----------



## blargney the second (Jul 5, 2006)

I thought "meh" right up until I actually sat down at the game store and read through some of the book.  The introduction chapter was what really sold me on it.


----------



## glass (Jul 5, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Well, I don't play it or "love it", but I certainly don't think it's "corny."



What he said. I didn't vote.


glass.


----------



## GSHamster (Jul 5, 2006)

I like Eberron, and I think it's a good, unique, and interesting setting.

However, if all we had was Eberron, and no Forgotten Realms/Greyhawk/more traditional setting, I would be unhappy.

But as they say, variety is the spice of life.


----------



## Drowbane (Jul 5, 2006)

Originally I was Anti-Eberron.  First of all, I scoffed at the notion that anything could rival my beloved FR (Planescape doesn't count... since I consider it part of my FR ).  Then I was standing in Borders (or was it Barnes and Noble?) thumbing through the Races of Eberron book.  The write up for the Warforged grabbed me, and I bought the book on a whim.  Shortly after I found myself shelling out the cash for the ECS.  Then I found myself in San Diego with a new group rolling up a Talenta Halfling Druid (I came in at 4th or 5th level)... with a *dinosaur* (clawfoot + natural bond... sweet!) Animal Companion!   

I guess you could say I'm a convert.  There will always be a spot in my heart for the older settings, but Eberron has taken hold as well (In fact, ya know those unindentified continents in the FRCS map towards the back of the book?  Yeah... Khorvaire, Xendrik, et al).

Edit: Random thought: I love how Eberron-haters mock the Airships, Elemental-Trains, and "Robots"... but they're perfectly cool with D&D's Golems, FR's Airships (Halrua is silly with them), and teleportation magics (Beam me up, Scotty!).


----------



## green slime (Jul 5, 2006)

I don't know what *you* think. 

As to whether *I* think Eberron is corny? No, I do not. More beany, actually. Or perhaps like a Tomatoe. But then again, tomatoes and beans go together quite well, so maybe it is just me getting old and confused.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Jul 5, 2006)

Not corny. And restricting "fantasy" to "pseudo-medieval fantasy" seems rather limiting IMO.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Jul 5, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Eh?  It brags about how it turns magic into industry (like that's a _good_ thing or something).




Well, why is it automatically supposed to be a _bad_ thing, then?


----------



## Maggan (Jul 5, 2006)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> How did Eberron become a major D&D setting? It doesn't seem like fantasy at all.  I mean, it has robots warforged and airplanes airships.  It seems like somebody was trying to make "science fictasy"




Nah, Eberron is cool. And robots and airships has been part of D&D since the early days, so I fail to see why Eberron using warforged and flying ships would invalidate it as a D&D setting.

Hmmmm ... I remember playing Earthshaker, an adventure for the D&D Companion Set, which featured a steamdriven giant robot manned by gnomes ... And it was fun and fantasy to me.

/M


----------



## Buttercup (Jul 5, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Well, I don't play it or "love it", but I certainly don't think it's "corny."




Corny isn't the word I'd use to describe it either.  It isn't my taste at all, but clearly it resonates with lots of people, so WotC knew what they were doing.


----------



## Numion (Jul 5, 2006)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Nah, Eberron is cool. And robots and airships has been part of D&D since the early days, so I fail to see why Eberron using warforged and flying ships would invalidate it as a D&D setting.
> 
> Hmmmm ... I remember playing Earthshaker, an adventure for the D&D Companion Set, which featured a steamdriven giant robot manned by gnomes ... And it was fun and fantasy to me.




AC11: Wondrous Inventions was released in 1987, almost 20 years ago. It had magic as appliances, submarines, whatever. So you're absolutely right, these 'ills' weere never a product of 3E.


----------



## rounser (Jul 5, 2006)

> Well, why is it automatically supposed to be a bad thing, then?



Got into an ongoing argument about this very topic, recently, here:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=166229&page=6


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Jul 5, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Got into an ongoing argument about this very topic, recently, here:
> http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=166229&page=6




And I'm not buying your argument there:



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> Exploring the logical consequences of magic on society is like exploring the consequences of physics on a dragon; the fantasy comes crashing to the ground, and the magic loses it's magic.  Geeks love to analyse systems, but exploring the "logical consequences" of fantasy is like overanalysing romance; by analysing it and tying up it's loose threads, you kill it stone dead.
> 
> It boggles my mind that you think pinning down _fantasy_ as a quantifiable cause-and-effect thing (i.e. a science) is going to _improve_  sensawunda, instead of inevitably grinding it to dust.




If a setting is a _fantasy_ setting, then that only means that it has supernatural elements which don't work or exist on Earth. No definition of "fantasy" I am aware of states that fantasy must not be internally self-consistent.

In fact, giving some thought to why things are the way the are - whether you are using a classical pseudo-medieval world or a pseudo-industrial one - can go a long way towards making suspension of disbelief easier. This is especially important when you deal with players, who are a crafty and devious lot and will quickly spot any inconsistencies and either (a) suspect some huge conspiracy where there is none or (b) come up with their own "get rich quick" scheme that exploits these inconsistencies.


----------



## rounser (Jul 5, 2006)

> No definition of "fantasy" I am aware of states that fantasy must not be internally self-consistent.



Which isn't what I'm arguing, so I'm quite in agreement with you there.


> This is especially important when you deal with players, who are a crafty and devious lot and will quickly spot any inconsistencies and either (a) suspect some huge conspiracy where there is none or



There _is_ a huge conspiracy built into the rules - the DM challenges the party with encounters that they can handle at that level.  There's probably half a dozen more that relate back to D&D being a game, as well.


> (b) come up with their own "get rich quick" scheme that exploits these inconsistencies.



When the PCs are level 18, they're in an excellent position to hang a good deal of the NPC world out to dry, if they wanted to.  Explain to me why most parties don't do that - I suspect it's an unspoken agreement with the DM not to ruin the game....there's only so far alignment can guarantee good behaviour (e.g. a neutral good merchant might still rip you off).

The reason why most PCs don't write down the cost of goods from one town to the next and suddenly give up dungeoneering for selling fruit ("Ha! Apples cost 1cp in the last village, and 2cp here!  I can make 100% profit!") is because this is D&D, not Sim Fantasy Merchant.  You could expand the game to explore that, but most D&D players would rather adventure, I'd imagine.


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 5, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I disagree - one of the constraints from the initial search was that the setting needed to be playable using the core rules, which means there had to be elves and dwarves and orcs, fire-and-forget magic, divine magic and its dedicated practitioners, paladins and monks, and so on.




Well, if that's your definition, I'll give you that.  I don't see anything wrong with a D&D setting being designed to play with the D&D rules, but Eberron fits that profile.  Of course, so has every single D&D setting (or metasetting) ever published.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 5, 2006)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> I take it you're not terribly familiar with the 'pulp' literature of the early 1900s?




Or the rather large body of distinctly non-medieval, non-European, fantasy (e.g., The Dying Earth, Blue World, Perdidio Street Station, Grimm's World, et al).


----------



## rounser (Jul 5, 2006)

> Of course, so has every single D&D setting (or metasetting) ever published.



Not really true...I mean, orcs, drow and halflings are a tad thin on the ground on Krynn, for instance.  Dark Sun was customised quite heavily as well...I'm sure there are other examples.


----------



## green slime (Jul 5, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> There _is_ a huge conspiracy built into the rules - the DM challenges the party with encounters that they can handle at that level.  There's probably half a dozen more that relate back to D&D being a game, as well.




Nope. Don't agree with this statement. There are always encounters in which players can get themselves in over their head. At least at tables I play at. From displaying bad ettiquette at the royal banquette, to single-handedly standing against superior foes, both in number and CR. If every encounter is one the PCs can enter and say "We can handle this," it makes the game boring and predictable and very video gamish, preventing the real heroes from truly shining, and seeking other ways of overcoming their foes. 



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> When the PCs are level 18, they're in an excellent position to hang a good deal of the NPC world out to dry, if they wanted to.  Explain to me why most parties don't do that - I suspect it's an unspoken agreement with the DM not to ruin the game....there's only so far alignment can guarantee good behaviour (e.g. a neutral good merchant might still rip you off).




I disagree again. It maybe because they don't want to have more enemies than absolutely necessary. No matter your level, you still only have a limited amount of things you can do in any one area, at any one time. And there is always someone, bigger and badder around the corner. Ticking a lot of good people off, just because you can, isn't necessarily the brightest idea in the book. But, give some people enough rope...

And IMC, a NG merchant won't consciously rip you off. But that is another discussion entirely.


----------



## rounser (Jul 5, 2006)

green slime said:
			
		

> Nope. Don't agree with this statement. There are always encounters in which players can get themselves in over their head. At least at tables I play at. From displaying bad ettiquette at the royal banquette, to single-handedly standing against superior foes, both in number and CR. If every encounter is one the PCs can enter and say "We can handle this," it makes the game boring and predictable and very video gamish, preventing the real heroes from truly shining, and seeking other ways of overcoming their foes.



Well duh, third level PCs attempting to assassinate the King of the Realm are probably going to have a hard time of it.  But then, he's usually not the adventure at that level, is he?

What I mean is stuff like the adventure paths from WOTC and Paizo not throwing CR 20 monsters at first level PCs, and spending a lot of painstaking time making challenges which challenge but don't overwhelm the PCs or constantly allow them walkover.  You can't seriously be arguing that such metagaming doesn't exist, and isn't built into the game, can you?  Am I imagining all that EL and CR stuff?  Bueller?


> I disagree again. It maybe because they don't want to have more enemies than absolutely necessary. No matter your level, you still only have a limited amount of things you can do in any one area, at any one time. And there is always someone, bigger and badder around the corner. Ticking a lot of good people off, just because you can, isn't necessarily the brightest idea in the book. But, give some people enough rope...



Sounds like handwaving.  18th level PC rogue can sure rob a lot of 1st and 2nd level NPCs before anyone even notices something is very wrong, for instance.  But then, they're not likely to be "the adventure" at that level, just like killing the King of the Realm is unlikely to be an intended course of action to succeed at for the 3rd level PCs described above.


> And IMC, a NG merchant won't consciously rip you off. But that is another discussion entirely.



Must be a lot of poor good alignment merchants in your campaign, then.


----------



## DragonLancer (Jul 5, 2006)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> How did Eberron become a major D&D setting? It doesn't seem like fantasy at all.  I mean, it has robots warforged and airplanes airships.  It seems like somebody was trying to make "science fictasy"




I played through half an Eberron campaign last year (game fell apart because of RL matters in the DM's life) and I gave it a chance. Ultimately I didn't like it.

People out there can jump me for my opinion here, but IMO Eberron is not D&D. For me it doesn't work.


----------



## Deadguy (Jul 5, 2006)

While I don't agree with your conclusion DragonLancer, you do have the courtesy to say 'for me'. Others seem to be taking the stance that people who like Eberron (and there really are a lot), are plain wrong for enjoying this D&D setting.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 5, 2006)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> How did Eberron become a major D&D setting? It doesn't seem like fantasy at all.  I mean, it has robots warforged and airplanes airships.  It seems like somebody was trying to make "science fictasy"




Eberron is probably more like a lot of the original source material that inspired the creation of D&D than just about any other published setting. Edgar Rice Burroughs, Jack Vance, Poul Anderson and so on all contained numerous elements that would be right at home in Eberron.


----------



## Mystery Man (Jul 5, 2006)

I used to hate it, now I like it. My players can be thanked for _relentlessly_ nagging me to run an game in it. While nothing will ever replace the Forgotten Realms for my setting of choice I can't ever see myself not running an Eberron game as well. Airships are not corny (coming from FR they've been bouncing around my psyche for some time) and make for some fantastic roleplaying. Warforged are fun for players to run, but I would leave them in Eberron.


----------



## lukelightning (Jul 5, 2006)

D&D has _always_ had robots (golems), and as time went by the fantasy in general began to include more and more "sci-fi" and "mechanical" elements (robotic constructs, clockwork castles, alchemical cloning, etc.). 

And flying ships have been in fantasy from the start.  Besides, airships pretty much look like flying ships, not at all like airplanes.


----------



## green slime (Jul 5, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Well duh, third level PCs attempting to assassinate the King of the Realm are probably going to have a hard time of it.  But then, he's usually not the adventure at that level, is he?




Says who?



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> What I mean is stuff like the adventure paths from WOTC and Paizo not throwing CR 20 monsters at first level PCs, and spending a lot of painstaking time making challenges which challenge but don't overwhelm the PCs or constantly allow them walkover.  You can't seriously be arguing that such metagaming doesn't exist, and isn't built into the game, can you?  Am I imagining all that EL and CR stuff?  Bueller?




If this problem exists in a published module, it is merely because they are required to hand-hold DM's everywhere. WotC included a difficult encounter in one the published adventures, a roper, IIRC, in the "Forge of Fury", and copped a lot of flack about it. So no wonder they stear clear of that now. What the game assumes in general, and what a published module assumes are two completely different things.

CR20 monsters exist in the campaign world, even when the adventurers are 1st level. The adventurers make what they will of it. A published module, can't spend the time or space to add in the extra detail you would hope to find in a campaign. If you only play published modules, then you will end up with a very strange environment indeed, and, in the end, find yourself standing in the "Epic" City of Union. Which by most accounts I have read, is not what people want.



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> Sounds like handwaving.  18th level PC rogue can sure rob a lot of 1st and 2nd level NPCs before anyone even notices something is very wrong, for instance.  But then, they're not likely to be "the adventure" at that level, just like killing the King of the Realm is unlikely to be an intended course of action to succeed at for the 3rd level PCs described above.




But how many coppers can a rogue of that level accumulate from low level NPC's in a day? But I suppose they all walk around town with their level stated on their foreheads as well. It is up to the Player to find adventuresome, heroic things to do. If stealing buttons from the poverty stricken is what he wants, fine. But while he is doing that, the others will be enjoying a different adventure. Facing a variety of challenges, some beyond their capabilities, and others below. The King, can be third level aristocrat, 10 years old. Being a king does not require you be a high level individual, merely that you have the obediance of powerful supporters.

Killing the king can just as easily be an adventure for a low level party, as for a high level party. So could stopping a goblin/orc/lizardman invasion.



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> Must be a lot of poor good alignment merchants in your campaign, then.




Nope, not at all. There is such a thing as fair trade. You may have heard of it. To do otherwise is stealing, and not a good act. There is a very big difference between "making a profit" and "ripping someone off". At least, where I come from.


----------



## DragonLancer (Jul 5, 2006)

Deadguy said:
			
		

> While I don't agree with your conclusion DragonLancer, you do have the courtesy to say 'for me'. Others seem to be taking the stance that people who like Eberron (and there really are a lot), are plain wrong for enjoying this D&D setting.




Absolutely. Eberron is a cleverly designed world, which is a plus I must give it. I prefer the pseudo-medieval/Tolkein-esqe settings. Eberron, for me, took the magical nature of the game too far. Thats what spoils it IMO.

I don't think its wrong to enjoy a setting. I mean, as you guess from the name I am a fan of Dragonlance, and you don't get a more criticised setting than that. 

Eberron didn't appeal, but I gave it a six month test run at least to see how it played. Before people criticise, they should actually try it.


----------



## rounser (Jul 5, 2006)

> Says who?



Probably the King of the Realm's guards in most campaigns, but you're the DM and can have it otherwise.


> But I suppose they all walk around town with their level stated on their foreheads as well.



Given the demographics of a city by the RAW, the chances of accidentally robbing archmage Khelben are exceedingly slim.


> It is up to the Player to find adventuresome, heroic things to do. If stealing buttons from the poverty stricken is what he wants, fine. But while he is doing that, the others will be enjoying a different adventure.



I agree entirely.  You're probably best taking this up with Jurgen, who seems to believe that players will exploit every loophole in a setting, rather than attempt to have fun playing the game by seeking challenges commensurate with their level.


> Nope, not at all. There is such a thing as fair trade. You may have heard of it. To do otherwise is stealing, and not a good act. There is a very big difference between "making a profit" and "ripping someone off". At least, where I come from.



At what net profit does the evil kick in, I wonder?


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 5, 2006)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> D&D has _always_ had robots (golems), and as time went by the fantasy in general began to include more and more "sci-fi" and "mechanical" elements (robotic constructs, clockwork castles, alchemical cloning, etc.).
> 
> And flying ships have been in fantasy from the start.  Besides, airships pretty much look like flying ships, not at all like airplanes.




White Plume Mountain and Expedtiion to the Barrier Peaks both arguably contain more actual "sci-fi" than the whole of Eberron. I mean, Eberron has psuedo-robots - both of the aforementioned modules had the real deal. Heck, even Temple of the Frog in Dave Arneson's original Blackmoor has honest to god energy rifles and electrnic security systems.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 5, 2006)

> I agree entirely. You're probably best taking this up with Jurgen, who seems to believe that players will exploit every loophole in a setting, rather than attempt to have fun playing the game by seeking challenges commensurate with their level.




Wow, Jurgen's copping a lot of flak today with people building scarecrows out of his words.  

He didn't say that all players will take advantage of loopholes.  He said that when loopholes exist, players CAN take advantage of them.  Big difference.



			
				Dragonlancer said:
			
		

> I don't think its wrong to enjoy a setting. I mean, as you guess from the name I am a fan of Dragonlance, and you don't get a more criticised setting than that.
> 
> *Eberron didn't appeal, but I gave it a six month test run at least to see how it played. Before people criticise, they should actually try it.*




QFT


----------



## green slime (Jul 5, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> At what net profit does the evil kick in, I wonder?




Now *that* was an interesting question.

When does it become unreasonable?

When does eating become not merely a matter of satisfying hunger, but of gluttony?

When does longing turn into lust?

When does a desire for rest turn into sloth?


----------



## rounser (Jul 5, 2006)

> He said that when loopholes exist, players CAN take advantage of them. Big difference.



No.  He didn't:


> This is especially important when you deal with players, who are a crafty and devious lot and will quickly spot any inconsistencies and either (a) suspect some huge conspiracy where there is none or (b) come up with their own "get rich quick" scheme that exploits these inconsistencies.



The operative part being "and either", not "can".


> White Plume Mountain and Expedtiion to the Barrier Peaks both arguably contain more actual "sci-fi" than the whole of Eberron. I mean, Eberron has psuedo-robots - both of the aforementioned modules had the real deal. Heck, even Temple of the Frog in Dave Arneson's original Blackmoor has honest to god energy rifles and electrnic security systems.



Thus resulting in less magical magic on Eberron (because when everyone's super, no-one will be).  Both crashed spaceships on Greyhawk and Blackmoor involve alien technology introduced to an established setting as sideshow novelties, much like Murlynd's six-shooters.  Eberron makes industrial magic an ingrained part of the setting, not a novelty sideshow.


----------



## lukelightning (Jul 5, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Thus resulting in less magical magic on Eberron (because when everyone's super, no-one will be).




You can say this of many campaign worlds, especially Forgotten Realms, which is loaded with high-powered magic, gods walking the earth, mortals meeting with and turning into deities, etc.  

If you are looking for a culprit for "what is de-magicifying magic" then I think the D&D system is to blame; Eberron merely made a point of taking the relatively commonplace nature of magic in the D&D system to it's logical conclusion.


----------



## jokamachi (Jul 5, 2006)

Corny and unappealing. Sorry, Keith, but I'm just not into ninja detectives, robots, dinosaurs, or flying airships. 

I play D&D.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 5, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Both crashed spaceships on Greyhawk and Blackmoor involve alien technology introduced to an established setting as sideshow novelties, much like Murlynd's six-shooters.




Not quite right - Blackmoor wasn't an established setting at the time Temple of the Frog was published. It appeared in the _first_ commercial printing of Blackmoor, thus, in this regard its inclusion of alien technology was no different than the inclusion of industrial magic in Eberron. That is, both of these things were part of their respective settings from day one, so far as the consumer was concerned. 

That said, tech in Blackmoor is less prominant than industrialized magic in Eberron, but that wasn't what was being debated in this thread at all. It was initmated very early on that _any_ inclusion of magic tech disqualified Eberron as "fantasy" - I merely wanted to point out that other, widely adored, settings included pure strain scientific tech and, yet, weren't disqualified as fantasy. 

I think that's a pretty crazy double-standard.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 5, 2006)

Curious.

Air Ships - Been in DnD since I was about twelve, so, that would be twenty ish years.  Mystara, Forgotten Realms, even one of my favourite Dragon articles was about how to create an airship.  Oh, but because it's being done now, it's wrong.

Magical technology - Dragonlance Adventures.  I bought this book in the mid 80's and it included entire rulesets for developing technological gnomish wonders.  Voyage of the Princess Ark - hailed by many as some of the best Dragon articles - had six shooter crossbows and cannons on their ship.  I could likely come up with a dozen other examples, but, I'm sure they'll be brushed off as well.

I wonder if the problem isn't that Eberron is re-introducing these ideas, but rather, these concepts have become pretty popular and people are feeling left out because their tired old Tolkein hacks just aren't cutting the mustard anymore.


----------



## Deadguy (Jul 5, 2006)

jokamachi said:
			
		

> Corny and unappealing. Sorry, Keith, but I'm just not into ninja detectives, robots, dinosaurs, or flying airships.
> 
> I play D&D.



*And so do I when I run Eberron!*

Just because your personal definition of D&D fantasy doesn't encompass those elements, doesn't mean that that _isn't_ D&D! Countless examples have been given of the pedigree of certain ideas within the D&D game, and of the scope of the fantasy genre.

Basically bud, don't you *dare* come here and try and tell me what my D&D ought to be!


----------



## rounser (Jul 5, 2006)

> That is, both of these things were part of their respective settings from day one, so far as the consumer was concerned.



I don't have Blackmoor to hand, but I wouldn't be surprised if they stated where the technology came from, so that argument probably doesn't hold water.


> You can say this of many campaign worlds, especially Forgotten Realms, which is loaded with high-powered magic, gods walking the earth, mortals meeting with and turning into deities, etc.



Nah, average Forgotten Realms peasant doesn't have low level spells as a commonly accessed thing.  Bottom-heavy magic is worse than top-heavy magic in this instance.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 5, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I wonder if the problem isn't that Eberron is re-introducing these ideas, but rather, these concepts have become pretty popular and people are feeling left out because their tired old Tolkein hacks just aren't cutting the mustard anymore.




I don't like the term "tired old Tolkien hacks" very much because I still play a lot of FR, Arduin, and Greyhawk, but I suspect that you are right about resentment of this nature playing a role in the active dislike that some harbor for Eberron.

I mean, hell, there are entire communities of bitter AD&D1e fans who hate D&D 3x for no reason other than that it is currently more popular and better supported than their D&D edition of choice. I suspect that the same can be said of popular settings.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 5, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> I don't have Blackmoor to hand, but I wouldn't be surprised if they stated where the technology came from, so that argument probably doesn't hold water.




It briefly mentions where the tech came from, but that doesn't invalidate the argument in any way. Space ships and super-science rayguns are fantasy because they came from outer space, but industrialized natural magic isn't?  If anything, _that_ is the argument that doesn't hold any water.


----------



## Aaron L (Jul 5, 2006)

It isnt my ideal setting, but I think its pretty cool and Id be happy to play in it.


Far too many people act like it killed thier puppy and took away thier right to only play Tolkien/Conan ripoffs.


----------



## rounser (Jul 5, 2006)

> It briefly mentions where the tech came from, but that doesn't invalidate the argument in any way.



Sure it does.  It's suggesting that the technology is actually alien to Blackmoor, and therefore not a "natural" part of the setting, probably even just a novelty...


> Space ships and super-science rayguns are fantasy because they came from outer space, but industrialized natural magic isn't? If anything, that is the argument that doesn't hold any water.



Not what I'm arguing.  Industrial magic is a fundamental part of the Eberron setting, as opposed to a sideshow novelty which the setting touches upon as in the case of Blackmoor (which is proved by the fact that the new release of Blackmoor doesn't even include it).


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 5, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Not what I'm arguing.




It's _exactly_ what you're arguing. 



> Industrial magic is a fundamental part of the Eberron setting, as opposed to a sideshow novelty which the setting touches upon as in the case of Blackmoor




Tech in the original Blackmoor wasn't a sideshow anything - it was commonplace, as evidenced by a reading of that work. It was a staple of the setting, not some weird optional rule - it was, largely what differentiated Blackmoor from Greyhawk at that point in time. 



> (which is proved by the fact that the new release of Blackmoor doesn't even include it).




That doesn't prove anything other than that tech doesn't eixst in the recent revision of Blackmoor. The new Blackmoor is a different product that is quite a bit different than the OD&D Blackmoor in some of its assumptions.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 5, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Sure it does.  It's suggesting that the technology is actually alien to Blackmoor, and therefore not a "natural" part of the setting, probably even just a novelty...




The ship crashed in the planet's pre-history - by the time of the adventure in the supplement, high technology is rather commonplace and no less natural than airplanes are on planet Earth. That is, it was an engrained part of the setting and several of its cultures. 

Where this tech came from very obviously qualifies it (and Blackmoor) as Science Fiction according to the criteria that you're using to damn Eberron, but you're exempting it (or, possibly, all things old school) from criticism simply because you like them.


----------



## jokamachi (Jul 5, 2006)

Deadguy said:
			
		

> *And so do I when I run Eberron!*
> 
> Just because your personal definition of D&D fantasy doesn't encompass those elements, doesn't mean that that _isn't_ D&D! Countless examples have been given of the pedigree of certain ideas within the D&D game, and of the scope of the fantasy genre.
> 
> Basically bud, don't you *dare* come here and try and tell me what my D&D ought to be!




Bah. I'll dare to do whatever I want, and I'll diss Eberron in whatever way I want. Face it, the setting is a sad mish-mash of every pulp, sci-fi, and fantasy story Keith Baker ever read, all thrown together in the most haphazard way imaginable. 

Not much restraint there. Not much ingenuity, either. 

It's a crappy setting, plain and simple.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 5, 2006)

jokamachi said:
			
		

> Bah. I'll dare to do whatever I want, and I'll diss Eberron in whatever way I want. Face it, the setting is a sad mish-mash of every pulp, sci-fi, and fantasy story Keith Baker ever read, all thrown together in the most haphazard way imaginable.




Other than the perjorative of "sad" you threw in to your description, you have pretty much described the development of D&D itself. Look at the list of books that inspired D&D in the 1e DMG. Look at the stories Gygax has told about the early adventures he ran his groups through. Heck, look at the 1e DMG suggestions for adventure settings and ideas. At its corre, and at its roots, D&D is, and always has been, a mish-mash of pulp science fiction and fantasy stories. Pretending otherwise is just being willfully ignorant.


----------



## Pants (Jul 5, 2006)

jokamachi said:
			
		

> It's a crappy setting, plain and simple.



No it's not


----------



## Mystery Man (Jul 5, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Other than the perjorative of "sad" you threw in to your description, you have pretty much described the development of D&D itself. Look at the list of books that inspired D&D in the 1e DMG. Look at the stories Gygax has told about the early adventures he ran his groups through. Heck, look at the 1e DMG suggestions for adventure settings and ideas. At its corre, and at its roots, D&D is, and always has been, a mish-mash of pulp science fiction and fantasy stories. Pretending otherwise is just being willfully ignorant.




Game history


----------



## Anti-Sean (Jul 5, 2006)

jokamachi said:
			
		

> Bah. I'll dare to do whatever I want, and I'll diss Eberron in whatever way I want. Face it, the setting is a sad mish-mash of every pulp, sci-fi, and fantasy story Keith Baker ever read, all thrown together in the most haphazard way imaginable.
> 
> Not much restraint there. Not much ingenuity, either.
> 
> It's a crappy setting, plain and simple.



Awww, man! Why didn't you tell me that a year and a half ago before I picked up the ECS, read through it, and fell in love with the setting? Or eight months ago, before I started DMing a campaign set in Eberron that my players have been enjoying just as much as I have? (And boy, are they going to be *furious* when they find out we haven't even been playing D&D this whole time, despite my claims to the contrary!) To think of all that time wasted enjoying a campaign setting that you've so concisely and elegantly proven is crap! All those months of inspiration found, and idea after idea spawned from it - such a shame...

Naturally, you'll be kind enough to furnish us with an example or two of what a *real* campaign setting is, so that those like me can correct our previous mistakes.


----------



## Mystery Man (Jul 5, 2006)

Anti-Sean said:
			
		

> Awww, man! Why didn't you tell me that a year and a half ago before I picked up the ECS, read through it, and fell in love with the setting? Or eight months ago, before I started DMing a campaign set in Eberron that my players have been enjoying just as much as I have? (And boy, are they going to be *furious* when they find out we haven't even been playing D&D this whole time, despite my claims to the contrary!) To think of all that time wasted enjoying a campaign setting that you've so concisely and elegantly proven is crap! All those months of inspiration found, and idea after idea spawned from it - such a shame...
> 
> Naturally, you'll be kind enough to furnish us with an example or two of what a *real* campaign setting is, so that those like me can correct our previous mistakes.





I had a friend very much like Jocamchi. He basically ran the same campaign for 20+ years and claimed that his experience trumped anything that I would have to say about the game. He would constantly put down my players for the roleplaying and character concepts and dis my campaigns becuase they didn't fit into his mold. I say had a friend because I just don't associate with the guy anymore.


----------



## BadMojo (Jul 5, 2006)

Anti-Sean said:
			
		

> Naturally, you'll be kind enough to furnish us with an example or two of what a *real* campaign setting is, so that those like me can correct our previous mistakes.




Yeah, all this time I've been enjoying Eberron (both reading supplements and playing) I"ve been horribly, horribly wrong.  I'm deeply shamed at my ignorance.

I swear I was having a great time with my Warforged fighter crushin' Emerald Claw skulls, but it must have been more of Keith Baker's Jedi Mind Tricks.    

"This is the campaign setting you've been looking for."


----------



## WarlockLord (Jul 5, 2006)

Kafkonia said:
			
		

> "Science fantasy." Popular authors include Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe, and China Mieville, as well as James P. Blaylock and Michael Moorcock. Titles to look for include _Big Planet_, _The Shadow of the Torturer_, _Perdido Street Station_, _The Iron Dragon's Daughter_.




I've read Jack Vnce and Gene Wolfe, and they were pretty good.


----------



## KB9JMQ (Jul 5, 2006)

Well I love it.
It seems to be the setting I always wanted and it came out at a time when I could use it.

I had always had my games in a psuedo-greyhawk/homebrew world. Now I have a new world that is exciting to me and my players. Starting over in a new setting made the entire game new again.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Jul 5, 2006)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> Yeah, all this time I've been enjoying Eberron (both reading supplements and playing) I"ve been horribly, horribly wrong.  I'm deeply shamed at my ignorance.




Well, can we just agree that enjoying Eberron is Bad Wrong Fun?


----------



## MarkB (Jul 5, 2006)

KB9JMQ said:
			
		

> Well I love it.
> It seems to be the setting I always wanted and it came out at a time when I could use it.



That's how I feel about it. It's like the homebrew setting I never had the time to build - at least 60% of the ideas I wanted to implement turned out to be featured in some form in Eberron (most specifically, a social and economic structure that isn't at odds with the availability of magic in D&D, national identities overriding racial identities, and nations which aren't knock-offs of real-world cultures), and in addition there are loads of things I never thought of but wish I had. Wrap that up in campaign-setting background more detailed than I'd ever have time to make, and it's more-or-less perfect.


----------



## Keldryn (Jul 5, 2006)

I started playing D&D in 1986 with the Mentzer "Red Box" Basic Set and "Blue Box" Expert Set, and thus "The Known World" was the very first campaign setting that I was exposed to.  Even after moving on to AD&D 1e rules, I still kept running games in The Known World, as it was near and dear to my heart and the Gazetteer series was fantastic.  Even after I bought the 1e World of Greyhawk boxed set, I still prefered the Gaz series, as it felt more wondrous and fantastic, and less stodgy and conservative.

Eberron reminds me a lot of the D&D Known World (or "Mystara" as it eventually came to be known).  Not in terms of thinly-disguised Earth cultures transplanted to D&D, but in terms of the feel of the setting.  Mystara had a lot of pretty out-there ideas, and wasn't afraid to include them.  When I read the Eberron books, it brings back fond memories of my days running games in The Known World -- The Principalities of Glantri, The Isle of Dread, Karameikos, the Republic of Darokin, the elven clans of Alfheim, The Savage Coast, Norwold...  Reading Sharn: City of Towers constantly reminds me of Glantri City in Gaz 3, which is a good thing.

More than any other official D&D setting, Eberron really takes me back to that feeling that I had when I started running D&D games with the map in the Expert Set (and X10 Red Arrow, Black Shield) and the Gazetteer books.  But it's a more refined, better-developed setting, without a lot of the silliness.  The Known World has always been one of my favourite settings, but it did admittedly contain a lot of pretty silly elements.  Eberron feels like a more grown-up version of The Known World that still maintains that sense of the wondrous and fantastic, without limiting itself to a very stereotypical view of what D&D is supposed to be.


----------



## Dragonbait (Jul 5, 2006)

Eberron is not corny. It's just too D&Dish.   

It follows the latest trends of current fantasy. High magic (magi-tech), the airships, big focus on culture rather than individual race (but the two will often go hand-in-hand, but not always), and so on. I have mixed feelings about some of it, but it comes down to style preference rather than if it is too "corny" or whatnot. It is a detailed setting with a lot of room for PCs and strong support from WoTC. And it has Keith Baker. it's different than the 1ed and 2ed settings. It is not corny.


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 5, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Not really true...I mean, orcs, drow and halflings are a tad thin on the ground on Krynn, for instance.  Dark Sun was customised quite heavily as well...I'm sure there are other examples.




According to his criteria:  "which means there had to be elves and dwarves and orcs, fire-and-forget magic, divine magic and its dedicated practitioners, paladins and monks, and so on.

Elves, Dwarves, Orcs:  Krynn - Check.  Athas - Check.
Fire & Forget Magic:  Krynn - Check (except in Saga, which isn't D&D at all), Athas - Check (even if psionics exist).
Paladins & Monks:  I'm not 100% certain here, especially since monks weren't core in 2E, but I"m pretty sure they could be played.


----------



## WarlockLord (Jul 5, 2006)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> Edit: Random thought: I love how Eberron-haters mock the Airships, Elemental-Trains, and "Robots"... but they're perfectly cool with D&D's Golems, FR's Airships (Halrua is silly with them), and teleportation magics (Beam me up, Scotty!).




  Um, ok.  Golems actually have a mythological basis.  They're a Jewish legend.  As for teleportation, how do you think Gandalf got out of the Balrog pit?  As for airships, I don't use them.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 5, 2006)

Dragonbait said:
			
		

> Eberron is not corny. It's just too D&Dish.



Sure it is.  So are the inspirations that it's based on.  _The Mummy_?  Corny.  _Raiders of Lost Ark_?  On the cob.  _Brotherhood of the Wolf_?  Cornier than Doritos.

So what?  I love corn.  Eberron rocks; corny or no.  In many ways, it rocks because it's not afraid to be corny.  That's what makes it so awesome.


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 5, 2006)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> Um, ok.  Golems actually have a mythological basis.  They're a Jewish legend.  As for teleportation, how do you think Gandalf got out of the Balrog pit?  As for airships, I don't use them.




I don't know about anyone else here, but the warforged=robots comments tend to be very superficial and don't pay attention to the story most of the time, or so it seems to me.

Sure, there are elements of warforged storylines that can be derived from robot science fiction stories (or, more likely, androids).  However, there are just as many elements that can be drawn from other sources.  Wasn't the Tin Woodsman a magical being made of metal that was alive?  I don't remember hearing people complaining about the Wizard of Oz having a "robot."


----------



## Pants (Jul 5, 2006)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> As for teleportation, how do you think Gandalf got out of the Balrog pit?



Um, he used a staircase, then an eagle carried him away.


----------



## Dragonbait (Jul 5, 2006)

J-Dawg said:
			
		

> Sure it is.  So are the inspirations that it's based on.  _The Mummy_?  Corny.  _Raiders of Lost Ark_?  On the cob.  _Brotherhood of the Wolf_?  Cornier than Doritos.
> 
> So what?  I love corn.  Eberron rocks; corny or no.  In many ways, it rocks because it's not afraid to be corny.  That's what makes it so awesome.




So.. What defines corny, then? Did I miss someone defining it earlier in the post? I'm too lazy to read every post.

If those things you listed are corny, *J-Dawg*, then I share opinion. If not, then I must fight you. We will appear in different areas on an alien planet and have to battle it out with just the weapons that evolution gave us.


----------



## Hammerhead (Jul 5, 2006)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> Um, ok.  Golems actually have a mythological basis.  They're a Jewish legend.  As for teleportation, how do you think Gandalf got out of the Balrog pit?  As for airships, I don't use them.




If Gandalf could teleport, he has a LOT of explaining to do to Frodo. Why not just teleport the Ring right to the edge of Mount Doom. Bang, good guys win.


----------



## dagger (Jul 5, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> Um, he used a staircase, then an eagle carried him away.





Bingo!


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 5, 2006)

Dragonbait said:
			
		

> So.. What defines corny, then?




"Trite, dated, melodramatic, or mawkishly sentimental."


----------



## Ferrix (Jul 5, 2006)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Of the current WotC settings Eberron is likely my favorite. It does not try to overlay magic on a quasi medieval setting, but tries to extrapolate some of the changes that a world might develop with working magic.
> 
> The Auld Grump, some more poll options would have been nice.




I second the grump.


----------



## WarlockLord (Jul 5, 2006)

Also, two things about industrialized magic:

1.  Who pays all the xp?  I mean, when a wizard crafts a magic item, he pays XP.  This is described as paying soul energy.  Who wants to do all that?

2.  It cheapens magic.  Magic should be something cool, unique.  This setting just kind of makes magic...blah.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 5, 2006)

Dragonbait said:
			
		

> So.. What defines corny, then? Did I miss someone defining it earlier in the post? I'm too lazy to read every post.



I don't know.  So am I.  _I_ think all those things are corny though, based on the m-w.com definition of it: "3 : mawkishly old-fashioned : simple and sentimental <told corny jokes>" since it's (and the movies I listed) are all harking back to old-fashioned pulp and noir themes.  It doesn't bother me much, though.  I guess I'm a mawkishly sentimental person at heart.

Then again, in many ways exactly the kind of fantasy the Original Poster seems to prefer seem to be corny as well, as they're also "mawkishly old-fashioned;  simple and sentimental" as well.


			
				Dragonbait said:
			
		

> If those things you listed are corny, *J-Dawg*, then I share opinion. If not, then I must fight you. We will appear in different areas on an alien planet and have to battle it out with just the weapons that evolution gave us.



YOU'RE IN FOR A WORLD OF HURT, DRAGONBAIT!  Nature has "endowed me" [size=-2]_if you know what I mean[/size]_ with godly natural weapons.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 5, 2006)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> Also, two things about industrialized magic:
> 
> 1.  Who pays all the xp?  I mean, when a wizard crafts a magic item, he pays XP.  This is described as paying soul energy.  Who wants to do all that?
> 
> 2.  It cheapens magic.  Magic should be something cool, unique.  This setting just kind of makes magic...blah.



 Here's an example of who pays the XP: http://www.bossythecow.com/Golan Dol.pdf . This is Golan Dol, a dwarf Magewright 19/Warrior 1, legendary weapon maker. To quote the text: "Little is known of his activities over the next century; he moved from village to village, supporting local militias and battling invaders, but rarely revealing his full talents."

So unless you're an Artificer, you have to risk yourself to gain XP and then turn that into magical items. An Artificer has his Craft Reserve, and can add to it by consuming the XP used in creating items (destroying them in the process).


----------



## Dragonbait (Jul 5, 2006)

J-Dawg said:
			
		

> YOU'RE IN FOR A WORLD OF HURT, DRAGONBAIT!  Nature has "endowed me" [size=-2]_if you know what I mean[/size]_ with godly natural weapons.




Hm. In that case I guess I'll need to learn how to make gunpowder just from what I can find in a typical alien landscape, a tube, and some sharp rocks..


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jul 5, 2006)

I think Eberron is great because it's not the pseudo-medieval, Tolkienesque, "traditional fantasy" setting that Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, and even (to a lesser extent) Dragonlance exemplify for D&D.

It's something new and different for D&D, and a very smart move on Wizards of the Coast's part inasmuch as it provides a setting for D&D that people like me - people who are sick of Tolkien's ing books dictating "the way it is" for so many players - actually want to buy into and play.


----------



## Staffan (Jul 5, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Elves, Dwarves, Orcs:  Krynn - Check.  Athas - Check.



Actually, no.

OK, Krynn has elves and dwarves. It doesn't have orcs though. The same goes for Athas, plus their elves and dwarves are so different from the norm they should probably be called something else.


----------



## MarkB (Jul 5, 2006)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> Also, two things about industrialized magic:
> 
> 1.  Who pays all the xp?  I mean, when a wizard crafts a magic item, he pays XP.  This is described as paying soul energy.  Who wants to do all that?



I consider that all characters - PCs and NPCs - earn XP by doing well at their chosen trade. For PCs, that trade is adventure, so they earn XP by killing monsters and completing quests. For an NPC whose trade is magic items, it would be making a particularly successful trade, or gaining a lucrative new client. They'd only earn XP at a very slow rate from such activities, but it'd be sufficient to keep their item-creation work ticking over.



> 2.  It cheapens magic.  Magic should be something cool, unique.  This setting just kind of makes magic...blah.



But the fact is that magic in any standard D&D setting _isn't_ cool or unique. Characters are fully expected to be snowed under with acquired or purchased magic items by the mid-levels, and by the DMG demographics tables the average hamlet contains around 4-5 wizards, plus assorted other spellcasting classes.

At least with Eberron, unlike other settings, you don't have to pretend that these things are hard to find even as the PCs start purchasing bags of holding just so they can carry them all, and the setting even tones things down a bit - low-level magic is widespread, but because NPC levels in the general population are generally low, and almost all NPCs take at least some NPC class levels in addition to - or instead of - PC classes, there's very little high-level magic available - it's as rare and mysterious as you could want.

Plus, since clerics of most major deities do not trade their wares or spellcasting services, and most priests are Experts or Adepts rather than clerics anyway, divine magic is, if anything, rarer than in other settings.


----------



## Drowbane (Jul 6, 2006)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> Um, ok.  Golems actually have a mythological basis.  They're a Jewish legend.  As for teleportation, how do you think Gandalf got out of the Balrog pit?  As for airships, I don't use them.




And warforged are alot more like Golems than they are Robots.  My warforged PCs are still waiting for thier computer programs and built-in laser beams, damnit!


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jul 6, 2006)

jokamachi said:
			
		

> Corny and unappealing. Sorry, Keith, but I'm just not into ninja detectives, robots, dinosaurs, or flying airships.
> 
> I play D&D.




You might want to take a look at some of the books Gygax has said were influences on D&D. Like Edgar Rice Burroughs and Jack Vance, especially his "Planet of Adventure" stories.

Besides that, _dinosaurs_ aren't D&D? Come on now.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jul 6, 2006)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> Um, ok.  Golems actually have a mythological basis. They're a Jewish legend.




That just sounds like you're trying to rationalize an untenable position. Golems are robots in everything but name only. Besides, as far as I know, golems from legend were only made of mud.



			
				WarlockLord said:
			
		

> As for teleportation, how do you think Gandalf got out of the Balrog pit?




He followed the Balrog up the Endless Stair of Zirak-Zigil. They ran up a flight of stairs, essentially. It's right there in the book.




			
				WarlockLord said:
			
		

> As for airships, I don't use them.




But they're certainly fantasy.


----------



## Spatula (Jul 6, 2006)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> Um, ok.  Golems actually have a mythological basis.



And warforged are golems.


----------



## scourger (Jul 6, 2006)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> ...I'm still trying to fully grok it...




This is how I feel about it having just looked at it and read about it.  But, the quote really makes me want to play _Omega World_.


----------



## I'm Cleo (Jul 6, 2006)

Eberron has a ton of very clever ideas that I really like (and will happily steal and put into my Greyhawk campaigns).  They really went out and came up with new ideas, breaking from the Tolkien/Earth history tradition, and I think that's to be lauded.  I feel though, to a certain extent, it's a patchwork of good ideas, but it's a newer campaign setting.  As campaigns are played and "support" materials are published (novels, sourcebooks), it'll develop into a full, well-integrated world.  

I have no problem with Eberron's "theme" -- either you like it or you don't.  I happen not to run the setting, and the other players in my group prefer Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk, but I certainly don't mind if someone does like it, and I'd happily play it.

The only issue I have is with the campaign world itself.  For some reason it reminds me of an MMORPG world.  Like, "here's the forest zone", and "here's the swamp zone", and "here's the desert zone with feral halflings", and "here's the jungle zone with lizardmen", &c.  The Mournlands and Demon Wastes are the "mid level" zones, and then Xen'Drik is the "high level" zone.  Argonessen is the mystery land that your clan might be able to explore when the developers put out the expansion pack to let you level to 70.  Ever since I looked at the map and thought "World of Warcraft", I couldn't get the "MMORPG model" out of my head whenver I attempt to interpret the world itself.  Of course, it doesn't really matter that it's like that -- in fact it allows for integration of all the cool ideas that the developers came up with -- but it just doesn't appeal to me.

In the interests of full disclosure, I love Greyhawk -- _primarily because_ it completely rips off European history and the Tolkien tradition.  Being completely honest (not snarky at all), I guess it's easier for me to get into a game if I can relate it to something with which I'm familiar and I don't have to use my imagination quite as much.  Or maybe in a different way.  But given that I have such a negative "Reviewer's Tilt" and still like what they did in Eberron, I guess that's pretty good.

I'm Cleo!


----------



## rounser (Jul 6, 2006)

> The only issue I have is with the campaign world itself. For some reason it reminds me of an MMORPG world. Like, "here's the forest zone", and "here's the swamp zone", and "here's the desert zone with feral halflings", and "here's the jungle zone with lizardmen", &c. The Mournlands and Demon Wastes are the "mid level" zones, and then Xen'Drik is the "high level" zone. Argonessen is the mystery land that your clan might be able to explore when the developers put out the expansion pack to let you level to 70. Ever since I looked at the map and thought "World of Warcraft", I couldn't get the "MMORPG model" out of my head whenver I attempt to interpret the world itself. Of course, it doesn't really matter that it's like that -- in fact it allows for integration of all the cool ideas that the developers came up with -- but it just doesn't appeal to me.



Looks like they're treating the wilderness with some respect as an adventuring environment, by adding some game artefacts to make it conveniently usable as such.  I think this is a good idea.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 6, 2006)

Spatula said:
			
		

> And warforged are golems.




Yes, but *gasp* they're _player characters_. This seems to be the crux of the anti-warforged camp. As longs as golems are mindless monsters to be whacked for XP, no problem - but _sentient_ golems that you can choose as a PC race? Eeeeeeeeeeevil and wrong! Or at least that's what those stodgy old bastards who live in fear of any game book published since 1990 keep telling me. Today, I _choose_ to be evil and wrong (because it's a lot more fun than cramming a giant stick up my ass every morning).


----------



## genshou (Jul 6, 2006)

I honestly don't know what to think of Eberron.  Having never played it I can only form a vague opinion, but what I do hear makes me think the "premises" upon which the major changes in the setting were built are not properly understood.  Few people really take the time to figure out the statistics on availability of magic in a typical D&D setting, and the way Eberron handles it is just weird.

I wouldn't turn down an Eberron game if I knew the DM was very good, but I'm not going to actively seek out the setting.  I think the main stumbling block to enjoying the setting is probably the fact that it's just not my style, and it looks to me like some of the concepts were implemented without really understanding how magic in a standard D&D world would realistically be able to impact the world.


----------



## rounser (Jul 6, 2006)

> Or at least that's what those stodgy old bastards who live in fear of any game book published since 1990 keep telling me. Today, I choose to be evil and wrong (because it's a lot more fun than cramming a giant stick up my ass every morning).



I never knew it was possible to extrapolate so much about someone's personality just based on the fact that they think that magic robot PCs are lame.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 6, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> I never knew it was possible to extrapolate so much about someone's personality just based on the fact that they think that magic robot PCs are lame.




Actually, it's based more on the fact that I'm familiar with a lot those stodgy old bastards by name from other forums where making sophomoric jokes about any game published in the last ten years and the people who play them is a way of life for many. In other words, it's based on an observed, long-standing, and pronounced behavior pattern.

As far as "magic robots", none of the warforged detractors (here or elsewhere) has yet to explain why golems are perfectly acceptable as walking bags of hit points, but not as sentient PCs. I'm really kind of curious. I suspect the only answer is what I've already hypothesized, though (i.e. "It's new and different, therefore it is bad and wrong!"). 

Feel free to prove me wrong. Tell me why golems are acceptable as monsters, but not as PCs.


----------



## MerricB (Jul 6, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> That just sounds like you're trying to rationalize an untenable position. Golems are robots in everything but name only. Besides, as far as I know, golems from legend were only made of mud.




Although _the golem_ of legend was made of mud/clay, there exist equivalent creatures in mythology and fantasy - Talos of greek legend is the prototypical iron golem. 

Cheers!


----------



## rounser (Jul 6, 2006)

> In other words, it's based on an observed, long-standing, and pronounced behavior pattern.



Yeah, and I bet you were an unbiased judge of them too.  There are two kinds of fools, you know.


----------



## RedWick (Jul 6, 2006)

Eberron has grown on me.  I was mostly indifferent about it until I picked up the Sharn book a while back and enjoyed what I read.  Then I started paying attention to the different threads which popped up about the setting.  My curiosity and interest had been piqued enough to the point where I actually picked up the campaign setting book.  If I can ever find enough players locally, I might actually give running it a go.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 6, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Yeah, and I bet you were an unbiased judge of them too.




I admit, I do tend to be a wee bit critical of people who routinely dismiss games as trash without first reading and/or playing them and make fun of people who play anything new or different when they themsevles are afraid to try it. That brand of propaganda nazi doesn't deserve to be treated as anything but, really. They earn it.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 6, 2006)

Dragonbait said:
			
		

> So.. What defines corny, then? Did I miss someone defining it earlier in the post? I'm too lazy to read every post.
> 
> If those things you listed are corny, *J-Dawg*, then I share opinion. If not, then I must fight you. We will appear in different areas on an alien planet and have to battle it out with just the weapons that evolution gave us.



_My_ evolution includes the use of the club. (Behold the riant anthropoid, and 'ware his crooked thumb...)

As for industrialized magic - that is one of the things that I like best about the setting, and for that matter with the Iron Kingdoms setting's Mechanika. If the use of magic a=was as widespread as it is in a typical D&D world it would be nigh inevitable. (And as a child I enjoyed reading Randall Garret's Lord Darcy stories as soon as they appeared in the magazines.  )

The Auld Grump


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 6, 2006)

> I admit, I do tend to be a wee bit critical of people who routinely dismiss games as trash without first reading and/or playing them and make fun of people who play anything new or different when they themsevles are afraid to try it. That brand of propaganda nazi doesn't deserve to be treated as anything but, really. They earn it.



I can see where you're coming from, really. That's like me and people calling other people munchkins and powergamers and making fun of them. That irritates me to no end. And what you're talking about too, by the way: belittling people who play a game one doesn't like, making fun of them, criticizing the game or setting without having even read its core book/boxed set/whatever. That sucks. Big time.


----------



## genshou (Jul 6, 2006)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> _My_ evolution includes the use of the club. (Behold the riant anthropoid, and 'ware his crooked thumb...)
> 
> As for industrialized magic - that is one of the things that I like best about the setting, and for that matter with the Iron Kingdoms setting's Mechanika. If the use of magic a=was as widespread as it is in a typical D&D world it would be nigh inevitable. (And as a child I enjoyed reading Randall Garret's Lord Darcy stories as soon as they appeared in the magazines.  )
> 
> The Auld Grump



See, that's where I get annoyed in evaluation of Eberron.  Magic is not as common as many people seem to think in standard D&D.  They see these things as "nigh inevitable" as you put it, but really, there isn't enough magic out there to have as large of an impact as some of the more vocal "D&D is too high-magic" Enworlders would have you believe.  Most of the people who rant about those kinds of things haven't worked out statistics to see how rare those things actually are; they simply assume that because the PCs find them they must be _everywhere_, and in mass quantities.

I'm working on a thesis about the availability of magic in a standard D&D society, and the amount of impact it would be able to have on world development.  Unfortunately, it's a slow process due to attention being diverted elsewhere (such as to the forums).  The thing I've learned the most from writing it is that magic items are way more rare and special than I ever thought.  That's probably part of why Eberron bugs me–too many +1 swords around every corner.


----------



## rounser (Jul 6, 2006)

> As far as "magic robots", none of the warforged detractors (here or elsewhere) has yet to explain why golems are perfectly acceptable as walking bags of hit points, but not as sentient PCs. I'm really kind of curious. I suspect the only answer is what I've already hypothesized, though (i.e. "It's new and different, therefore it is bad and wrong!").



You're bordering on betraying yourself as more closeminded than those your criticise with that statement.

I'll speak for myself, though.  I prefer a party of "straight" characters that throw the fantasy of the world into contrast.  If the party are a bunch of monstrous characters themselves, the real monsters become all the less monstrous.  I realise that dwarves and elves are arguably monstrous, but they're not traditionally presented as such, and therefore don't have that vibe about them....maybe one day warforged will enter the same category for me, but I doubt it.  Then there's just the aesthetics of a "tin man" PC which grate on my nerves....in moderation it's fine, but I don't like the flavour of it 24/7 as a PC - it's too much pepper that spoils the meal.  

The wannabe-doppleganger and wannabe-werewolf races also bring aesthetic problems in that they come across as "watered-down substitutes for the real thing", and because we know the behind-the-scenes reasons for why they are this way they are thus another example of the rules defining the "flavour", mystic theurge stylee, which is another thing which I have trouble swallowing.

That said, I really like the "flavour" of golems as an NPC, and think they make fantastic monsters because of the automaton quality (meaning they can be set up as part of puzzles and traps, and all that optional "becoming almost human" stuff makes them interesting).

As another example, I don't like PC psions, because I prefer psionics as an alien seasoning to the campaign for making stuff like illithids all the stranger.  Psion PCs is too much of what should be a spice, IMO, just like the way that a single instance of industrial magic as an adventure hook might be cool and interesting, but too much compromises the "feel" of the game for me...or one crashed spaceship introducing laser rifles might be fine as a novelty, but pervasive laser rifles as the PC's primary weapon might be too much.

A lot of other folks are a lot more free and easy with the tone of their game, or prefer a tone where psionics and robots and magic-as-substitute-technology are centre stage....you're one of them, right?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 6, 2006)

So, in other words, to boil that down a bit, Golems as PC's are bad because you don't like them?


----------



## rounser (Jul 6, 2006)

> So, in other words, to boil that down a bit, Golems as PC's are bad because you don't like them?



Absolutely.  And they're _good_ because _you_ like them.  Good for you!


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 6, 2006)

Well, I like the warforged, personally. And the Changelings too. Cool stuff. 
Now, playing a psionic character in an Eberron campaign, like say, a Psion Kalashtar, that would be cool.


----------



## Asmor (Jul 6, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> You're bordering on betraying yourself as more closeminded than those your criticise with that statement.
> 
> I'll speak for myself, though.  I prefer a party of "straight" characters that throw the fantasy of the world into contrast.  If the party are a bunch of monstrous characters themselves, the real monsters become all the less monstrous.  I realise that dwarves and elves are arguably monstrous, but they're not traditionally presented as such, and therefore don't have that vibe about them....maybe one day warforged will enter the same category for me, but I doubt it.  Then there's just the aesthetics of a "tin man" PC which grate on my nerves....in moderation it's fine, but I don't like the flavour of it 24/7 as a PC - it's too much pepper that spoils the meal.
> 
> ...




With all due respect, it sounds to me like you just want to hog all the fun toys. What you've basically just said is "It's okay if I (through the NPCs) use golems/psions/etc to show off how weird and alien and cool my ideas (through the world) are, but the players should just play normal stuff so I look even cooler."

With all due respect, what about what your _player's_ want? My friend was always laughing and telling anecdotes about his godly Thri-kreen he used to play in Dark Sun so many, many years ago, and I never heard anything about his other characters. No player wants an ordinary character. They all want to be something special. The master of the spiked chain, the 2.5-foot tall gnome that can take down a hill giant, the bad-ass golem with a heart of gold...

I think it's a DM's job to figure out how to allow the players to do what they want, not to tell them they can't do something. Your player wants to play an honest-to-god true dragon? Groovy. There's a couple of dragons-as-classes in Dragon #320. Sure, they'll have to start off as tiny little dragonlings and won't grow much bigger, but they'll still be dragons! You wanna be a werewolf? Well, that would be a little too unbalanced with the other guys, but check out this shifter class from the Eberoon CS... etc.


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 6, 2006)

> it sounds to me like you just want to hog all the fun toys. What you've basically just said is "It's okay if I (through the NPCs) use golems/psions/etc to show off how weird and alien and cool my ideas (through the world) are, but the players should just play normal stuff so I look even cooler."



Heh. That's a bit blunt, but I agree on the substance. The post came to me as such too.


----------



## rounser (Jul 6, 2006)

> With all due respect, it sounds to me like you just want to hog all the fun toys.



Aha!  Now we're into "player rights to new splat" territory, which is a new and interesting facet to D&D that 3E has spawned, and a double-edged sword all of it's own with regard to player entitlement, DM control over their own campaign and rules complexity....I guess I'm being cruel and unfair by restricting the campaign to just using core plus some FR stuff, too...[valleygirl]whateva.[/valleygirl]  I don't see how negotiating with, outwitting, allying with or beating NPC golems to a pulp isn't "playing with them", either.

Perfect material for a new thread, mind you, although I think it was covered in some "think before saying no" threads recently.

EDIT: Nope, even more recently....that thread asking for why he can't get players to go with a party of "classic heroes", as opposed to a random menagerie of mutants.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 6, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, in other words, to boil that down a bit, Golems as PC's are bad because you don't like them?




That's about the long and short of it - but why say it like a sane person when you can say it like a crazy street preacher?


----------



## I'm Cleo (Jul 6, 2006)

rounser,

I understand the function of the discrete environments in Eberron -- in a sense you re-stated what I wrote:  they _actually did_ make "a forest region" and "a swamp region" and "an orc region", &c.  But the environment regions are identical to the political ones, in large part.  It just seems very inorganic to me, artificial -- not like a world but like a MMORPG.

As far as "treating the wilderness with respect as an adventuring environment", isn't that a question of individual DMs/campaigns?  

I'm Cleo!


----------



## Asmor (Jul 6, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Aha!  Now we're into "player rights to new splat" territory, which is a new and interesting facet to D&D that 3E has spawned




Uhh... Granted, I haven't been into the hobby all that long, but has there ever in the history of RPGs been any lines that DIDN'T release books to give players new abilities*? Hell, "splat" as a term for books offering player options is originally derived from White Wolf's WoD, if I recall correctly, as shorthand for their ubiquitous Clanbook/Tribebook/Whateverbooks that were released for every game. I know 2nd Edition had a ton of those Quintessential Fighter and similar dealies, and I've no idea what a "kit" is, but from what I've read it sounds like it was just extra options for players.

*Note: This doesn't count RPGs which didn't because they failed or were just too small to justify the costs. Even then, you just know the authors would have if they could have justified it.


----------



## rounser (Jul 6, 2006)

> That's about the long and short of it - but why say it like a sane person when you can say it like a crazy street preacher?



And why bother with discussion when you can make ad hominem attacks.  Thanks for showing your true colours, I don't know why I've shown you the respect you aren't paying me.


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 6, 2006)

> Uhh... Granted, I haven't been into the hobby all that long, but has there ever in the history of RPGs been any lines that DIDN'T release books to give players new abilities*? Hell, "splat" as a term for books offering player options is originally derived from White Wolf's WoD, if I recall correctly, as shorthand for their ubiquitous Clanbook/Tribebook/Whateverbooks that were released for every game. I know 2nd Edition had a ton of those Quintessential Fighter and similar dealies, and I've no idea what a "kit" is, but from what I've read it sounds like it was just extra options for players.



Diaglo isn't here to post it, so I'll save him some time and post it here: the power creep/new abilities for players etc actually started with OD&D, Supplement I: Greyhawk.


----------



## rounser (Jul 6, 2006)

> Uhh... Granted, I haven't been into the hobby all that long, but has there ever in the history of RPGs been any lines that DIDN'T release books to give players new abilities*?



It's mostly been in the form of entire new classes that were later integrated into the core of the game (thinking stuff like Blackmoor, Unearthed Arcana here).  With 2E, PC customisation really began to take off with kits (to the extent that kits were targeted by 3E designers as a bad thing that rewarded restarting the campaign with new characters so that you could try out a new kit, or so I gathered from a post from Ryan Dancey).  3E seems to have increased this aspect of the game exponentially, because the game has a lot of modular components and ways of integrating exotic races in ways that former editions of the game would struggle to handle.


----------



## genshou (Jul 6, 2006)

I'm Cleo said:
			
		

> rounser,
> 
> I understand the function of the discrete environments in Eberron -- in a sense you re-stated what I wrote:  they _actually did_ make "a forest region" and "a swamp region" and "an orc region", &c.  But the environment regions are identical to the political ones, in large part.  It just seems very inorganic to me, artificial -- not like a world but like a MMORPG.
> 
> ...



I noticed that too, but since that's how I design a lot of my worlds (I'm lazy) it didn't strike me as a _problem_.  I guess it could be viewed as kinda lame and (gasp) video-gamey by some people.  It just never really bothered me enough to be noticed alongside some other things I am bothered by in Eberron.

Yes, I think treating the wilderness with resect as an adventuring environment shouldn't be difficult for DMs to do on their own, but the support is very nice.


----------



## Drowbane (Jul 6, 2006)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> ...it's a lot more fun than cramming a giant stick up my ass every morning...




Ahh, so you're *not* a paladin?


----------



## Asmor (Jul 6, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> It's mostly been in the form of entire new classes that were later integrated into the core of the game (thinking stuff like Blackmoor, Unearthed Arcana here).  With 2E, PC customisation really began to take off with kits (to the extent that kits were targeted by 3E designers as a bad thing that rewarded restarting the campaign with new characters so that you could try out a new kit, or so I gathered from a post from Ryan Dancey).  3E seems to have increased this aspect of the game exponentially, because the game has a lot of modular components and ways of integrating exotic races in ways that former editions of the game would struggle to handle.




And personally, I see that as an AWESOME thing.

I love the idea that two characters playing the same class, even the same race, can be totally different. If anything I wish the game were MORE modular. I'm not usually a fan of classless systems, but I'd like to see the lines between classes and classless be blurred. Give the PCs more paths and options. That's actually why I started out hating prestige classes at first. They're so narrowly defined. I'm still not a huge fan of them, but I've come to grdugingly accept them if only because the absolute titanic wealth of them available makes up for the fact that they pidgeon-hole any characters taking one. That, and the fact that I realized it wasn't my place to enforce my own ideas of how to build characters on my players. If they want to be an assassin, it's not really my place to tell them they're playing the game for the wrong reasons. As long as they're having fun, that's what matters.


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 6, 2006)

Asmor said:
			
		

> I think it's a DM's job to figure out how to allow the players to do what they want, not to tell them they can't do something. Your player wants to play an honest-to-god true dragon? Groovy. There's a couple of dragons-as-classes in Dragon #320. Sure, they'll have to start off as tiny little dragonlings and won't grow much bigger, but they'll still be dragons!



And they'll be hunted down and killed almost immediately by NPC adventurers, because that's what adventurers do to dragonlings found wandering around the countryside.

The players' characters need to make sense in the context of the setting - are you suggesting that the game master should throw out sections of the setting wholesale to accomodate the players?


----------



## genshou (Jul 6, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> And they'll be hunted down and killed almost immediately by NPC adventurers, because that's what adventurers do to dragonlings found wandering around the countryside.
> 
> The players' characters need to make sense in the context of the setting - are you suggesting that the game master should throw out sections of the setting wholesale to accomodate the players?



QFT.

Boy, this thread sure is moving fast right now.


----------



## rounser (Jul 6, 2006)

> And personally, I see that as an AWESOME thing.



I think it's more of a two-edged sword, rather than good or bad.  It can introduce poor rules or concepts, or good ones.  It can introduce rules complication, or refresh the game.  It can cause drowning in options, or character definition.  It can compromise the tone of a campaign, or reinforce it.

Some prefer a more polarised view, though, I'm sure.


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 6, 2006)

Well, the dragonling PC could work out pretty well with a bunch of other PCs. One of my PCs in the Seven Spires campaign had an ice wyvern as a friend they found baby in one of their adventures. It could have been played by a player, for instance. 

I mean, I think a lot of DMs just dismiss stuff "that doesn't work out in the campaign world" because they just don't want to make the effort to make some ideas thrilling the players work out within the campaign's boundaries. Worse, they define the boundaries before even knowing what players they would have at their table (something inconcievable for me. I decide on the type of campaign after I know the composition of the game table so I can have the best fit for everyone, not the reverse).


----------



## Asmor (Jul 6, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> And they'll be hunted down and killed almost immediately by NPC adventurers, because that's what adventurers do to dragonlings found wandering around the countryside.
> 
> The players' characters need to make sense in the context of the setting - are you suggesting that the game master should throw out sections of the setting wholesale to accomodate the players?




In a word, yes. Well, it's not quite as dramatic as you make it seem. What could the player possibly want to do that would require you to "throw out sections of the setting wholesale"? Even the most hard-to-reconcile backstory can be neatly sidestepped by saying that the character is from a different plane and was involved in some sortof mishap stranding him permanently on this one. Of course, that's a little drastic, but it illustrates my point. I'd wager in pretty much any case it is at most a minor alteration to accomadate a player's idea.

The setting means nothing. Absolutely nothing. The setting is there to serve the group's purposes, not the other way around. If retconning something increases someone's enjoyment, do it. If you realize that some minor cosmetic thing would enhance your story, change it. "Oh, by the way, I'm changing a minor detail. Those ninjas you fought two sessions ago had stylized tiger claw tattoos on their left arms, but you'd never seen anything like it before..."

RPGs are games first, games second, games third and "interactive storytelling" or whatever you'd like to dub them last. The most important thing, bar none, is fun.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jul 6, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> The players' characters need to make sense in the context of the setting - are you suggesting that the game master should throw out sections of the setting wholesale to accomodate the players?



Are you suggesting that no DM ever runs games where dragons as PCs make sense in the setting, or alternatively that no DM should ever run such a game?

I know what the answer is - no, but the DM does have the right to say *this* game here is not such a game - but the way you and other "traditionalists" always seem to talk about these issues assumes a huge culture of players demanding to play oddball  in Middle-Earth, and furthermore that people who want to play oddball characters or are happy to run games where oddball characters, well, *aren't*, are somehow "betraying the roots of D&D" or even "not playing D&D" anymore, at all.

I just think more people should accept that their traditionalist ideas of what fantasy is and how D&D should be played don't always - and *shouldn't* always - apply. Except in their own games with players of like mind.


----------



## Asmor (Jul 6, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> I think it's more of a two-edged sword, rather than good or bad.  It can introduce poor rules or concepts, or good ones.  It can introduce rules complication, or refresh the game.  It can cause drowning in options, or character definition.  It can compromise the tone of a campaign, or reinforce it.
> 
> Some prefer a more polarised view, though, I'm sure.




I agree entirely. You'll note I didn't say it was the DM's job to allow it, but rather to figure out how to allow it. Often times, some adjustments and compromises must be made to preserve the balance (and the fun) for everyone involved. One of the DM's jobs is to look over material the player might want to use and make sure it's balanced. A quick glance is all that's needed. If something turns out to be a bad idea in actual play, then you can always change it later. "You know, I didn't think the Warlock's eldritch blast would be so powerful. I think we should tone it down a bit."

I actually tend to err on the more powerful side. I like my players to be really nasty... it means I can throw even nastier stuff AT THEM!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 6, 2006)

> The players' characters need to make sense in the context of the setting - are you suggesting that the game master should throw out sections of the setting wholesale to accomodate the players?




Kinda depends. About 1/2 the time, I'll tell them to make characters before I have any setting in mind. In which case, if they want to play a little baby dragon, I'll make it so little baby dragons are not hunted down in the setting.

The other 1/2 the time, I'll either find a reason it can fit (you're not killed because everyone knows your mom, who's a Great Wyrm, and doesn't want to provoke her), or tell them "next time." Mostly, I try to find a way to make them fit because I like a challenge, and I like open settings, and I'm not married to any particular ideal of how my game world should be. 

Eberron seems to want the PC's to be fantastic in the setting. The heroes, the nobles, the cut above everyone else. I groove on that, in general, so I have no problem finding reasons that PC's are exceptions to the general campaign rules.

It's obviously not everyone's style, but Eberron doesn't seem to resist the idea that PC's are wierd very much.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 6, 2006)

> The players' characters need to make sense in the context of the setting - are you suggesting that the game master should throw out sections of the setting wholesale to accomodate the players?




Absolutely true.

But, don't Warforged make sense in the context of Eberron?

Granted, I wouldn't use them in EVERY campaign, but, again, that doesn't make them bad.  Heck, I don't even particularly like or dislike them.  I'm just not trying to pass off my personal opinions as objective truths.

Samurai do not make sense in some settings.  Does that make the samurai class a bad thing?  Nope.  Crap mechanics make the samurai a bad thing.  

Not every class/race must fit into every setting.  And, indeed, many won't.  A dragon character in Arcana Unearthed makes very good sense.  It makes very bad sense in Scarred Lands where there are no dragons left.

So, yes, a class/race/whatever, must fit into the context of the campaign, absolutely true.  But, a race/class/whatever does not need to fit into the context of EVERY campaign to be good.

If it fits, then its good.  Warforged certainly fit into Eberron, so it would be strange to say they are a bad choice based on that.


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 6, 2006)

> I actually tend to err on the more powerful side. I like my players to be really nasty... it means I can throw even nastier stuff AT THEM!



Keep this up Asmor. Right here, you've got in substance the reason why no DM ever has a reason to get nervous at their players' characters and choices.


----------



## rounser (Jul 6, 2006)

> Right here, you've got in substance the reason why no DM ever has a reason to get nervous at their players' characters and choices.



They're just a collection of stats, after all.


----------



## I'm Cleo (Jul 6, 2006)

genshou,

Oh, I don't want to come across as someone who's opposed to "video-gamey" playstyles!  Or any playstyles, for that matter.  I'm currently playing in an incredibly "video-gamey" FR campaign, and having a ball with it.  I -- personally -- just dig a slightly different style of campaign world.  

I'm not even really bothered by it, I just noticed it.  I want to develop some sort of theory regarding the design of the world at a time of widespread MMORPG play (a friend noted:  D&D Online uses Eberron; chicken or egg?), but I haven't really thought it through.

I'm Cleo


----------



## genshou (Jul 6, 2006)

I'm Cleo said:
			
		

> genshou,
> 
> Oh, I don't want to come across as someone who's opposed to "video-gamey" playstyles!  Or any playstyles, for that matter.  I'm currently playing in an incredibly "video-gamey" FR campaign, and having a ball with it.  I -- personally -- just dig a slightly different style of campaign world.
> 
> ...



Oh don't worry, I'm not accusing you of coming across as anything.  I'm making jest of some posts elsewhere on EN World within the last 24 hours that went into the rehashed "new D&D is too video-gamey" argument.


----------



## Asmor (Jul 6, 2006)

I'm Cleo said:
			
		

> (a friend noted:  D&D Online uses Eberron; chicken or egg?)




I think it's more because Eberron is WotC's setting. It's what they're trying to push. As far as they're concerned, Eberron is all that matters. They only support the other settings because, frankly, the players would revolt if they stopped support to Forgotten Realms (or Greyhawk, if they ever even did support it beyond lip service).

I can't remember exactly, but I seem to recall someone from WotC saying (or maybe it was just an analyst/armchair game designer) that Eberron is WotC's way of taking control of D&D and making it theirs (as opposed to TSR's/Gygax's?).


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 6, 2006)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that no DM ever runs games where dragons as PCs make sense in the setting, or alternatively that no DM should ever run such a game?



I'm not suggesting either.

I'm suggesting that the players' characters need to fit the game master's setting - if the game master wants to include dragons as a playable race, no problem, but if the game master says no way, the players need to be willing to accept that. The game master has much more to do than the players, so the players are the ones who need to exhibit more flexibility, not the other way 'round.







			
				Odhanan said:
			
		

> Well, the dragonling PC could work out pretty well with a bunch of other PCs.



The adventurers walk into a tavern for a well-deserved tankard or three. The other patrons of the tavern see a dragonling and, knowing that a dragon's skin is going to be worth a lot of shekels to someone somewhere, whether it's the noble lord with bounty on dragons, or the wizard looking for dragon scales as a spell component, immediately attack the dragonling _en masse_. The adventurers escape the tavern, only to encounter the town guard who, upon seeing the dragonling, immediately attack as well....







			
				Asmor said:
			
		

> In a word, yes. Well, it's not quite as dramatic as you make it seem. What could the player possibly want to do that would require you to "throw out sections of the setting wholesale"? Even the most hard-to-reconcile backstory can be neatly sidestepped by saying that the character is from a different plane and was involved in some sortof mishap stranding him permanently on this one. Of course, that's a little drastic, but it illustrates my point. I'd wager in pretty much any case it is at most a minor alteration to accomadate a player's idea.



And you would be wrong, as noted in the example above.







			
				Asmor said:
			
		

> The setting means nothing. Absolutely nothing. The setting is there to serve the group's purposes, not the other way around. If retconning something increases someone's enjoyment, do it.



What about the game master's enjoyment? Does the person who does the lion's share of the work to make the game possible maybe get a say in what is enjoyable?







			
				Asmor said:
			
		

> If you realize that some minor cosmetic thing would enhance your story, change it. "Oh, by the way, I'm changing a minor detail. Those ninjas you fought two sessions ago had stylized tiger claw tattoos on their left arms, but you'd never seen anything like it before..."



Dragons as a player character race, to use your example, is not a "minor cosmetic change."







			
				Asmor said:
			
		

> RPGs are games first, games second, games third and "interactive storytelling" or whatever you'd like to dub them last. The most important thing, bar none, is fun.



Thanks for clearing that up, but since not everyone shares the same idea of fun, it's really a bit more complicated than that.







			
				mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> I know what the answer is - no, but the DM does have the right to say *this* game here is not such a game - but the way you and other "traditionalists" always seem to talk about these issues assumes a huge culture of players demanding to play oddball  in Middle-Earth, and furthermore that people who want to play oddball characters or are happy to run games where oddball characters, well, *aren't*, are somehow "betraying the roots of D&D" or even "not playing D&D" anymore, at all.



You've never played in a game that I've run, and you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.


----------



## Sejs (Jul 6, 2006)

Indiana Jones meets Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow meets Lord of the Rings and you think it's _corny_?!


Fie!  Fie upon you I say!


----------



## Hussar (Jul 6, 2006)

IIRC, you could subdue dragons and keep them as pets in earlier editions.  So, there was some rules support all the way back then for adventuring parties having dragons in tow.  

Just a thought.


----------



## caudor (Jul 6, 2006)

My favorite setting is still the Forgotten Realms; however, Eberron is growing on me as well.

I think Eberron would become MUCH more interesting the day all the elementals decide to rebel.


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 6, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> IIRC, you could subdue dragons and keep them as pets in earlier editions.



Yeah, if you could keep them placated. They didn't become animal companions.

*Hussar*, could you do me a favor and buy the 1e books? Explaining the rules to you over and over again is wearing me out.







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> So, there was some rules support all the way back then for adventuring parties having dragons in tow.



There were also rules for monsters as player characters in 1e _AD&D_ - if the game master wanted to include them in the campaign.

In my 1e homebrew, goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, locathah, and lizard men were all available player character races. One character was infected with lycanthropy (werebear). Another character was the pseudo-dragon familiar to the party wizard. Another had demonic heritage (what in 3e would be considered planetouched - thank you, _Arduin Grimoire_.)

What's your point, *Hussar*?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 6, 2006)

My point would be that much of what people are bitching about in Eberron has existed in the game for decades.  Why aren't people bitching about that.


----------



## Asmor (Jul 6, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> The adventurers walk into a tavern for a well-deserved tankard or three. The other patrons of the tavern see a dragonling and, knowing that a dragon's skin is going to be worth a lot of shekels to someone somewhere, whether it's the noble lord with bounty on dragons, or the wizard looking for dragon scales as a spell component, immediately attack the dragonling _en masse_. The adventurers escape the tavern, only to encounter the town guard who, upon seeing the dragonling, immediately attack as well...




Sigh... you seem rather hung up on that little point.

You see, this actually came up in one of my games. My fiancée, in fact, wanted to play a dragon. She wanted to play a silver dragon to be exact. So I was working it out so that a silver dragon would need the party to take care of her daughter for reasons unimportant to this discussion.

The fact that she was a dragon was to be a very large complication for the reasons you mentioned, more or less. Lots of unscrupulous people, if they knew of her, would want her. In fact, the main evil organization of the campaign was specifically after her and knew exactly who she was.

Now, metallic dragons have this wonderful little ability... they can turn into humans (or others)! Solves 99% of your problems right there! Suddenly, it's not so difficult to blend the little wyrmling into regular society, unless the PC makes some bad decisions. Instead of being a plot derailer, the fact that the character's a dragon si strictly a plot device, and a pretty damn good one at that.

This might cause problems if the player wanted to be a chromatic dragon, but there's a bunch of different ways you could address that. You could just give them the same shapeshifting ability as a metallic dragon. You could say that they're a rogue "good" chromatic dragon if, as is likely, having an evil character would spoil the group dynamics. You could just say to the player "Sorry, but I'd rather you not play a chromatic dragon... how about one of these metallics? They're shiny!" (remember, compromise!)

Yes, the DM does the lion's share of the work. In fact, I'll go a step farther and say the DM does _all_ the work. But all that work is for nought if it isn't tailored to and engaging the players. One of the best things about this hobby, IMHO, is the surprises and curve balls players can throw you and being able to readjust things on the fly. If you just want to make your world and tell your story, you might as well just write a novel. I don't think it's a burden letting players influence me, I take it as one of the perks.


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 6, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> My point would be that much of what people are bitching about in Eberron has existed in the game for decades.  Why aren't people bitching about that.



Because maybe what they dislike about Eberron was never part of their experience playing the game? Because while some _D&D_ settings like the Wilderlands or the Known World included a more technological or science fantasy aspect, other more popular settings didn't? Because they aren't as focused on comparing how _D&D_ was played by some people then to how it's played now? Because it has nothing to do with what they think of Eberron?

I'm just spitballing here.


----------



## Asmor (Jul 6, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> My point would be that much of what people are bitching about in Eberron has existed in the game for decades.  Why aren't people bitching about that.




Opinions are like ***holes. Everyone's got 'em and the loudest ones stink the most.

I'd wager that if you looked up some old archives on RPG BBSes of the era (there's gotta be some) you'd find people railing about how D&D was totally ruining Chainmail.


----------



## Spatula (Jul 6, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Aha!  Now we're into "player rights to new splat" territory, which is a new and interesting facet to D&D that 3E has spawned, and a double-edged sword all of it's own with regard to player entitlement, DM control over their own campaign and rules complexity....I guess I'm being cruel and unfair by restricting the campaign to just using core plus some FR stuff, too...[valleygirl]whateva.[/valleygirl]  I don't see how negotiating with, outwitting, allying with or beating NPC golems to a pulp isn't "playing with them", either.
> 
> Perfect material for a new thread, mind you, although I think it was covered in some "think before saying no" threads recently.
> 
> EDIT: Nope, even more recently....that thread asking for why he can't get players to go with a party of "classic heroes", as opposed to a random menagerie of mutants.



Players (well, certain players) have always wanted to play unusual characters, for as long as the game has existed.  3E didn't spawn anything, in that regard.


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 6, 2006)

Asmor said:
			
		

> Sigh... you seem rather hung up on that little point.



It's not a little point.

In my HB fantasy setting, dragons weren't color-coded, and none of them were innate shapeshifters, but for the sake of argument, let's say that I could introduce a metallic dragon from another plane, or give the dragon character a magic ring that allowed her to _polymorph self_ three times per day, with human form as the only option.

I could do those things. I may not choose to, however. It will depend on the setting, the feel of the game-world, the kinds of adventures the characters are likely to encounter. If I'm not interested in running a game with dragons as player characters, then the player can choose a different character or find another game.







			
				Asmor said:
			
		

> Yes, the DM does the lion's share of the work. In fact, I'll go a step farther and say the DM does _all_ the work. But all that work is for nought if it isn't tailored to and engaging the players.



Engaging to the players, absolutely. Tailored to them, not necessarily.







			
				Asmor said:
			
		

> One of the best things about this hobby, IMHO, is the surprises and curve balls players can throw you and being able to readjust things on the fly. If you just want to make your world and tell your story, you might as well just write a novel.



*Asmor*, I'm about as far from a "storyteller" game master as you're likely to find, so until you've played in one of my games, let's leave the pigeonholing out of it, 'kay?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 6, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Because maybe what they dislike about Eberron was never part of their experience playing the game? Because while some _D&D_ settings like the Wilderlands or the Known World included a more technological or science fantasy aspect, other more popular settings didn't?




Now this one I'd buy if it ever came up.  However, 99% of the complaining looks an awful lot more like:



> Because they aren't as focused on comparing how _D&D_ was played by some people then to how it's played now? Because it has nothing to do with what they think of Eberron?
> 
> I'm just spitballing here.




Because most of what I see is people bitching about how Eberron is "ruining" the game by moving away from Tolkeinesque roots.  Medieval setting with magic in the background.  Whatever you want to call it.  

Look at this thread.  You can see it through many of the comments.  How Eberron is taking from bad sources, ruining the game, catering to the video game crowd (ie younger people who are worse roleplayers than the critic)... whatever standard crap that people have been flinging like monkeys.

If it was simply a case of not liking the setting because it doesn't appeal, that's one thing.  Heck, Eberron doesn't even really appeal to me all that much.  However, condemning it because it's ruining the game is stupid.

Look at the criticisms.  Airships and robots and non-standard races.  Yet, these have existed in the game for an extremely long time.  I've got a Dragon magazine from the mid 80's with rules for creating airships.  Golems have been in the game for some time.  I had a Krynnish Minotaur character in 1e.  

All these gripes about how the game is radically changing are revisionist history.  These elements have been in the game for years.  Sure, they may not have been the front part, but, to suddenly say that the setting is wrongbadfun because it uses elements that have always been there to be used is stupid.

Yes, I agree 100% that race/class/whatever must fit in the setting.

So, how is it that warforged don't fit in Eberron?


----------



## genshou (Jul 6, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, how is it that warforged don't fit in Eberron?



I would say that warforged fit perfectly in Eberron.  However, the only reason for that I can see _is because the author decided there should be warforged in Eberron_.


----------



## boredgremlin (Jul 6, 2006)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> I take it you're not terribly familiar with the 'pulp' literature of the early 1900s?





 Early 1900's? You mean like 60 or 70 years before i was borne? Nope, guess I it missed it in my age of nostalgia, which pretty much goes as far back as early metallica and everything  before that sucked.


----------



## boredgremlin (Jul 6, 2006)

Eberron reminds me of playing a Final Fantasy game. I like final fantasy, the problem is that i have played 11 of them now, including an online version, And to be honest final fantasy is for screwing around after work and relaxing, D&D is for halfway serius interactions between freinds and high drama. I have read Eberron and been a player in two games and it had no drama at all to me, i kept picturing Cloud beating down a monster and Sephiroth cackling in the background. 

   So ebberon has nothing to offer to me, i totally felt like it was a setting built around the core, most of which i feel suck. So i kicked eberron to the wayside and none of my players complained since none of them liked it much either. I would much rather see WOTC support and resurect Dark Sun then put out some stinky Ebberon books. Sure the forgotten realms is old, tired and boring, but they could replace it with something different and solid, rather then just taking ultra high magic and silly fantasy the umpteenth degree.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 6, 2006)

> I would say that warforged fit perfectly in Eberron. However, the only reason for that I can see is because the author decided there should be warforged in Eberron.




Of course.  That's the entire point.  Silvanesti Elves fit where they fit because the designers made them fit there.  Now, some races are generic enough to fit pretty much anywhere.  That's true.  But, being designed to fit in a particular setting isn't a problem.  It's not like you are being forced to accept Warforged in any other setting other than Eberron.  There are no modules featuring warforged in Greyhawk for example.

The complain is that warforged don't fit in DnD.  Well, my response is, Warforged fit perfectly well in Eberron.  While Eberron may not be everyone's DnD, it's still DnD.  It uses most of the same mechanics as any other setting.  There may be some changes, but, that certainly doesn't make it "Not DnD" any more than Athas is "Not DnD".  

Or, look at another way.  Hollow Knights are listed as a player race (with a rather whopping level adjustment) in Scarred Lands.  Storywise, they are pretty close to warforged - a race of sentient constructs built to fight a war.  Although they were built by gods in SL, most of the rest is pretty much the same all the way down to the idea that they are trying to find a place in post-war Scarn.  

Does that make SL a bad setting?  Does that mean that SL is "Not DnD"?

As far as airships go.  Well, lets not forget Dragonlance had flying castles.  Floating battle platforms from which to wage war.  That's about as solid a Space Opera SF trope as you can get.  Would anyone care to claim DL is not DnD?


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Jul 6, 2006)

boredgremlin said:
			
		

> Eberron reminds me of playing a Final Fantasy game. I like final fantasy, the problem is that i have played 11 of them now, including an online version, And to be honest final fantasy is for screwing around after work and relaxing, D&D is for halfway serius interactions between freinds and high drama. I have read Eberron and been a player in two games and it had no drama at all to me, i kept picturing Cloud beating down a monster and Sephiroth cackling in the background.




I've only played Final Fantasy VII, and I can't really see the resemblance.

However, I do see a lot of parallels to the political and social climate of Earth after WWI, which is rife with possibilities. I studied the Weimar Republic in detail back in school (not uncommon in Germany), and the sort of political tensions that existed back then are perfect adventure fodder. I dunno, but the political and social situation of Eberron seems more interesting and _realistic_ than those of the Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, and all the others - which means it is a lot easier to steal from real world history (at some point, I'll introduce a book entitled "The Protocols of the Elders of the Trust"...   ).

Sure, Eberron might not be the best fit for classical Epic High Fantasy - there are no titanic clashes between the forces of "Good" and "Evil". But then again, I prefer my Epic Fantasy linked with Cosmic Horror, with no one to bail out the PCs if they screw up in their battle against the Abominations From Beyond - and Eberron is _perfect_ for that style.


----------



## Staffan (Jul 6, 2006)

genshou said:
			
		

> See, that's where I get annoyed in evaluation of Eberron.  Magic is not as common as many people seem to think in standard D&D.



Eberron has taken measures to increase the amount of low-level magic as well. Notably:

The Artificer class can create lots of magic items.
The Magewright NPC class provides people knowing useful spells (e.g. _continual flame_ without being adventuring-caliber classes.
The Dragonmarked houses make certain magical services common.


----------



## Wereserpent (Jul 6, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> According to his criteria:  "which means there had to be elves and dwarves and orcs, fire-and-forget magic, divine magic and its dedicated practitioners, paladins and monks, and so on.
> 
> Elves, Dwarves, Orcs:  Krynn - Check.  Athas - Check.
> Fire & Forget Magic:  Krynn - Check (except in Saga, which isn't D&D at all), Athas - Check (even if psionics exist).
> Paladins & Monks:  I'm not 100% certain here, especially since monks weren't core in 2E, but I"m pretty sure they could be played.




There are no Orcs in Krynn.  Well, there are not SUPPOSED to be any in Krynn, but sometimes  they slipped in in older novels.  There are now Drow either.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 6, 2006)

I'm still not understanding where the criticism is coming from.  Even if it were true, why would corny be bad?  It's entirely a taste thing.

I would accept Eberon as being bad if it were poorly written.  I would accept it if there were glaring mechanical errors.  I would accept it if the editting was very poor (even for an RPG book).  I would even accept it if the setting was internally inconsistent.

But, none of these criticisms are being raised.  From most accounts its well written, decently editted, mechanically ok and consistent.

Where's the problem?  

"I don't like it" is a perfectly valid opinion.  Personally, I don't like psionics.  However, "I don't like it so it must be crap" is a blindingly ridiculous position to take.  If there are problems with the setting, that's fine.  Let's discuss that.  Simply standing up on a soapbox and denouncing it as "NOT ONE OF US" is hardly constructive.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Jul 6, 2006)

Asmor said:
			
		

> I think it's more because Eberron is WotC's setting. It's what they're trying to push. As far as they're concerned, Eberron is all that matters. They only support the other settings because, frankly, the players would revolt if they stopped support to Forgotten Realms (or Greyhawk, if they ever even did support it beyond lip service).




They are supporting the Forgotten Realms because they make them money. The same is true for Eberron.

Supporting Greyhawk, on the other hand, is probably not financially viable as a complete line for a company as large as WotC, which is why they _don't_ support it these days. Besides, Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms are rather similar in design, so there is no _point_ in publishing them both by the same company. Eberron, on the other hand, is sufficiently different from either of them that it can establish its own share of the market without impacting too much on the sales of the Forgotten Realms.


----------



## Numion (Jul 6, 2006)

It is impossible to support Greyhawk. Whatever you do the small but very vocal minority of grognards won't be happy (because it wasn't done by EGG). It's like every single product you published for it had instant, free, very negative PR on the largest RPG sites on the net.

Who wants to put out products like that? WotC is a business, and GH is very bad for business.


----------



## hong (Jul 6, 2006)

boredgremlin said:
			
		

> Eberron reminds me of playing a Final Fantasy game. I like final fantasy, the problem is that i have played 11 of them now, including an online version, And to be honest final fantasy is for screwing around after work and relaxing, D&D is for halfway serius interactions between freinds and high drama.


----------



## shilsen (Jul 6, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm still not understanding where the criticism is coming from. Even if it were true, why would corny be bad? It's entirely a taste thing.
> 
> I would accept Eberon as being bad if it were poorly written. I would accept it if there were glaring mechanical errors. I would accept it if the editting was very poor (even for an RPG book). I would even accept it if the setting was internally inconsistent.
> 
> ...




Unfortunately, I think the single biggest reason (though not the only one) for people disliking Eberron is the fact that it is well outside the more traditional pseudo-medieval fantasy zone that most of D&D has been written in/for. So it's well beyond a lot of people's comfort zones, and the primary argument against it is actually "I don't like it." So, while there might be some useful critiques, on the whole I don't expect you'll see much constructive criticism of the setting.

Personally, I wasn't particularly enthused about or interested in the setting when I first heard about it. But after some good reviews on these boards, I bought the ECS and completely fell in love with it (been running two campaigns in it for over a year each). Some of the things I like about Eberron:

* It seriously considers the effects of magic on society

* It very explicitly makes the PCs the focus of the setting as well as the campaign. 

* It embraces the core D&D rules rather than fighting them, as most settings tend to do.

* It uses wide magic rather than either high or low magic. There's a lot more low-level magic in Eberron than in the DMG assumption of magic in a campaign, and a lot less high-level magic.

* It takes the traditional D&D races and puts a creative spin on them. Dinosaur-riding halflings, ancestor-worshipping elves, zen berserker orcs, etc. And it made gnomes scary!

* The in-built politics of the setting. 

* The treatment of deities as distant, unfathomable entities, if they even exist.

* Retaining D&D alignment without it being simplistic black-and-white.

And a few dozen other things I could mention. In short, I really like the setting. and I really don't care if people dislike it, since that doesn't affect my game and I don't expect my tastes to affect theirs. I do, however, find threads like these very amusing, since they often contain criticisms that are evidently based on never having looked in-depth at or thought about the setting's contents.


----------



## cmanos (Jul 6, 2006)

Ipersonally love Eberron.  It is not everyone's ball of wax when it comes to fantasy games.  That's why there's things like Greyhawk and Dragonlance.


----------



## Numion (Jul 6, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> I do, however, find threads like these very amusing, since they often contain criticisms that are evidently based on never having looked in-depth at or thought about the setting's contents.




There were some very fun threads right after the winner of the setting competition was announced. "Halflings riding dinosaurs?! The setting is DINOPUNK!!!"   

Even funnier were some of the boards Great Artistes comments like they could've whipped up a better setting than Eberron, had they only been told WotC wanted Dinopunk    

Funniest of all was one dude who thought his personal setting was worth so much more than $120000 that he declined to enter in to the contest. Hmm .. I wonder how many millions he's made from his homebrew in the meantime?


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 6, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Yeah, and I bet you were an unbiased judge of them too.  There are two kinds of fools, you know.



"Who's more foolish; the fool or the fool who follows him?"


----------



## boredgremlin (Jul 6, 2006)

my problem with eberron is simple. It takes everything i hate about 3e and puts it to the 10th degree. 

   Magic as an industry instead of something wondrous, rare and well magical? Ebberon, right here, flying ships, silly trains, magic as far as the eye can see. Why go dungeon hunting for magic? You can just buy it at the shop around the corner. Fight dragons and beasties for magic? why bother? we'll take the magic train to the mystical 7-11 with the shape changing register monkey and just buy ourselves some magic for 9.99$ (plus tax)


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 6, 2006)

Asmor said:
			
		

> I agree entirely. You'll note I didn't say it was the DM's job to allow it, but rather to figure out how to allow it.



I don't see a really substantive difference between those two statements.  At the end of the day, he either allows it or he doesn't, and you seem to be saying that the DM has to either allow it or... uh, allow it.

I'm _*all*_ for having more options available.  I love that about d20.  However, I feel no need at all to allow anything that anyone wants to play.  One of the key elements of defining a setting is constraining what's available.  There's *so much* in print, that I really have very little need to make up new stuff anymore to add to homebrews.  I'm better off picking and choosing elements a la a game buffet and saying; OK; this is in, and nothing else.


----------



## hong (Jul 6, 2006)

Or, to borrow from another game: I have GURPS Compendium I: Character Creation. Does this mean that if I run a GURPS fantasy game, I'm going to allow disads like No Physical Body or Astral Entity, or ads like Insubstantiality or Extra Legs? Probably not.

For whatever reason, the D&D zeitgeist has evolved into one where the default seems to be "if it's published, it's allowed". Thankfully, it's easy to ignore a zeitgeist.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 6, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> *Hussar*, could you do me a favor and buy the 1e books? Explaining the rules to you over and over again is wearing me out.There were also rules for monsters as player characters in 1e _AD&D_ - if the game master wanted to include them in the campaign.



How is that any different than what he said?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Why would you explain rules to him in this discussion since it would be a complete non sequiter to do so?


			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> In my 1e homebrew, goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, locathah, and lizard men were all available player character races. One character was infected with lycanthropy (werebear). Another character was the pseudo-dragon familiar to the party wizard. Another had demonic heritage (what in 3e would be considered planetouched - thank you, _Arduin Grimoire_.)
> 
> What's your point, *Hussar*?



Uh, actually, what's _your_ point?  You seemed to be saying earlier that monsters as PCs was a really bad idea and antithetical to D&D or somesuch, and when Hussar said that actually there were rules for them in earlier editions, you chime in and say, "well, yeah--I used to use them all the time!"

Again; either you're really confused and have completely missed/lost the point, or I am.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Jul 6, 2006)

boredgremlin said:
			
		

> Magic as an industry instead of something wondrous, rare and well magical? Ebberon, right here, flying ships, silly trains, magic as far as the eye can see. Why go dungeon hunting for magic? You can just buy it at the shop around the corner. Fight dragons and beasties for magic? why bother? we'll take the magic train to the mystical 7-11 with the shape changing register monkey and just buy ourselves some magic for 9.99$ (plus tax)




Because the really good stuff is rarely sold on the open market - it's only the weak stuff that's readily available. So you either have to go into that damn dungeon to get it, build it it yourself, or deal with some people who have all the morals of modern day black market arms dealers.

Oh, and in the latter case you _really_ shouldn't ask where the merchandize comes from or whether the former owner misses it.


Sure, that's a different from "classical" D&D. But I think that's how it ought to be. I think it makes for a better game if there is an actual _reason_ for going into the dungeon beyond "Let's make lots of gp quick!" And Eberron has them in spades - you are not just going into a dungeon because there might be gold and treasure down there, but because going into the dungeon represents an opportunity to learn secrets of lost and forgotten civilizations and their powers.

And exploring the cyclopean ruins of Xen'drik to discover the secrets of the ancient giant civilizations sounds more "magical" to me than going to some dungeon build by some lich who enjoys messing with adventurers and thus has put both treasures and deadly traps and guardian creatures down there...


----------



## jasin (Jul 6, 2006)

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> Sure, Eberron might not be the best fit for classical Epic High Fantasy - there are no titanic clashes between the forces of "Good" and "Evil".



Not active ones, not at the point where the timeline ends in the book, but at least a few could easily break out any time.

There's a lich queen with her own religion and strong ties both to a country that uses undead troops and to the ancient kingdom of the elves.

There's a demon bound under the central cathedral of a LG church.

There's an isolationist empire of psionicists that's trying to stop the wheel of ages from turning.

There's _something_ that's capable of wiping out a country in one fell swoop.

Plenty of opportunity for Eeevil opponents and epic clashes in Eberron, I think, if you want to play it that way (I certainly would, past a certain level).


----------



## Numion (Jul 6, 2006)

jasin said:
			
		

> There's _something_ that's capable of wiping out a country in one fell swoop.




Whoah! Why is my adventuring party in Eberron canon? We didn't get any royalties!!11!


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 6, 2006)

J-Dawg said:
			
		

> How is that any different than what he said?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was replying to *Hussar*'s hazy and incomplete recollection of 1e - subdued dragons were not "pets."

*Hussar* tends to make frequent claims about 1e that, while accurate representations of his personal experience, are pretty far removed from the actual rules of the game. Apparently gamers who played _AD&D_ without knowing very much about what was in the rule books were pretty common - there was a funny post about this not too long ago, though I admit I couldn't really relate to the poster's experience directly, since we did use the rules in our games. 


			
				J-Dawg said:
			
		

> Uh, actually, what's _your_ point?  You seemed to be saying earlier that monsters as PCs was a really bad idea and antithetical to D&D or somesuch, and when Hussar said that actually there were rules for them in earlier editions, you chime in and say, "well, yeah--I used to use them all the time!"
> 
> Again; either you're really confused and have completely missed/lost the point, or I am.



You're really confused and completely missed the point.  

I have no problem with monsters as player characters, if the game master is comfortable with that - my original point is that player characters should fit the setting, that's all. *Asrom* claims that it's the game master's "job" to allow any character concept, and I disagreed.

Better now?


----------



## shilsen (Jul 6, 2006)

boredgremlin said:
			
		

> my problem with eberron is simple. It takes everything i hate about 3e and puts it to the 10th degree.
> 
> Magic as an industry instead of something wondrous, rare and well magical? Ebberon, right here, flying ships, silly trains, magic as far as the eye can see. Why go dungeon hunting for magic? You can just buy it at the shop around the corner. Fight dragons and beasties for magic? why bother? we'll take the magic train to the mystical 7-11 with the shape changing register monkey and just buy ourselves some magic for 9.99$ (plus tax)



 Thank you, boredgremlin. I appreciate your effort to illustrate my point about critics of the setting who have obviously not looked closely at it.


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 6, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Yes, I agree 100% that race/class/whatever must fit in the setting.
> 
> So, how is it that warforged don't fit in Eberron?



I couldn't say - I have no opinion on whether warforged fit in Eberron, or in _Dungeons and Dragons_.


----------



## jokamachi (Jul 6, 2006)

boredgremlin said:
			
		

> my problem with eberron is simple. It takes everything i hate about 3e and puts it to the 10th degree.
> 
> Magic as an industry instead of something wondrous, rare and well magical? Ebberon, right here, flying ships, silly trains, magic as far as the eye can see. Why go dungeon hunting for magic? You can just buy it at the shop around the corner. Fight dragons and beasties for magic? why bother? we'll take the magic train to the mystical 7-11 with the shape changing register monkey and just buy ourselves some magic for 9.99$ (plus tax)




Yup. BoredGremlin nailed it. 

Dumbest. Setting. Ever.


----------



## Sejs (Jul 6, 2006)

Late to the party, but a nitpick:



> Aha! Now we're into "player rights to new splat" territory, which is a new and interesting facet to D&D that 3E has spawned...




I'm sorry to say, but by no means is this a phenomenon that is somehow new or unique to 3e.

Kits in the 2nd ed Handbook series, the Skills and Powers tinkertoy assemble-a-class feature system, hell even the original Unearthed Arcana in 1st ed, with its barbarians, cavaliers, and weapon specialization.

The issue of player entitlement is as old as suplimental rules are.  Don't kid yourself.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 6, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I was replying to *Hussar*'s hazy and incomplete recollection of 1e - subdued dragons were not "pets."



I thought he was using it as an example that there was (kinda) a precedent being set that dragon PCs may not be so "wild and crazy" as they first sound.  A PC hardly sounds like it would be the "pet" of another PC either.  I guess I still don't see the conflict between his example and what you're stating.


			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> You're really confused and completely missed the point.



Well, it certainly wouldn't be the first time.    


			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> I have no problem with monsters as player characters, if the game master is comfortable with that - my original point is that player characters should fit the setting, that's all. *Asrom* claims that it's the game master's "job" to allow any character concept, and I disagreed.
> 
> Better now?



Ah, got it.  I thought you were making a comment about some of the Eberron races as essentially "watered down" monsters and thought that was a bad idea.  That's what comes of trying to read through the thread real quick before replying, though--I probably picked up on general vibes of some kind without making clear attributions to who exactly said what exactly.

In that case, I agree with you completely.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 6, 2006)

jokamachi said:
			
		

> Yup. BoredGremlin nailed it.
> 
> Dumbest. Setting. Ever.





			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> Thank you, boredgremlin. I appreciate your effort to illustrate my point about critics of the setting who have obviously not looked closely at it.








  Brilliant.  BoredGremlin and jokamachi: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I hearby invite you to Circvs Maximvs to talk about Eberron where you can truly be told exactly what you're full of in the appropriate language, without worrying about offending Gramma.  As if her's doesn't stink too, the hypocritical old bag.      Anyway, I've already started a thread for you; just in case you come over.  If you don't, no doubt we'll just talk about you behind your backs anyway, so come on over!

[size=-2]DISCLAIMER: OK, really, the Circvs isn't a forum for ignorant statements, which get short shrift, but neither is it just the anti-ENWorld where people can act like total jackasses.  If you actually act like an adult and engage in meaningful and intelligent discussion, you'll get the same back.  The beauty of the Circvs, though, is _this_ type of wilfully ignorant discussion can be well and truly answered appropriately.[/size]


----------



## Anti-Sean (Jul 6, 2006)

J-Dawg said:
			
		

> I hearby invite you to Circvs Maximvs to start up a thread about Eberron where you can truly be told exactly what you're full of in the appropriate language.



I heartily endorse this product and/or service.

-wants to have like 10,000 of J-Dawg's babies Spikey


----------



## Kestrel (Jul 6, 2006)

I have yet to understand the point of these threads.  

"Oranges are incredible!  I love oranges!"

"No Apples are great!  Oranges suck!"

"No Apples suck!"

blah blah blah

You don't like Eberron's concepts, then don't buy it...that simple.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 6, 2006)

I'm actually probably going to shock everyone with this, but I LOVE _Eberron_.

There's a couple things about it that I dislike, but for the most part, I can fix those.

I think it's an extremely cool setting. I love the pulp influences, airships, secret societies, sentient magical constructs, manifest zones, changelings, shifters, and the remote deities. The only things I DISLIKE are one or two plot points and a couple old D&Disms, which, mostly, Keith and the team have handled by making high-level magic rare. To whit, the only things I don't like:

- Macabre death-obsessed elves - just not my cup of tea.
- The Lightning Rail. I get it, I just...I dunno...something about it is jarring. I'm not sure what.
- Resurrection, Raise Dead. Even D&D novels let heroes die. The various resurrection magic is a metagame solution to death that just irks me.
- Arcane/divine magic separation for no reason.

That's a pretty short list. And yes, I rail against the arcane/divine thing even in _Eberron_. No, make that "especially in _Eberron_ where the gods are remote and druids can control interdimensional travel...

Everything else is cool. Even gnomes. And how hard did I find THAT to believe??


----------



## GwydapLlew (Jul 6, 2006)

J-Dawg said:
			
		

> I hearby invite you to Circvs Maximvs to talk about Eberron where you can truly be told exactly what you're full of in the appropriate language




I can't quit you, mang!

So far, the only question I have about this thread is why Takasi hasn't joined yet.   

I grok the necessity of a subculture to remain as 'sub' a culture as it can so that it doesn't become mainstream...but I like Eberron. I like Tolkein. I like Dark Sun. I like Greyhawk. I like Forgotten Realms. Heck, I like the old knock-off Elves adventure that read like a powergamer Elf-lover's wet dream. 

It's one thing to review or critique something, but I won't ever subscribe to the badfun argument.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jul 6, 2006)

I am a big fan of Eberron; well.. I was.  My group disliked it because they thought it was too urban and are not big fans of the pulp genre.  However, these reasons were exactly WHY I liked it.  When I first saw the previews, I thought it was a stupid concept, but I looked through the ECS one day and fell in love with it almost immediately.  I like how the world actually MAKES SENSE, and magic is built into society, not layered on top of it so you have medieval Europe, but there's magic, but nobody USES that magic for anything to make life better.  I like how there isn't a slew of high level NPCs in every town, village and hamlet like some other settings (*cough*Forgotten Realms*cough*).  Hell, I like the feel of the world and how everything seems to be written cohesively to fit.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 6, 2006)

GwydapLlew said:
			
		

> I can't quit you, mang!
> 
> So far, the only question I have about this thread is why Takasi hasn't joined yet.



Yeah, back atcha mang!  Er... who are you again?    


			
				GwydapLlew said:
			
		

> I grok the necessity of a subculture to remain as 'sub' a culture as it can so that it doesn't become mainstream



Ironically, they seem to be simultaneously claiming that they represent gaming mainstream, though.  And anyway, I grok that too, but that's no call to go mislabeling stuff and denigrating what you don't like.  It's perfectly possible to strongly prefer more "traditional D&D flavored fantasy" and strongly dislike warforged, changelings, or whatever, and yet still not be insulting.  And taking pride in wilful ignorance is just silly no matter what else.


----------



## MarkB (Jul 6, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> - Resurrection, Raise Dead. Even D&D novels let heroes die. The various resurrection magic is a metagame solution to death that just irks me.
> - Arcane/divine magic separation for no reason.



I don't think any core setting is going to completely resolve either of these. I'd say Eberron goes about as far as it's possible to go, both by making it extremely difficult to actually purchase resurrection magic - legitimate priests don't sell their services, or even provide them to non-believers, and there are few who are powerful enough to cast such spells at all - and by introducing the Artificer, who accesses magic at a level beyond the arcane/divine divide, and can make use of both equally.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 6, 2006)

MarkB said:
			
		

> I don't think any core setting is going to completely resolve either of these. I'd say Eberron goes about as far as it's possible to go, both by making it extremely difficult to actually purchase resurrection magic - legitimate priests don't sell their services, or even provide them to non-believers, and there are few who are powerful enough to cast such spells at all - and by introducing the Artificer, who accesses magic at a level beyond the arcane/divine divide, and can make use of both equally.




I actually agree with you that no core setting (well, no Third Edition core setting anyway...) would ever do either of these things. That doesn't mean I don't necessarily take one look at how far _Eberron_ has gone down the path and start pondering ways to finish the job. 

But that's me.


----------



## Barak (Jul 6, 2006)

Ok, so I've come to this thread late,a nd the point I'm answering to was raised a while ago.  But, IMHO, it was never answered satisfactorly.

Yes, Golems are "XP bags" that shouldn't be PC races.  They are not alone!  So are mindless undeads, oozes, plants, animals and magical beasts.  I don't want unicorns or Gelatinous Cubes as PCs.  In 99% of my campaigns, I also don't want aberrations as PCs!  

Sure, in every case, I -could- come up with an explanation.  I could make it relevant in the setting.  But just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Yes, Warforged make sense within the framework of Eberron.  Doesn't mean all DMs should like the idea.  And while it's perfectly alright to like Eberron, it's perfectly alright to hate it too.  And if the reason you hate it is that Golems/robots as PCs rub you the wrong way, well, that's reason enough.

I do have that Gelatinous Cube Paladin character...


----------



## Psion (Jul 6, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> And while it's perfectly alright to like Eberron, it's perfectly alright to hate it too.




True enough. But it doesn't make strawmen and hyperbole used to validate such positions into truth.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 6, 2006)

Of course, there's something like 32,000 warforged in the entire world, so it's not exactly hard to not mention them in a home camapaign.

In fact, for the more traditionalist DMs there's plenty of adventuring room in the Eldeen Reaches, Shadow Marches, Droaam, Q'barra, Valenar, Talenta Plains, Karrnath, Lhazaar Principalities, X'endrik, Aerenal...


----------



## genshou (Jul 6, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Of course.  That's the entire point.  Silvanesti Elves fit where they fit because the designers made them fit there.  Now, some races are generic enough to fit pretty much anywhere.  That's true.  But, being designed to fit in a particular setting isn't a problem.  It's not like you are being forced to accept Warforged in any other setting other than Eberron.  There are no modules featuring warforged in Greyhawk for example.



Right, my problem isn't with warforged themselves, but rather with the fact that–no matter how hard I try–the only way I can explain the necessity of Warforged in Eberron is by metagaming.  Of course, I don't own the campaign setting, so maybe after reading through a friend's copy I missed some important explanation, but it seems to me like a lot of things about Eberron can only be explained by metagaming.  That's more than a a dislike because of opinion.  If so many things about the setting can only be explained through metagame, that's a serious problem with the setting.


			
				Staffan said:
			
		

> Eberron has taken measures to increase the amount of low-level magic as well. Notably:
> 
> The Artificer class can create lots of magic items.
> The Magewright NPC class provides people knowing useful spells (e.g. _continual flame_ without being adventuring-caliber classes.
> The Dragonmarked houses make certain magical services common.



Are there in-game explanations for this?  As I mentioned, I don't own the books and have only read through a friend's copy.  If there's an explanation in-game that could be given from an NPC to a PC who popped onto Eberron from, say, Aber-Toril, that's fine.  But if as above I can't find any reasons except the metagame "the author wanted it this way", I'm unhappy and so too would be my players.


			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm still not understanding where the criticism is coming from.  Even if it were true, why would corny be bad?  It's entirely a taste thing.
> 
> I would accept Eberon as being bad if it were poorly written.  I would accept it if there were glaring mechanical errors.  I would accept it if the editting was very poor (even for an RPG book).  I would even accept it if the setting was internally inconsistent.



This thread was started with the intent of gathering opinions.  They are perfectly valid within this thread, and in fact I think we're all going off on a lot of tangents from the initial intent of the thread, with some other stuff we're debating.  I don't think it's poorly written per se, but I don't think the author properly understood some of "standard" D&D's concepts before seeking to change them.  Until I'm convinced otherwise on some of the points I raised above, I consider Eberron to be internally inconsistent, so I see my claims as valid arguments rather than "I don't like it so it sucks" statements like some others.


			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> * It seriously considers the effects of magic on society
> 
> * It very explicitly makes the PCs the focus of the setting as well as the campaign.



These I see as problems with standard perceptions of D&D due to most gamers not understanding just how rare magic and high-level characters in D&D are, since they only see things from the perspective of the PCs and never study out the facts for the entire world.  A setting doesn't need to fix that, and some of the ways it got "fixed" in Eberron were entirely unnecessary.  I do grant, however, that Eberron does accurately portray the level of magic Keith wrote into it, something a lot of other settings should do better with the level of magic they possess.  Of course, with so little magic truly available on a worldwide scale in standard D&D, the impact is much smaller than some believe it should be.


			
				Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> Because the really good stuff is rarely sold on the open market - it's only the weak stuff that's readily available. So you either have to go into that damn dungeon to get it, build it it yourself, or deal with some people who have all the morals of modern day black market arms dealers.
> 
> Oh, and in the latter case you _really_ shouldn't ask where the merchandize comes from or whether the former owner misses it.
> 
> ...



Again, this is something a new setting is not necessary for.  I've been doing this with dungeons for ages.  Fact of the matter is, dungeon crawls for loot and XP are a big part of D&D's roots, but if you want to have a dungeon crawl for loot, XP, and archaeology, you don't need Eberron to do it.


			
				MarkB said:
			
		

> I don't think any core setting is going to completely resolve either of these. I'd say Eberron goes about as far as it's possible to go, both by making it extremely difficult to actually purchase resurrection magic - legitimate priests don't sell their services, or even provide them to non-believers, and there are few who are powerful enough to cast such spells at all - and by introducing the Artificer, who accesses magic at a level beyond the arcane/divine divide, and can make use of both equally.



There are so few divine casters capable of casting 5th-level spells in core D&D, it's a wonder we ever let PCs get a resurrective spell cast for them without waiting in line for a year!  And I think people shouldn't hate having priests accepting pay from random adventurers for spells, because they fail to see what a good opportunity it is for the church to earn all that gold....

If I'd just stayed up all night and responded to all these posts one-by-one, I'd have a higher post count.


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 6, 2006)

genshou said:
			
		

> Fact of the matter is, dungeon crawls for loot and XP are a big part of D&D's roots, but if you want to have a dungeon crawl for loot, XP, and archaeology, you don't need Eberron to do it.



I just loved that line so much, I had to pull it out and stare at it for awhile.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 6, 2006)

genshou said:
			
		

> Right, my problem isn't with warforged themselves, but rather with the fact that–no matter how hard I try–the only way I can explain the necessity of Warforged in Eberron is by metagaming.  Of course, I don't own the campaign setting, so maybe after reading through a friend's copy I missed some important explanation, but it seems to me like a lot of things about Eberron can only be explained by metagaming.  That's more than a a dislike because of opinion.  If so many things about the setting can only be explained through metagame, that's a serious problem with the setting.
> 
> Are there in-game explanations for this?  As I mentioned, I don't own the books and have only read through a friend's copy.  If there's an explanation in-game that could be given from an NPC to a PC who popped onto Eberron from, say, Aber-Toril, that's fine.  But if as above I can't find any reasons except the metagame "the author wanted it this way", I'm unhappy and so too would be my players.



I think that's a bit of a double standard to condemn Eberron for any of that.  Why does FR or Greyhawk have elves?  Or dwarves?  Or wizards?  Or gnomes?

Yup.  Metagame reasons.  The creators wanted them there.  If anything, the explanation of why Warforged and artificiers exist makes much _more_ sense within the context of Eberron than any of those questions do.  The artificier role is a natural consequence of the existence of D&D style magic and a population large enough, with specialized roles, to demand it, just like our society has led to all kinds of specialized jobs instead of just everyone being "hunter" "gatherer" "farmer" or "herder."  The creation of the Warforged is a natural consequence of a lengthy war in a magical society.

Of course they exist in Eberron "because the author wanted it to" but they're still more grounded in logical extensions of the D&D reality than the existence of, say, elves, or sorcerers, or freaking duel wielding spellcasting rangers.


----------



## genshou (Jul 6, 2006)

J-Dawg said:
			
		

> I think that's a bit of a double standard to condemn Eberron for any of that.  Why does FR or Greyhawk have elves?  Or dwarves?  Or wizards?  Or gnomes?
> 
> Yup.  Metagame reasons.  The creators wanted them there.  If anything, the explanation of why Warforged and artificiers exist makes much _more_ sense within the context of Eberron than any of those questions do.  The artificier role is a natural consequence of the existence of D&D style magic and a population large enough, with specialized roles, to demand it, just like our society has led to all kinds of specialized jobs instead of just everyone being "hunter" "gatherer" "farmer" or "herder."  The creation of the Warforged is a natural consequence of a lengthy war in a magical society.
> 
> Of course they exist in Eberron "because the author wanted it to" but they're still more grounded in logical extensions of the D&D reality than the existence of, say, elves, or sorcerers, or freaking duel wielding spellcasting rangers.



That is a new way of looking at it.  Thanks.

Edit:


			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> I just loved that line so much, I had to pull it out and stare at it for awhile.



*bows*


----------



## Barak (Jul 6, 2006)

Ahh but see, to me that's where the metagaming crawls in.

While the mass creation of Golems for war purposes can make sense, giving them sentience at the cost of other, more useful abilities for such a creation doesn't make sense...  Unless you figure in that, later on, they will be ECL +0 PCs.


----------



## Asmor (Jul 6, 2006)

Backstory of the Warforged, condensed version by someone who's only skimmed the info:

High magic world.

Big war.

One of the "neutral" houses (think Switzerland) invents this awesome weapon that they sell to 
both sides, a living construct to serve as both troop and weapon.

Big war's over.

All these living weapons are left wondering what the hell they're supposed to do now.

I leave it up to you to decide if that's a metagame reason or not.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 6, 2006)

And what they wanted out of those "living weapons" was self-motivation. They wanted troops who'd follow orders, didn't get tired, didn't eat, could repair themselves, etc., etc. Basically, the same reason that, in many science fiction settings, societies create robots or androids.

And like Asimov's robots or Dick's Androids, there were "ghosts in the machine" and they got a sentient self-aware race BY ACCIDENT.

Not on purpose. By accident. How? Who the       cares?!


----------



## genshou (Jul 6, 2006)

Asmor said:
			
		

> Backstory of the Warforged, condensed version by someone who's only skimmed the info:
> 
> High magic world.
> 
> ...



Sounds pretty hackneyed to me, and:


> While the mass creation of Golems for war purposes can make sense, giving them sentience at the cost of other, more useful abilities for such a creation doesn't make sense... Unless you figure in that, later on, they will be ECL +0 PCs.


----------



## Barak (Jul 6, 2006)

Never mind.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jul 6, 2006)

genshou said:
			
		

> Sounds pretty hackneyed to me




It's a genre almost a hundred years old. The tropes of it are going to be very familiar. If by "hackneyed" you mean you feel they're overdone, well duh...the entire genre has been done over and over, its corpse picked over to fuel everything from Star Wars to Indiana Jones to Top Gun to Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Its influence is pervasive. It's not about innovation and breaking new thematic and literary ground. It's about taking the conventions of a long-established genre and using them for a RPG setting, which has rarely been done before.


----------



## genshou (Jul 6, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> It's a genre almost a hundred years old. The tropes of it are going to be very familiar. If by "hackneyed" you mean you feel they're overdone, well duh...the entire genre has been done over and over, its corpse picked over to fuel everything from Star Wars to Indiana Jones to Top Gun to Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Its influence is pervasive. It's not about innovation and breaking new thematic and literary ground. It's about taking the conventions of a long-established genre and using them for a RPG setting, which has rarely been done before.



I meant that the warforged creation story sounds hackneyed, not the entire setting.  See how I quoted a post about warforged right above where I said that?

Edit: Oooh, shiny.  I'm back up to 1,501 posts.  One post over a quarter of the way to 3rd-level once again!


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jul 6, 2006)

genshou said:
			
		

> I meant that the warforged creation story sounds hackneyed, not the entire setting.  See how I quoted a post about warforged right above where I said that?




Yeah, I know. Notice how it doesn't negate anything I said?


----------



## genshou (Jul 6, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Yeah, I know. Notice how it doesn't negate anything I said?



Looks to me like you're talking about the setting more than about warforged.  What do warforged have to do with Indiana Jones, exactly?


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jul 6, 2006)

genshou said:
			
		

> Looks to me like you're talking about the setting more than about warforged.  What do warforged have to do with Indiana Jones, exactly?




The entire point of what I was saying that the tropes of pulp fiction are pervasive - hackneyed, if you insist. The warforged creation story sounds quite a bit like many a "planetary adventure" pulp story I've read from the 20s and 30s. Matter of fact, it would fit very comfortably into such stories. It's not all about Indiana Jones.


----------



## Anti-Sean (Jul 6, 2006)

genshou said:
			
		

> I meant that the warforged creation story sounds hackneyed, not the entire setting.  See how I quoted a post about warforged right above where I said that?
> 
> Edit: Oooh, shiny.  I'm back up to 1,501 posts.  One post over a quarter of the way to 3rd-level once again!



To flesh out the warforged creation story a bit:

A bloody civil war had been raging across an entire continent for roughly 60-70 years when the first warforged gained sentience. Alliances shifted and reshifted between five major nations, as well as some outliers. Attrition had set in, and plague was prevalent in at least one major nation. The war had already spanned three entire generations of human life. How could the various heads of state continue to sell a war that had cost the lives of so many of their sons and daughters? Enter the warforged.

By this point, House Cannith, an ostensibly neutral mercantile house with a veritable monopoly on artifice had been supplying the various warring factions with golem-like weapons for some time; these more primitive versions were more like seige engines or shock troops than the PC race of warforged. After several iterations of refinement, the warforged acheived sentience... without House Cannith intending for it to happen. The artificiers of House Cannith had mostly jury-rigged and reverse engineered ancient relics from the Age of Giants, _eldritch machines_ of artifact level power. They could make a few changes here and tweak a few settings there to have an effect on their creations, but the bulk of the creation process was a mystery to themselves as well. Of course, they'd never let their clients know that...

Once the warforged became sentient, what should Cannith do with them? Was it a bug, or a feature? Their marketing department was on the ball, and explained that this increased level of sophistication would allow for greater flexibility on the battlefield, and require less and less direct command and control.

Now, none of their schemes to increase their profits even further took into account how and what their creations would feel, if anything, as they followed orders and waged war across the continent; or, for that matter, how these beings, created solely for war, would react to a world that didn't need them any more once the Last War came to a halt after the Day of Mourning wiped out an entire nation in a magical cataclysm.

Seems like a pretty compelling backstory and way to fit them into the setting, but YMMV.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 6, 2006)

genshou said:
			
		

> Sounds pretty hackneyed to me




If it's hacjneyed, where are all the other depictions of self-aware constructs as PC's in fantasy games? Elves could possibly be considered so, because they appear in almost every fantasy game ever made - taking a different spin on a familiar concept, though, saves it from being trite. As far as I know, this is the first time such a thing has ever appeared in a fantasy game, especially as a mainstream playable race. There are precious little incidents even in fantasy fiction I can think of outside of the Discworld books.


----------



## Barak (Jul 6, 2006)

Have a golem created by a PC in your game achieve sentience by "accident", and you can tell me if it's something that "makes sense".


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jul 6, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> Have a golem created by a PC in your game achieve sentience by "accident", and you can tell me if it's something that "makes sense".




Anything to do with magic makes no sense in the real world.


----------



## Barak (Jul 6, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> If it's hacjneyed, where are all the other depictions of self-aware constructs as PC's in fantasy games? Elves could possibly be considered so, because they appear in almost every fantasy game ever made - taking a different spin on a familiar concept, though, saves it from being trite. As far as I know, this is the first time such a thing has ever appeared in a fantasy game, especially as a mainstream playable race. There are precious little incidents even in fantasy fiction I can think of outside of the Discworld books.




Now I know this wasn't directed at me, but still.

1-Just because it's new and shiny doesn't mean it's good.

2-Dragonstar.


----------



## Barak (Jul 6, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Anything to do with magic makes no sense in the real world.




Perhaps, but you can't make blueberry pies with apples.

What the heck are you getting at?


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 6, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> Have a golem created by a PC in your game achieve sentience by "accident", and you can tell me if it's something that "makes sense".




Hard to believe we're debating the unintended side effect of a fictional experimental magical process and arguing that it "doesn't make sense."

I love the internet.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jul 6, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> What the heck are you getting at?




Pretty much what John Snow just pointed out.

Perhaps I should adjourn to go about the deadly serious, completely conventional act of pretending to be an elf...


----------



## Barak (Jul 6, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Hard to believe we're debating the unintended side effect of a fictional experimental magical process and arguing that it "doesn't make sense."
> 
> I love the internet.




I guess both of you missed my point, intentionally or not.

So we have house Carnath (or whatever) mass-manufacturing golems for the war effort.  Eventually, somehow, they become sentient!  Awesome!  Warforged PCs!  This is cool!

But if you are a PC in my game, and you create golems, and, after the third golem, I have it become sentient and his goals aren't totally in par with yours...  Well you'd be making a thread on here as to how I'm out to screw with you, since you spent thousands of GPs on making a golem and I didn't follow the book and now it left you to go dig in some dungeons with a bunch of misfits.


----------



## Barak (Jul 6, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Pretty much what John Snow just pointed out.
> 
> Perhaps I should adjourn to go about the deadly serious, completely conventional act of pretending to be an elf...




True, t3h intarweb, is is "serious business!"


----------



## Anti-Sean (Jul 6, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> Have a golem created by a PC in your game achieve sentience by "accident", and you can tell me if it's something that "makes sense".



JohnSnow beat me to the term, but does replacing 'accident' with 'unintended consequence' make it any easier to swallow, or is that just playing with semantics? As skilled and savvy as the House Cannith artificers and magewrights were, they were like monkeys with guns as they developed and maintained their Creation Forges - this was stuff far beyond mortal ken, Secrets Man Was Not Meant to Know, and whatnot, but they managed to get them working. Similarly, if you give a chemistry set to a toddler, and you might find some *very* interesting results after a while!

As far as missing features (which I think you alluded to in an earlier post, sorry for the lack of a quote, I'm on my way out the door) , it seems to me that they were filling a niche for their customers; the Five Nations wanted a replacement for the humans, elves, dwarves, etc. that they were sending into the meat grinder. There were other constructs that Cannith provided (Warforged Titans, for example), but those served different purposes.

*edit* missed your last post while I was dutifully typing this one up *edit*


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jul 6, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> True, t3h intarweb, is is "serious business!"




Yeah, it is, isn't it? Sometimes it just strikes me as humorously ridiculous how we all can thrash it out here over something as silly as a game. Note that I'm including myself as one of those who are being ridiculous.


----------



## Barak (Jul 6, 2006)

Anti-Sean said:
			
		

> JohnSnow beat me to the term, but does replacing 'accident' with 'unintended consequence' make it any easier to swallow, or is that just playing with semantics? As skilled and savvy as the House Cannith artificers and magewrights were, they were like monkeys with guns as they developed and maintained their Creation Forges - this was stuff far beyond mortal ken, Secrets Man Was Not Meant to Know, and whatnot, but they managed to get them working. Similarly, if you give a chemistry set to a toddler, and you might find some *very* interesting results after a while!
> 
> As far as missing features (which I think you alluded to in an earlier post, sorry for the lack of a quote, I'm on my way out the door) , it seems to me that they were filling a niche for their customers; the Five Nations wanted a replacement for the humans, elves, dwarves, etc. that they were sending into the meat grinder. There were other constructs that Cannith provided (Warforged Titans, for example), but those served different purposes.




Nah, my reply would remain the same, really.

Now, understand, I'm not an Eberron basher.  I'd be more than happy to play in Eberron, and after spending time with the books, I could probably be happy running a game there too.  But it does require a tad more suspension of disbelief than your average world.  

That doesn't make it a -bad- setting.  Heck, I've run Toon games.   But it's still remain a fact that Eberron is a tad more out there than your average world.


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 6, 2006)

> While the mass creation of Golems for war purposes can make sense, giving them sentience at the cost of other, more useful abilities for such a creation doesn't make sense... Unless you figure in that, later on, they will be ECL +0 PCs.



I think that's misleading there is nothing more valuable to a fighter than adaptability. Adaptability depends a lot on individuality and a will to be strong and survive. Sentience gives a being this thing. Sure, that's a double-edged sword, since the newly sentient soldier can then discuss its orders if it happens to not agree with them, but still, the advantages are WAY outnumbering the flaws. I think you are a bit too metagaming, personally.


----------



## Barak (Jul 6, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Yeah, it is, isn't it? Sometimes it just strikes me as humorously ridiculous how we all can thrash it out here over something as silly as a game. Note that I'm including myself as one of those who are being ridiculous.




Ahh..  But I have very fond memories of myself and my buddies, in the hallways of my highschool during lunch period, discussing the fine points of D&D..  It can be fun, as long as everyone remember that, in the long run, it means jack.


----------



## Barak (Jul 6, 2006)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> I think that's misleading there is nothing more valuable to a fighter than adaptability. Adaptability depends a lot on individuality and a will to be strong and survive. Sentience gives a being this thing. Sure, that's a double-edged sword, since the newly sentient soldier can then discuss its orders if it happens to not agree with them, but still, the advantages are WAY outnumbering the flaws. I think you are a bit too metagaming, personally.




Probably not as metagaming as disagreeing with various tactical advantages.  A fully obedient, mindless soldier, with higher capabilities, to me, is better than a sentient, potentially disagreeing, less capable soldier.  But that's me, and I could be proved wrong on the battlefield.


----------



## RedWick (Jul 6, 2006)

Maybe I'll have to reread the bits about the origin of the warforged in the ECS, but I got the impression that the forges were originally intended to create sentient constructs, and that the forges themselves were a leftover magical invention from a prior age of Eberron that House Cannith put to use towards their own ends.  Their sentience wasn't accidental: "That's not a bug.  It's a feature!"


----------



## Anti-Sean (Jul 6, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> I guess both of you missed my point, intentionally or not.
> 
> So we have house Carnath (or whatever) mass-manufacturing golems for the war effort.  Eventually, somehow, they become sentient!  Awesome!  Warforged PCs!  This is cool!
> 
> But if you are a PC in my game, and you create golems, and, after the third golem, I have it become sentient and his goals aren't totally in par with yours...  Well you'd be making a thread on here as to how I'm out to screw with you, since you spent thousands of GPs on making a golem and I didn't follow the book and now it left you to go dig in some dungeons with a bunch of misfits.



But warforged weren't/aren't/can't be created by PCs - they require access to/construction of an _eldritch machine_, an artifact-level 'thing' that essentially allows for DM fiat - more of a plot device than anything else, and the collaboration of tens to hundreds of individuals.

Were I a player in the scenario you lay out above, though, I'd probably be a bit miffed, but possibly mollified if a) it was fun, and b) you could point me towards some rules that backed up what you were doing that fit within the overarching, agreed-upon ruleset (although greater values of A would create a need for less and less B for me).

And I'm not reading your posts here as bashing, so no worries there. I thought the idea of warforged were out there too, but kind of neat, when I first heard of them (sort of a 'hmm, that's different, I wonder how they explain that one!' reaction). After I read through their backstory, I fell for them pretty hard!


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 6, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> Probably not as metagaming as disagreeing with various tactical advantages.  A fully obedient, mindless soldier, with higher capabilities, to me, is better than a sentient, potentially disagreeing, less capable soldier.  But that's me, and I could be proved wrong on the battlefield.



I'm actually sure you would be proven wrong. Tenacity, audacity, willpower, dedication, hope are just a few of the strengths a non-sentient being cannot know. These advantages allow you go the extra mile to ensure there's a victory on the battlefield. But what the heck! I'm a humanist anyway, and I have no way to prove my stuff here on this board!


----------



## Barak (Jul 6, 2006)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> I'm actually sure you would be proven wrong.




Excellent!  I'll take *an* Iron Golem, and take the equivalent number of Warforged, with regular equipment, and we'll fight it out.


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 6, 2006)

Sure. Adventurers do that every day for breakfast! 

Oh. And I updated my previous post by the way: I'm actually sure you would be proven wrong. Tenacity, audacity, willpower, dedication, hope are just a few of the strengths a non-sentient being cannot know. These advantages allow you go the extra mile to ensure there's a victory on the battlefield. But what the heck! I'm a humanist anyway, and I have no way to prove my stuff here on this board!


----------



## Barak (Jul 6, 2006)

Anti-Sean said:
			
		

> But warforged weren't/aren't/can't be created by PCs - they require access to/construction of an _eldritch machine_, an artifact-level 'thing' that essentially allows for DM fiat - more of a plot device than anything else, and the collaboration of tens to hundreds of individuals.
> 
> Were I a player in the scenario you lay out above, though, I'd probably be a bit miffed, but possibly mollified if a) it was fun, and b) you could point me towards some rules that backed up what you were doing that fit within the overarching, agreed-upon ruleset (although greater values of A would create a need for less and less B for me).
> 
> And I'm not reading your posts here as bashing, so no worries there. I thought the idea of warforged were out there too, but kind of neat, when I first heard of them (sort of a 'hmm, that's different, I wonder how they explain that one!' reaction). After I read through their backstory, I fell for them pretty hard!




I take issue with the "weren't created by PCs".  Sure, by the Campaign setting book, they weren't.  But whatever NPCs were involved back then, technically, could have been PCs.

See..  What I'm trying to say is that the background used to justify the existence of the Warforged would have been seen as overly "mean" or "extreme rat-bastardlyness" by the DM were the people involved back then had been PCs.  Since they were, obviously, NPCs, it's handwaved.  That sorta annoys me.


----------



## Barak (Jul 6, 2006)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Sure. Adventurers do that every day for breakfast!
> 
> Oh. And I updated my previous post by the way: I'm actually sure you would be proven wrong. Tenacity, audacity, willpower, dedication, hope are just a few of the strengths a non-sentient being cannot know. These advantages allow you go the extra mile to ensure there's a victory on the battlefield. But what the heck! I'm a humanist anyway, and I have no way to prove my stuff here on this board!




You're getting outside of the discussion.  We're talking War machines.  -One- Iron Golem is better than the equivalent number of warforgeds with cheap equipment, or one warforged with equipment commensurate with the cost involved in creating whatever equipment you want.  So house Carnith would have been better off making Iron Golems.  Wouldn't have made for good PCs, though.


----------



## shilsen (Jul 6, 2006)

genshou said:
			
		

> I meant that the warforged creation story sounds hackneyed, not the entire setting.




I'm curious - could you give me an example of a creation story for the warforged that you wouldn't consider hackneyed? I've always regarded the warforged creation story as having a very logical progression, as well as providing serious roleplaying and adventure potential for individual characters, the PC group and the campaign world as a whole. Seems like a strongly win-win result, at least to me.


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 6, 2006)

Barak, you're the one who's metagaming here, see? You're thinking in terms of the game. I'm not. I'm thinking in terms of war, and what is best for me as a Nation. I would be better off with exponentially adaptable warriors able of sentience than just an Iron Golem. That's all I'm telling you, and I'm not using metagame arguments to say it.


----------



## Barak (Jul 6, 2006)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Barak, you're the one who's metagaming here, see? You're thinking in terms of the game. I'm not. I'm thinking in terms of war, and what is best for me as a Nation. I would be better off with exponentially adaptable warriors able of sentience than just an Iron Golem. That's all I'm telling you, and I'm not using metagame arguments to say it.




As the ruler of a Kingdom, I'd take a totally obedient, awesomely powerful Iron Golem over your "adaptable warriors" that my Golem could crush.

And while my Golem is busy doing that, I'd spend my time trying to buy out your sentient warforged, BTW.   My Golem is uncorruptible, and non-charmable.


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 6, 2006)

LOL You sank my battle ship!   

Seriously, we sound like two kids arguing about who out of two He-Man characters would win! We ain't going to agree, my friend!


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jul 6, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> I guess both of you missed my point, intentionally or not.
> 
> So we have house Carnath (or whatever) mass-manufacturing golems for the war effort.  Eventually, somehow, they become sentient!  Awesome!  Warforged PCs!  This is cool!




There was a slight misrepresentation above. The Creation Forges are eldritch machines that create living constructs.. not Golem's that 'accidently' gain sentience. Keith intentionally left the 'how' and 'why' out as having all the answers makes for a boring game.

 My interpretation is that the Creation Forge actually re-incarnates instead of creating, bonding a living soul into an artificial body.


 But you are right, if Keith didn't want a kewl new player race, he would not have bothered with Warforged, Shifters, or Khalastars... and we would have *yet another greyhawk* virtually indistinguishable from any other setting. 

But.. that being said.. Okay, y'all folks are saying ya dont' like Eberron because of the Warforged.
 Guess what, I don't like the Drow.. does this mean I wont play FR?

This thread is about opinions... regarding Eberron, I have mine. Formed after reading and playing in the setting.
 You have your opinion, formed apparently without reading or playing the setting.

Funny the way that goes. 

But, I forsee this thread will eventually dwindle farther down the path of sillyness and end up getting locked.. so I think I will go back to lurking in House Rules


----------



## Barak (Jul 6, 2006)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> LOL You sank my battle ship!
> 
> Seriously, we sound like two kids arguing about who out of two He-Man characters would win! We ain't going to agree, my friend!




Doesn't stop me from being AWESOMELY RIGHT!

Seriously, it highlights my whole problem with the warforged.  Ignoring the need to have them as PC-playable race, and ignoring weird "accidents" that any PC would whine if it happened to them, they make no sense, since, using simple RAW, you can have much better warmachines for the same price.


----------



## Barak (Jul 7, 2006)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> There was a slight misrepresentation above. The Creation Forges are eldritch machines that create living constructs.. not Golem's that 'accidently' gain sentience. Keith intentionally left the 'how' and 'why' out as having all the answers makes for a boring game.
> 
> My interpretation is that the Creation Forge actually re-incarnates instead of creating, bonding a living soul into an artificial body.
> 
> ...




Just to clarify..  I'm neutral about Eberron.  To me, that means I'm just as likely to play/run it than any other setting.  Since I don't have Eberoon books..

The only reason I posted in this thread to begin with was the absurd defenses to the warforged races.  If any Eberron-lover had said "ok, Warforged are kinda silly, but they're there."  I'd have been happy.  But nooooooo.  They go into weird, non-sensical rants abotu why they make sense, even though they don't.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jul 7, 2006)

Fair 'nuff..

Course same could be said regarding some key elements in other settings 

{off to edit my bad 







> tag above...}


----------



## Barak (Jul 7, 2006)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Fair 'nuff..
> 
> Course same could be said regarding some key elements in other settings




Which is why no setting ranks higher than "neutral" on my scale..

All settings have dumb stuff about them.  Other thanb, of course, my awesome, too good to be published Homegrown Setting.

Darn it, even that setting has dumb stuff about it.


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 7, 2006)

> All settings have dumb stuff about them. Other thanb, of course, my awesome, too good to be published Homegrown Setting.



"Homegrown? What kind of a name is this? I prefer Dawnforge or Dragonlance! "Homegrown". That doesn't even make sense!"


----------



## Barak (Jul 7, 2006)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> "Homegrown? What kind of a name is this? I prefer Dawnforge or Dragonlance! "Homegrown". That doesn't even make sense!"




I -said- something about it was dumb.


----------



## Stone Dog (Jul 7, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> You're getting outside of the discussion.  We're talking War machines.  -One- Iron Golem is better than the equivalent number of warforgeds with cheap equipment, or one warforged with equipment commensurate with the cost involved in creating whatever equipment you want.  So house *Cannith* would have been better off making Iron Golems.  Wouldn't have made for good PCs, though.



It wouldn't have made for good soldiers either.  Sure, everybody wants a tank now and then.  The old warforged titans filled this niche pretty well.  They were like iron golems, but easier to make and with a moderate degree of autonomy.  The creation forges that Cannith engineers brought back from Xen'Drik could increase production of warforged types to a degree that would be impossible for golems of anykind.  So they made titans to stride in battle, attack fortifications and become a battlefield presence that an iron golem could only be on a much smaller scale.

However, regardless of how devestating tanks or planes or catapults or any great machine of war is, troops are still the backbone of any army.  Nobody wanted to lose the war, but they would have if they ran out of men to fight it, no matter how many iron golems were standing around waiting to be told what to do.

So Cannith made troops.  They made troops that could be trained in a fraction of the time, were practically all fighters instead of mere warriors, could freely adapt to battle conditions and didn't need to sleep, eat, drink or rest.  War could actually be waged with these.  They could supplement regiments and companies in a way that a titan or a golem couldn't approach.

It is the creation forges that make the warforged able to take a place on the battlefield.  Great eldritch machines reverse engineered from schema brought back from Xen'drik.  Golems still need one 16th level caster to produce ONE in... oh hell, my DMG is in storage... however many days it takes to make a 150,000 GP item.  Creation forges can make enough warforged  fighters to make a fighting force in, well it hasn't been exactly established, but in a much shorter time and with much less cost.

Now somebody might turn around and say "Why don't the creation forges make golems then?"  That is just it.  They don't.  They make warforged and the designs are _ancient_.  It is guessed that the giants made them first, but if this is true they would have been made and abandoned before the giants created the elves in the dawn of time.  Exactly what did House Cannith bring back and unleash in their pride?  What secrets still lay in wait deep in the shifting jungles of the shattered land?  What is the true origin of the warforged?

These are just some reasons I like the 'forged better than mere golems.  The mystery behind what they actually are deep down and why they were abandoned by their creators in favor of the elves.


----------



## Barak (Jul 7, 2006)

Again, I feel the need to reiterate that -all- other settings have contrivances built in.

That said, no matter how cool and interesting the story is..  It -is- contrived!

I can't help but -see- that the idea of a "ECL +0 Construct" came -before- the story that allows them to exist.

Then again, the only way to totally avoid that is to craft your campaign around a setting that wasn't built to be an RPG campaign, and, honestly, that comes with it's own huge set of problems.

Regardless, Warforged, while maybe cool, are contrived.


----------



## Stone Dog (Jul 7, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> I can't help but -see- that the idea of a "ECL +0 Construct" came -before- the story that allows them to exist.



Actually, on this point you are wrong.  The story of the warforged, the background and impact on the world came from Keith Baker _before_ the other developers at WotC worked with Keith to turn them into a PC race.  Also the choice to make them ECL +0 came even after that when marketing research brought up that ECL +X races are irritating to alot of players.

Now you may still see them as contrived and I can't help or stop that, but it isn't because of the order of ideas.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 7, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> As the ruler of a Kingdom, I'd take a totally obedient, awesomely powerful Iron Golem over your "adaptable warriors" that my Golem could crush.
> 
> And while my Golem is busy doing that, I'd spend my time trying to buy out your sentient warforged, BTW.   My Golem is uncorruptible, and non-charmable.



 Except that the price of your one Iron Golem (150,000 gp), back during the war would buy 100 warforged Ftr2 with the equivalent of adamantine full plate armor that are immune to the iron golem's poisonous breath. And being mindless, the iron golem can certainly be led into a trap. And you'd still need someone to issue orders to the iron golem, unless you deploy it with a "kill everything that moves" command.

And by the time the warforged Ftr2 defeat the iron golem, they'll have enough XP to be what, Ftr4? 

Oh, and btw, Eberron has the Warforged Titan, a Huge construct that is closer to what you propose without being an actual iron golem (but it is near-mindless), and the Warforged Charger, a gorilla-shaped construct with adamantine fists (handy when toppling down siege towers and castles).


----------



## Ds Da Man (Jul 7, 2006)

It amazes me that players of a game that has dwarves, elves, and halflings fighting dragons, trolls, demons, etc. would call another game contrived or silly. What if the Eberron gods had just created them like the other sentient races? Would that have been better?


----------



## Stone Dog (Jul 7, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Except that the price of your one Iron Golem (150,000 gp)



That is creation cost.  Cannith wouldn't be making a profit off of that, remember?  So to purchase one would be something more like 300,000 GP.  

Also, warforged aren't slowed for three rounds by a shocking grasp or worse, an electrical version of Ray of Frost!  Not even mentioning the 2.5 tons that the enemy has to work with.  You could ride horses over a trap that a golem would fall through!


----------



## Barak (Jul 7, 2006)

Ds Da Man said:
			
		

> It amazes me that players of a game that has dwarves, elves, and halflings fighting dragons, trolls, demons, etc. would call another game contrived or silly. What if the Eberron gods had just created them like the other sentient races? Would that have been better?




In a way, yes, and yet, not really.

Again, for the third time, Eberron (and warforged) aren't -more- contrived than other settings and some stuff from such.

Anyway.  The difference is..  It's hard to call elves contrived because they are just another race, like humans, in most ways.  So they aren't really any more contrived than humans are, all things considered.  However, Warforged are humanity's creation, like computers or PEZ dispensers in our world.  So there's some discussion possible.



> Also, warforged aren't slowed for three rounds by a shocking grasp or worse, an electrical version of Ray of Frost! Not even mentioning the 2.5 tons that the enemy has to work with. You could ride horses over a trap that a golem would fall through!




But an Iron Golem -can- hurt a Warforged with a punch in the face.


----------



## Stone Dog (Jul 7, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> Again, for the third time, Eberron (and warforged) aren't -more- contrived than other settings and some stuff from such.



Thanks for being patient in repeating that.  More clarification is almost always a good thing and keeping your head about it is appreciated!



> Anyway.  The difference is..  It's hard to call elves contrived because they are just another race, like humans, in most ways.  So they aren't really any more contrived than humans are, all things considered.



I have heard very often how people are tired of the same old contrived treatment of elves based on Tolkienesque descriptions and folklore too though.  New ways of looking at elves (Eberron's Aerenal and Valenar as well as Athasian elves leap to mind) are better than the standard fare to me while the elves of the Realms or Dragonlance just make me think "this again?"



> However, Warforged are humanity's creation, like computers or PEZ dispensers in our world.



  No, they really aren't.  I'm serious about that, computers were a progression through stages of simple clockwork to vacuum tube monsters to mainframes to desktops all through human ingenuity and progress.  Warforged were found in an arcane design in a faraway land by inhuman minds and a handful of humans mucked about with them for a while with not much clue what they were really doing.
If computers were made from technology found in an ancient alien crash site, sold to nations all over the world and became independantly intelligent creatures capable of full emotions all in the space of two to three generations then the parallel would be alot closer.




> But an Iron Golem -can- hurt a Warforged with a punch in the face.



Where a warforged can use tactics, teamwork, tools and traps.  A golem as a 0 intelligence score and can't talk.  Can you get it to scout?  React to body language for defense or even give an alert while standing watch?  Teach it new tricks?  Can it effectively take new territory and hold it?

I am not saying that a golem or a warforged titan isn't a good investment here, but really I would rather have CR 13 worth of warforged soldiers, scouts and artificers rather than CR 13 worth of one tank.  That is all the golem is.  A tank.  It needs a commander almost constantly and is only good for hitting things really hard.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 7, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> In a way, yes, and yet, not really.
> 
> Again, for the third time, Eberron (and warforged) aren't -more- contrived than other settings and some stuff from such.
> 
> ...



 That assumes the golem gets within melee reach. Being intelligent (and having skill points to put into Listen and Spot), the warforged battalion (c'mon, it's 100 of them) will definitely know the golem is coming. Make that 90 warforged, with 9 being Artificer 2 instead of Ftr 2 (they serve as "medics"), with wands of electric ray of frost. With the remaining cash you buy adamantine arrows for the warforged. The Iron Golem will be scrap metal before reaching any of the warforged. Heck, 10 of our warforged offer to hold the golem back (it's slowed by the wands), while the archers rain adamantine on it. So we're looking at a possible loss of 15,000 gp vs. the other guy's 150,000.

Stone Dog -> 150,000 is the market price of an iron golem (cost to create is about 80,000 gp).


----------



## Stone Dog (Jul 7, 2006)

Whoops, sorry bout that bit!  Thanks Klaus.  I've been at this too long today.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 7, 2006)

The difference between an Iron Golem and warforged is essentially the same difference with tanks and infantry.

A tank in many ways is superior to infantry.  Very little that is man portable can do more than scratch a main battle tank.  Yes, there are specialized anti-tank weapons, but, if the infantry lacks those, there's not much they can do to the tank.  Tanks are faster, and carry far superior firepower.

Yet, the bulk of any army is infantry.  Why?

The answer isn't all that difficult.  While tanks can take ground, they can't hold it very well.  A stopped tank is much more vulnerable than a tank on the move.  By trying to hold ground with a tank, you rob it of much of its advantages.  There is also the problems of maneuverability.  Tanks can't go through forests.  Tanks have difficulty with very rough terrain.  A steep banked river with no bridge is a major impediment.  Tanks are also far more expensive than infantry.

Now, an iron golem is mindless.  Trapping one would not be all that difficult.  Dig a big hole and lead it.  Once it falls in the hole, destroy it.  Golems would have difficulty crossing forests simply because of their size.  As was mentioned, cost is a huge factor as well.

Sure, that iron golem makes a pretty good shock troop.  But, as a defensive troop?  Very poor.  As an intelligence troop?  Very poor.  An iron golem is a one trick pony and a very, very expensive one at that.


----------



## Barak (Jul 7, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> That assumes the golem gets within melee reach. Being intelligent (and having skill points to put into Listen and Spot), the warforged battalion (c'mon, it's 100 of them) will definitely know the golem is coming. Make that 90 warforged, with 9 being Artificer 2 instead of Ftr 2 (they serve as "medics"), with wands of electric ray of frost. With the remaining cash you buy adamantine arrows for the warforged. The Iron Golem will be scrap metal before reaching any of the warforged. Heck, 10 of our warforged offer to hold the golem back (it's slowed by the wands), while the archers rain adamantine on it. So we're looking at a possible loss of 15,000 gp vs. the other guy's 150,000.
> 
> Stone Dog -> 150,000 is the market price of an iron golem (cost to create is about 80,000 gp).




Now you're given them levels, and counting them as 1,500gp from the factory floor.  I dunno how much warforged use to cost, but I doubt it was 1,500gp.  And sure, you couild equip your warforged with those wands, but that seems to assume they somehow know they'll face an Iron Golem.

To go on, I guess I'd need to know how much house Cannith (ot whatever) used to charge for a warforged.


----------



## Hellcow (Jul 7, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> Now you're given them levels, and counting them as 1,500gp from the factory floor.  I dunno how much warforged use to cost, but I doubt it was 1,500gp.  And sure, you couild equip your warforged with those wands, but that seems to assume they somehow know they'll face an Iron Golem.
> 
> To go on, I guess I'd need to know how much house Cannith (ot whatever) used to charge for a warforged.



I believe that in this, they are actually quoting me. My assertion has always been that the typical warforged soldier was a 2nd-level PC-class character (usually fighter). Lacking another basis for pricing, I chose to use _Lords of Madness_'s slavery system. By this, a 2nd-level PC class character normally costs 400 gp. Extremely marketable qualities such as great strength or valuable skill can increase price by "two, three, or four times as much." As such, my assertion was that a 2nd-level adamantine body warforged costs between 1,200 to 1,500 gp, at the DM's discretion. 

And before one jumps on the "but it's got _adamantine!_, it's got to be more expensive than that" wagon, this would be true if Cannith needed to supply adamantine ore for the creation process. If you read the Dragonshards about the warforged, you'll see that this is not the case. The key is the _eldritch machine_. The components of a warforged body - including any adamantine or mithral - are essentially _fabricated_ by the creation forge. And when the warforged dies, these componets rapidly degrade, so you can't make vast sums killing and selling your warforged. 

In any case, yes, I consider 1,500 gp a reasonable price for a 2nd-level warforged soldier with Adamantine Body. 

As for "Warforged only exist for metagame reasons"... I suppose. From the begining, one of the core ideas of Eberron was to explore the ways in which civilization would adapt magic to daily life, including communication, transportation, and warfare. Golems have always been part of D&D, and the concept of a lower-cost, lower-power golem seemed logical. Beyond that, I love the idea of the weapon of war that is now unwanted in a post-war era. I wanted the warforged as a symbol of Eberron: a world of magic, and a world scarred by battle. Metagame? Maybe. But certainly appropriate to the world. 

Oh, and John Snow, *I* don't like commonplace resurrection, which I think should have a major impact on society. My views on this matter can be found on page 20 of _Sharn: City of Towers_, where I say that even those who can use it rarely will (if you want the full line of reasoning, check the reference! ). It's essentially going to come down to the style of game you run. I prefer mystery and noir, where the threat of death is a very serious thing, and where when your partner gets killed, he's gone. But if you run a combat-heavy game where PC death happens every adventure, you may want to take a less restrictive approach. So the Sharn reference is MY opinion on the matter... but your mileage may vary.


----------



## Stone Dog (Jul 7, 2006)

Thank you for your time, Mr Baker!  Always a pleasure to see you up and about.  Now back to the grindstone!  You got Dragonshards to cut.  

I kid, I kid because I love.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 7, 2006)

genshou said:
			
		

> See, that's where I get annoyed in evaluation of Eberron.  Magic is not as common as many people seem to think in standard D&D.  They see these things as "nigh inevitable" as you put it, but really, there isn't enough magic out there to have as large of an impact as some of the more vocal "D&D is too high-magic" Enworlders would have you believe.  Most of the people who rant about those kinds of things haven't worked out statistics to see how rare those things actually are; they simply assume that because the PCs find them they must be _everywhere_, and in mass quantities.
> 
> I'm working on a thesis about the availability of magic in a standard D&D society, and the amount of impact it would be able to have on world development.  Unfortunately, it's a slow process due to attention being diverted elsewhere (such as to the forums).  The thing I've learned the most from writing it is that magic items are way more rare and special than I ever thought.  That's probably part of why Eberron bugs me–too many +1 swords around every corner.




Look at the standard treasure tables lately? How about the suggested equipment for NPCs in the DMG? Yes, going by the Rules as Written magic really is that common. In _your_ game world it may be less so, but it is what is maintained by the core rulebooks. And if your campaign does not follow those guidelines then that is perfectly okay - there are no game police waiting to carry you away - my own homebrew is also scant on magic items. But, for what it is worth, I am _not_ complaining that D&D is 'too high magic' - I think that it works fine for the typical D&D settings to be that high in magic - but that the cultures would have adapted to the prevailance of magic more than is typically indicated. Eberron addresses this somewhat. But do not presume to tell the folks who are following the standard amounts of magic as a guideline that they are _wrong_ - there is no wrong, as long as the game is fun.

And in the published worlds that I like best (Iron Kingdoms and Eberron) the industrial revolution is one of magic either in addition to or instead of technology. IK actually takes it a step furrther, with the creation of 'runeplates' and what is essentially a modular magic item creation system - spreading the XP cost to several crafter rather than one.

The Auld Grump


----------



## genshou (Jul 7, 2006)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Look at the standard treasure tables lately? How about the suggested equipment for NPCs in the DMG? Yes, going by the Rules as Written magic really is that common. In _your_ game world it may be less so, but it is what is maintained by the core rulebooks. And if your campaign does not follow those guidelines then that is perfectly okay - there are no game police waiting to carry you away - my own homebrew is also scant on magic items.



Yes, high-level NPCs have a lot of magic.  How many high-level NPCs are there among every million characters in the game world?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 7, 2006)

Genshou makes a very good point.  A 7th level NPC, which is certainly not a low level flunkie, but not the king either, should have about 9500 gp in equipment.  +1 sword, +1 armor, and a +2 statboost item and he's pretty much done.  I would hardly call that very high magic.

When you really start to look at it, there isn't THAT much magic inherent in the system.


----------



## Numion (Jul 7, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> Seriously, it highlights my whole problem with the warforged.  Ignoring the need to have them as PC-playable race, and ignoring weird "accidents" that any PC would whine if it happened to them, they make no sense, since, using simple RAW, you can have much better warmachines for the same price.




So, everything that ever happened to an NPC in a campaign worlds history should be 'fair'? That is metagamey to boot, and would lead to very boring worlds.

I mean .. you couldn't ever even have a rescue the princess scenario, since it's unfair to kidnap a PC so that he'll miss sessions while others rescue him. No sense. At all.


----------



## genshou (Jul 7, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Genshou makes a very good point.  A 7th level NPC, which is certainly not a low level flunkie, but not the king either, should have about 9500 gp in equipment.  +1 sword, +1 armor, and a +2 statboost item and he's pretty much done.  I would hardly call that very high magic.
> 
> When you really start to look at it, there isn't THAT much magic inherent in the system.



Another one realizes the truth


----------



## genshou (Jul 7, 2006)

Incidentally, happy birthday, Keith! 

*goes back to arguing about magic and warforged and stuff*


----------



## glass (Jul 7, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> You're getting outside of the discussion.  We're talking War machines.  -One- Iron Golem is better than the equivalent number of warforgeds with cheap equipment, or one warforged with equipment commensurate with the cost involved in creating whatever equipment you want.  So house Carnith would have been better off making Iron Golems.



Only if their cients could afford iron golems.

Besides which, only a handfull of people in Eberron are capable creating iron golems (if that). Granted, most of them probably work for House Cannith, but what is the rest of the house supposed to do? Sit around twiddling their thumbs, or make lesser (cheaper) constructs using these ancient machines they have more-or-less figured out how to use.


glass.


----------



## Stone Dog (Jul 7, 2006)

Their clients are nations, nobles and the fantastically wealthy.  Those who have purchased legions of warforged, warforged titans, eternal wands and magical items of every kind under the sun.  They have not only vast sums of gold, but the promises of political favors, mineral rights, food stuffs and all manner of assets to trade for supremacy.   We are talking trade items, gems , precious metals and contracts over the course of a hundred years probably measuring in the millions of GP.  The vast expenditure of a nation at full scale war with its direct neighbors.

Hell, Cannith probably threw in an Iron Golem or two as a bonus for being such good customers every decade or so.  Anything to keep the war moving and the money flowing.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 7, 2006)

Meh, Scarred Lands went a step further.  They didn't bother with any eldritch machinery.  They just went straight for the Deus ex Machina.    Hollow knights were created by Corean to fight the titans.  Now they live in a nice little valley in the middle of Ghelspad.


----------



## glass (Jul 7, 2006)

Stone Dog said:
			
		

> Their clients are nations, nobles and the fantastically wealthy.  Those who have purchased legions of warforged, warforged titans, eternal wands and magical items of every kind under the sun.  They have not only vast sums of gold, but the promises of political favors, mineral rights, food stuffs and all manner of assets to trade for supremacy.   We are talking trade items, gems , precious metals and contracts over the course of a hundred years probably measuring in the millions of GP.  The vast expenditure of a nation at full scale war with its direct neighbors.



Nations have vast quantities of money, but they also have vast demands on that money even in peace time. In times of war, you have to get the maximum bang for every last buck because you can bet your opponent will be doing the same.

Iron golems are usefull, and the warring nations may have bought a few, but has been pointed out several times by other posters they aren't going to win the war on their own, nor will they help prevent your losing it. There is a little thing called dissimilar assets.


glass.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 7, 2006)

genshou said:
			
		

> Incidentally, happy birthday, Keith!



I was about to say the same thing!


----------



## Numion (Jul 7, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> Iron golems are usefull, and the warring nations may have bought a few, but has been pointed out several times by other posters they aren't going to win the war on their own, nor will they help prevent your losing it. There is a little thing called dissimilar assets.




Yeah, you can send an Iron Golem on a "Hulk Smash" mission, but anything more complicated isn't possible. War is about more than just killing as many people as possible (in which Iron Golems might excel). It's about seizing enemy assets and resources. It's about occupying enemy territory. It's about making enemys civilian population work for you. An Iron Golem can do none of those things.

Warforged, however, can do those things as well and better as humans. An Iron Golem mindlessly striding at 20' speed is not appropriate for most missions. As shock troops in frontlines they'd rock though. Kinda like tanks were first used in WW1 - punch through enemy lines. 

It would severely suck as a fantasy infantry to see an Iron Golem belching poisonous fumes making its way towards your position.


----------



## Stone Dog (Jul 7, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> Iron golems are usefull, and the warring nations may have bought a few, but has been pointed out several times by other posters they aren't going to win the war on their own, nor will they help prevent your losing it. There is a little thing called dissimilar assets.



Uh, yeah.  Did you notice the part upthread where I was making that same argument?  

You brought up the idea that their clients may not be able to afford a golem, remember?  "Only if their cients could afford iron golems."   They can.  Of course they are going to spend their money more wisely than fielding whole units of them.  That is where the part where they "have purchased legions of warforged, warforged titans, eternal wands and magical items of every kind under the sun" comes in.


----------



## glass (Jul 7, 2006)

Stone Dog said:
			
		

> glass said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I noticed the argument, as I mentioned. I didn't bother to go back and check who made it. Perhaps I should have done, but if your point wasn't that they'd be buying iron golems instead of warforged, what exactly was your point? IOW, if we agree, what are we arguing about.


			
				Stone Dog said:
			
		

> You brought up the idea that their clients may not be able to afford a golem, remember?  "Only if their cients could afford iron golems."   They can.  Of course they are going to spend their money more wisely than fielding whole units of them.  That is where the part where they "have purchased legions of warforged, warforged titans, eternal wands and magical items of every kind under the sun" comes in.



Obviously, they can afford them in the sense they cost 150000 gp, and they have more money than 150000 gp available. Whether they can afford them in the context of all the other demands on their resources is a decission for the individual generals/governments/whatever to make.

In any case, as you yourself pointed out, they don't just sell to nations, but also nobles and other very wealthy individuals. Since warforged are 100th the price of iron golems, there will be quite a lot of those individuals who can afford the former but not the latter.


glass.


----------



## Numion (Jul 7, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> In any case, as you yourself pointed out, they don't just sell to nations, but also nobles and other very wealthy individuals. Since warforged are 100th the price of iron golems, there will be quite a lot of those individuals who can afford the former but not the latter.




Good point. Another point is that some of those 100 Warforgeds will survive a couple of years on the field. Unlike the Iron Golem, they will gain experience, and become even more kickass.


----------



## Barak (Jul 7, 2006)

See..  That's what I get for talking without knowing the whole she-bang.  Warforged apparently -do- use to cost 1500 GP on the open market (which incidentally means that it must have cost about 750GP to create them.  Wow, cheaper than making a longsword +1!).

But anyway, my belief/point remains the same, still.  Eberron -is- corny....  Just as corny as any Campaign setting, really.  They all have their metagaming issues, and I'm glad, because in most cases, without them they wouldn't be as fun to game in.  So when someone tells you Eberron is corny, the correct answer (IMHO, of course) is not to argue the point, but to reply "heck yeah it is!  And I'm glad!"

Additionally, I tried voting for both answers, 'cause they're both right, but I couldn't.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Jul 7, 2006)

genshou said:
			
		

> Yes, high-level NPCs have a lot of magic.  How many high-level NPCs are there among every million characters in the game world?



Doesnt even really need to be high level to be fairly magic rich.  Even 1st/2nd level characters can have enough GP to have potions or scrolls. Heck, A wizard can cast Continuous flame as early as 3rd level, with a market value of 60 gp (10 GP of profit).  

As long as he has a steady supply of material components for the spell, he can mass produce what's essentially a cheap magic item that's infinitely useful and permanent, and this is without draining any XP.


----------



## Hellcow (Jul 7, 2006)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Doesnt even really need to be high level to be fairly magic rich.  Even 1st/2nd level characters can have enough GP to have potions or scrolls.



True enough, though I don't believe NPCs have a right to a set amount of GP/level. If you're a 3rd-level commoner farmer, you may still be dirt poor, just good at farming. The DMG DOES provide an NPC wealth-by-level table, but the important thing to remember is that this is intended for use in determining CR. A character with a substantially higher equipment value (like Kaius in _The Five Nations_) should have his CR bumped up accordingly. A character with a significantly lower equipment value should potentially have CR reduced. In _Sharn: City of Towers_, the only member of the Watch with a magic weapon is the Watch Captain (page 137); the 3rd level fighter sergeant on page 136 only has studded leather and a morningstar (not even masterwork!), despite the DMG's assertion that he's entitled to up to 2,500 gp worth of equipment. Meanwhile the Redcloaks - the elite unit - are equipped according to the standard wealth guidelines.

So low-level magic is more commonplace and understood in Eberron, but that doesn't mean every peasant is walking around with a pocket full of potions; most commoners just aren't that wealthy. They enjoy the benefits of permanent magic within the community - such as Aundair's _fountains of cleansing_, public monuments which produce the cleansing effect of _prestidigitation_ - but may have no personal magic of their own. And as has been noted before, things like teleportation and higher level effects are rare and wondrous; and if you want a powerful magic item, you will have to adventure to find it, because of the lack of powerful spellcasters around.  

And this is a key point in the Iron Golem vs Warforged argument: *Who's going to make your Iron Golem*? By the rules, an iron golem requires a sixteenth level spellcaster! A generous DM might say that a 14th level artificer could do it, because of the bonus they have when creating magic items - but it's not like House Cannith is brimming with 14th level artificers! Now, you COULD say that they can create an eldritch machine to do the job, if you WANT iron golems around. But if you don't, the answer is quite simple. Iron golems that DO exist were created by brilliant artificers of the past, such as Aaren d'Cannith. But in the modern day, there may not BE any artificers who can produce an iron golem. By the setting as it stands, the only people who have been mentioned that could do it are Erandis d'Vol, Mordain the Fleshweaver, and members of the Council of Ashtakala - none of whom are looking to help out the war effort. 

In Eberron, people recognize arcane magic as a form of science, and magic as a force that can be manipulated and controlled. But there are still very few people who can use it to its full potential - hence the "wide magic" versus the "high magic" aspect of FR, where you can't throw a rock without hitting a high level spellcaster (and do me a favor - throw it hard!). 

Thanks for the birthday wishes!


----------



## Hellcow (Jul 7, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> Warforged apparently -do- use to cost 1500 GP on the open market (which incidentally means that it must have cost about 750GP to create them.  Wow, cheaper than making a longsword +1!).



Correct. Because you're not making them in the same manner as you would make a +1 longsword. The key point here is that a normal person can't just say "I feel like making a warforged today!" You need the Mark of Making, and more important, _you need a creation forge_. That's why you don't see many new warforged - because in theory, the creation forges have all been shut down and destroyed. 



			
				Barak said:
			
		

> So when someone tells you Eberron is corny, the correct answer (IMHO, of course) is not to argue the point, but to reply "heck yeah it is!  And I'm glad!"



Actually, I agree - at least depending on the tone you're aiming for in your campaign. One of the key features of the pulps, in my opinion, is that they DON'T take themselves deadly seriously. Looking to our modern pulp movies - Indiana Jones, _The Mummy_ - there's always a touch of humor, an awareness of how over the top things are. Now, if you're aiming for more of the Maltese Falcon flavor, you'll want to avoid this as far as you can. But yes, it's an intentionally over the top fantasy game. And proud of it.


----------



## genshou (Jul 7, 2006)

Hellcow said:
			
		

> True enough, though I don't believe NPCs have a right to a set amount of GP/level. If you're a 3rd-level commoner farmer, you may still be dirt poor, just good at farming. The DMG DOES provide an NPC wealth-by-level table, but the important thing to remember is that this is intended for use in determining CR. A character with a substantially higher equipment value (like Kaius in _The Five Nations_) should have his CR bumped up accordingly. A character with a significantly lower equipment value should potentially have CR reduced. In _Sharn: City of Towers_, the only member of the Watch with a magic weapon is the Watch Captain (page 137); the 3rd level fighter sergeant on page 136 only has studded leather and a morningstar (not even masterwork!), despite the DMG's assertion that he's entitled to up to 2,500 gp worth of equipment. Meanwhile the Redcloaks - the elite unit - are equipped according to the standard wealth guidelines.



I'm glad you pointed that out.  The NPC wealth-by-level is only for "elite NPCs", generally meaning the ones who are rival adventurers or villains in their own right.  You don't have to follow the guidelines for every 3rd-level captain of the guard.  There are also some times when a member of the nobility might have things of greater value than the NPC wealth table suggests, such as the 6th-level Aristocrat with the large and finely furnished keep.  Also, depending on the circumstances of the campaign and/or region, the standard amount of wealth in magic items may simply not be available.


> So low-level magic is more commonplace and understood in Eberron, but that doesn't mean every peasant is walking around with a pocket full of potions; most commoners just aren't that wealthy. They enjoy the benefits of permanent magic within the community - such as Aundair's _fountains of cleansing_, public monuments which produce the cleansing effect of _prestidigitation_ - but may have no personal magic of their own. And as has been noted before, things like teleportation and higher level effects are rare and wondrous; and if you want a powerful magic item, you will have to adventure to find it, because of the lack of powerful spellcasters around.



There's certainly quite a bit of extremely low-level magic around in Eberron, a definite improvement over standard D&D in peasants having any access to magic.  Whereas before they might have saved for several months to afford a _prestidigitation_, now they can easily clean their dirty laundry and such.  And just imagine the effects of having the flavour-changing aspect of the spell usable by the entire city–yum!

Of course, having many of these spells around is going to make life a lot easier, effectively bumping them forward out of the typical "Dark Age" feel of standard D&D.  That's what I like about Eberron, it takes the amount of magic written into the setting and treats its effects on society in a realistic and serious manner.  There may be other things I don't like as much, but not everybody can be a fan, right?


> And this is a key point in the Iron Golem vs Warforged argument: *Who's going to make your Iron Golem*? By the rules, an iron golem requires a sixteenth level spellcaster! A generous DM might say that a 14th level artificer could do it, because of the bonus they have when creating magic items - but it's not like House Cannith is brimming with 14th level artificers! Now, you COULD say that they can create an eldritch machine to do the job, if you WANT iron golems around. But if you don't, the answer is quite simple. Iron golems that DO exist were created by brilliant artificers of the past, such as Aaren d'Cannith. But in the modern day, there may not BE any artificers who can produce an iron golem. By the setting as it stands, the only people who have been mentioned that could do it are Erandis d'Vol, Mordain the Fleshweaver, and members of the Council of Ashtakala - none of whom are looking to help out the war effort.



Having 16th-level spellcasters around willing to create golems is already almost impossible in standard D&D.  In Eberron, I'd pretty much give up before I started to look.  We wouldn't want hordes of iron golems running around willy-nilly in any stable setting, anyway.


> In Eberron, people recognize arcane magic as a form of science, and magic as a force that can be manipulated and controlled. But there are still very few people who can use it to its full potential - hence the "wide magic" versus the "high magic" aspect of FR, where you can't throw a rock without hitting a high level spellcaster (and do me a favor - throw it hard!).



This is a popular and common misconception about the Realms.  If you look at the continental population vs. the number of spellcasters, FR isn't far off from standard D&D.  I think the reason people think the Realms are overrun with high-level mages is because they see a bunch of them detailed in the books and forget to take into account the millions of ordinary people in each country.  While there are a certain Seven plus Elmunchkin who kind of extend beyond non-epic levels by just a bit, if you ignore them the 16th-level Sorcerer or Wizard who is at the top of the pecking order in a region with a few million people is entirely appropriate for standard D&D.  It's kind of nice to see someone take a deviation from the standard and work a setting out using it, though.

And really, with the population of Aber-Toril, why is anyone surprised there are a dozen epic-level characters running about?


> Thanks for the birthday wishes!


----------



## Stone Dog (Jul 7, 2006)

Hellcow said:
			
		

> By the setting as it stands, the only people who have been mentioned that could do it are Erandis d'Vol, Mordain the Fleshweaver, and members of the *Council of Ashtakala* - none of whom are looking to help out the war effort.



Oohhhh ho ho ho!  <devilish laugh!>

 It would be like "Needful Things" on a continental scale.  A few small armouries of warmachines, constructs and cursed magical items ready to be distributed to the right people at the right times wouldn't go amiss.  A little Mr Morden, a little Mr Gaunt and it becomes a race to find out just what nation is going to crack first and how to send the destiny of Khorvaire down one path of the Prophecy instead of on a death spiral down to an escalated war!


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 7, 2006)

Hellcow said:
			
		

> Oh, and John Snow, *I* don't like commonplace resurrection, which I think should have a major impact on society. My views on this matter can be found on page 20 of Sharn: City of Towers, where I say that even those who can use it rarely will (if you want the full line of reasoning, check the reference! ). It's essentially going to come down to the style of game you run. I prefer mystery and noir, where the threat of death is a very serious thing, and where when your partner gets killed, he's gone. But if you run a combat-heavy game where PC death happens every adventure, you may want to take a less restrictive approach. So the Sharn reference is MY opinion on the matter... but your mileage may vary.




Firstly Keith, let me add my birthday congrats to all the rest.

You and I have had this discussion before on the WotC boards. We mostly agree on tone and stories.

And strangely enough, I really like _Eberron_ in spite of my personal preference for lower-magic settings, and my dislike of some of the D&Disms that you carried to logical consequences. To my mind, you've addressed most of them in the best way possible by some of the things you've done with the setting (and rules...more on that below). Some of the "D&Disms" I dislike...

1. Commonplace (good word, thanks Keith!) resurrection.

2. Activist deities who leave no room for corrupt religious figures or "faith-based" religion.

3. Overabundance of adventurers in general, and high-level ones in particular.

4. Peasants with the money to buy all the magical trinkets they want.

5. Reliable, predictable low-level magic that ought to be widely utilized, but just isn't.

6. Creature alignment so predictable you could set your watch by it.

In _Eberron_, you've addressed ALL of those. That's just cool and I would give you props for that alone. I like that at the same time you've introduced a lot of things to keep the setting from losing its sense of wonder.

I normally fix those inconsistencies by altering point 5 and making magic unreliable or unpredictable. Which addresses most of the lower points.

I like that adventurer-types are rare in the setting. I like that high-level adventurers are even rarer than adventurers. I like that resurrection is rare and therefore death is a serious consequence. And I love things like manifest zones, dragonmarks, warforged, and even airships and artificers.

Personally, in my own campaign, I'd have resurrections require the party to complete some form of quest. The deceased PCs player gets to play an interim role relevant to the quest - a priest of some deity or another, for example. One quest idea: go to Dolurrh via a manifest zone/conjunction and bring the deceased back. Very Hercules in hell...

The mechanic issue I like is the addition of action points so that PCs can "push" themselves. One question I had for other Eberron DMs...if I was in favor of "slower advancement," would you say I could give the PCs more action points per level? Say up the AP allotment based on how much slower the advancement rate is so that the PCs still have the same number of APs per encounter?

Most of my tweaks are in the form of importing some of the cool mechanics from _Iron Heroes_ into bog standard D&D.

And while I'm not always fond of high-magic, I couldn't help but chortle over the following conversation in some Eberron short story I saw...

Newbie airship sailor: "That's strange. It smells like something's burning."
Veteran airship sailor: "How long have you been on this ship kid? We're powered by a bloody FIRE ELEMENTAL. It always smells like something's burning!"
Newbie: "No. I mean...I know that, but this is something else..."

It went on from there...but the veteran sailor's response made me laugh out loud. Lines like that make me WANT fire-elemental powered airships in my campaign!


----------



## genshou (Jul 7, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> 1. Commonplace (good word, thanks Keith!) resurrection.



Since when was resurrection "commonplace"?  In order to find a 9th-level Cleric you must travel to a large town at the smallest, and only 1/6 of those towns will even have a Cleric of sufficient level (1d6+3 for highest-level Cleric).  Then you have to take into account that this 9th-level Cleric is the _only_ 9th-level Cleric in that town and all surrounding smaller communities (and possibly the only one even among nearby large towns), which means you've likely got quite the queue of reservations to be placed at the end of.  Also, raising the dead costs a lot of money, and some priests even require you to go on a quest before they'll put you on the queue at all (others will bypass the queue _if_ you go on a quest, especially if adventurers have been scarce lately).  Just because the high-level PCs have access to resurrective magic, that doesn't make it common.  Remember that the PCs represent a _very_ small subset of the population.  At high levels they're just about unique in the campaign world. (See below)


> 3. Overabundance of adventurers in general, and high-level ones in particular.



I hope you won't mind if I ask where you get this perception?  There are no rules in standard D&D about how many adventurers there are, and in fact from what it looks like they're quite rare, especially as a ratio to ordinary folk.  High-level (12+) PC-classed characters represent a very select and very small subset of the population.  I've estimated high-level folk to be approx. 0.0025% of the world's population by running several statistical analyses of the DMG's random community generation rules.  I'd hardly call that "overabundance".


> 4. Peasants with the money to buy all the magical trinkets they want.



Right, 5d4 gp is a lot of money to buy magical trinkets.  Sorry, but... where did you get that idea again?


> 5. Reliable, predictable low-level magic that ought to be widely utilized, but just isn't.



The reason it isn't is because less than 1% of the population are magic users, and nearly all of the magic users are low-level.  That's a lot of demand for little supply.


> 6. Creature alignment so predictable you could set your watch by it.



I assume you're referring to Outsiders, beings from other planes whose very essences are drawn from the powers of the planes they call home?  An Outsider being true to their alignment is no more ridiculous than a water elemental being made out of... water.  And outside of there, alignments can fluctuate quite a bit among most creatures (besides nonsentient life forms, which are Neutral because they don't have a sense of morality).

Really, people just need to be properly educated on the facts of D&D to battle all these common misconceptions.  Eberron goes a long way toward thwarting my goals, because it makes people think these things were a bigger problem in the standard rules than they actually were in the first place.  But I don't really think Keith intended that when he wrote the setting the way he did.

--
Sincerely yours,
*genshou*
Battling false perceptions about standard D&D since 2001


----------



## Hellcow (Jul 7, 2006)

genshou said:
			
		

> I assume you're referring to Outsiders, beings from other planes whose very essences are drawn from the powers of the planes they call home?



Actually, I doubt he is. Outsiders are one of the few creatures who I hold to standard alignments in Eberron, for the precise reasons you state: powerful outsiders are embodiments of ideals. They ARE philosophy as much as anything else. Yes, an angel can fall, but it's a far different thing than a human. 

I am willing to hold to predictable alignments in two major cases: Outsiders, who essentially embody ideas; and creatures whose alignments are imposed by an outside force, such as a lycanthrope who is forced to an evil alignment because of the curse. However, while in Eberron lycanthropy changes alignment, even there it's unpredictable - tied to the strain of lycanthropy as opposed to the creature, so you can find a good werewolf or an evil werebear. 

What I believe he is refering to is as much as anything, the "usuals". By the MM:
Harpies: Usually chaotic evil
Hobgoblins: Usually lawful evil
Medusas: Usually lawful evil
Minotaurs: Usually chaotic evil
Ogres: Usually chaotic evil
Red Dragons: Always chaotic evil
... and so on, and so on. Essentially, "monsters" are usually evil. But most of these creatures are intelligent beings. Hobgoblins are just as intelligent as humans. Medusas are MORE intelligent that humans. And even with the dumb ogre, why should stupidity make them evil? Essentially, for intelligent creatures, Eberron tries to make culture more important that race. There are evil orcs who worship the Dragon Below. There are good orcs who guard the passes of the Labyrinth. They have the same level of diversity of alignment that you would expect to find in other mortal races - like humans.

So no, there's a solid reason for outsiders to have predictable alignments, and I generally hold to those even in Eberron - though as the kalashtar and radiant idols show, it's always possible to fall from grace. It's the MORTALS whose alignment is usually hard to predict.


----------



## Elephant (Jul 7, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> Doesn't stop me from being AWESOMELY RIGHT!
> 
> Seriously, it highlights my whole problem with the warforged.  Ignoring the need to have them as PC-playable race, and ignoring weird "accidents" that any PC would whine if it happened to them, they make no sense, since, using simple RAW, you can have much better warmachines for the same price.




What's the price of a single warforged?

I'm guessing the price ratio between iron golems and 'forged is somewhere in the 1:1000 range.  Sure, a single IG can smack down a battalion of 1000 'forged (especially if they're not customized with golem destruction in mind), but which one is going to be quicker and more efficient vs. 1000 human or elven soldiers?  Which one can control more territory?


----------



## Stone Dog (Jul 7, 2006)

The alignment thing isn't limited to outsiders.  Dragons are listed as "always" critters so you can pretty much know that if it isn't all glittery and shiney it is an evil creature.  Sphinxes are also victims of alignment profiling.  Even though orcs are merely "often" chaotic evil the way they are protrayed in most settings and novels you might as well say "always."

Eberron makes a point to blur the lines even further so that guessing something's alignment based on its species isn't very useful.  That sort of thing is profiling and profiling is wrong.  

As to the overabundance of adventurers, this is mostly in a contrast to Forgotten Realms where Adventurer is actually a social class that countries have laws to deal with.


----------



## Stone Dog (Jul 7, 2006)

Elephant said:
			
		

> What's the price of a single warforged?



Somewhere between 1,200 GP and 1,500 GP as discussed yesterday upthread.  I'd range it from 800-2,000 depending on model, personally.


----------



## genshou (Jul 7, 2006)

Hellcow said:
			
		

> Actually, I doubt he is. Outsiders are one of the few creatures who I hold to standard alignments in Eberron, for the precise reasons you state: powerful outsiders are embodiments of ideals. They ARE philosophy as much as anything else. Yes, an angel can fall, but it's a far different thing than a human.
> [...]
> ... and so on, and so on. Essentially, "monsters" are usually evil. But most of these creatures are intelligent beings. Hobgoblins are just as intelligent as humans. Medusas are MORE intelligent that humans. And even with the dumb ogre, why should stupidity make them evil? Essentially, for intelligent creatures, Eberron tries to make culture more important that race. There are evil orcs who worship the Dragon Below. There are good orcs who guard the passes of the Labyrinth. They have the same level of diversity of alignment that you would expect to find in other mortal races - like humans.



Right, I was speaking of standard D&D of course and not Eberron, but you keep the "Always" creatures that way of course.  I just think that if the creatures have 







> alignment so predictable you could set your watch by it



 that must mean an "always" alignment.  My 3.0 Monster Manual has this to say about "usually" alignments:


> The majority (more than 50%) of these creatures have the given alignment.  This may be due to strong cultural influences, or it may be a legacy of the creatures' origin.  For example, most elves inherited their chaotic good alignment from their creator, the deity Corellon Larethian.



So, let's take orcs as an example.  I love to talk about orc alignment.  Over 50% of orcs are chaotic evil, due to orc society and the nature of their usual religion.  Now, does that mean that in a chaotic evil orc village, the ratio between evil and nonevil orcs is the same as it is when applied to the whole race?  Probably not.  I've had villages of neutral and even good orcs in my game, just to throw the players a bit and make them think about what it really means to go around and wantonly kill orcs.  Now, in Eberron would you say that for these races the "over 50%" still applies to the races as a whole, or have you gone even further and made them truly culturally broad as an entire race?


----------



## Hellcow (Jul 7, 2006)

genshou said:
			
		

> This is a popular and common misconception about the Realms.  If you look at the continental population vs. the number of spellcasters, FR isn't far off from standard D&D.



Actually, I never thought it was. My point is that *standard D&D* is far higher than I would like. By the DMG demographics table, the standard metropolis will include an 17th or 18th level cleric (along with a few more in the 15th level range), along with a 16th level wizard and sorcerer. Even in a small city, you've got a good chance at 5th-level arcane and 6th-level divine spells. Again, with Eberron the point is more magewrights and adepts, more 1st-4th level magic... but considerably less 5th-level and above.

I want to stress here that I'm *not* against FR. I do *not* consider Eberron in any way an improvement over FR. The ways in which Eberron differs - fewer high-level allies, distant gods, and so on - are not *better* than FR's approach. Among other things, I LIKE having Trojan War style campaigns where the gods walk the earth. But the point is, FR already DOES that. Eberron is an alternative, an option for exploring something that isn't as traditional. 

So, Eberron has fewer high-level casters than FR or standard D&D. It's intentional, and it's a fact. That doesn't mean having high-level NPCs destroys a game - but it has a different flavor, and Eberron is trying something different. Finding someone who can cast a seventh level spell is a significant challenge. Though again, that's finding an ALLY who can do it... the Lords of Dust have no shortage of high-level casters!



			
				genshou said:
			
		

> And really, with the population of Aber-Toril, why is anyone surprised there are a dozen epic-level characters running about?



Again, different approach. With the "Players-are-the-heroes-of-the-age" approach of Eberron, it's not a question of numbers. As I've stated before, I do not believe that NPCs have the same inherent right or ability to gain experience and advance as PCs do. It's the same principle as KOTR II - "Do you think EVERYONE can become incredibly powerful just by killing things?" In my opinion - and ONLY my opinion - the typical village blacksmith will not become a better blacksmith by killing a few goblins. Likewise, many NPCs simply have a glass ceiling; 3rd level (or even 1st level!) may simply be as good as they're going to get. Perhaps they just aren't dedicated enough. Perhaps they don't have the inherent talent. But this is why most veterans of the Last War ARE still first or second level, like 99% of the population... because most people don't gain XP as PCs do. The ability to use the XP/advancement system described in the Player's Handbook is something I reserve for PCs, just like action points. NPCs advance when and if I want them to, as best befits the story. 

This may VERY well be cheesy. But it's how I roll (dice). Essentially, when I'm running a game, it's a move. The PCs are the main characters. They may run into big, cool villains. But they don't running into a stormtrooper who's three levels higher than his buddies because he was on that mission where they killed all the jawas and the others weren't. He's a background character, and background characters often get screwed. 

Back to the original point, I have no problem with their being epic level characters in FR. But that doesn't mean that population would determine whether there should be any epic level characters in Eberron. Epic level characters are legends, and the goal in Eberron is to say that it's up to the PCs to fill this role (not, mind you, counting the various epic level villains out there).


----------



## Hellcow (Jul 7, 2006)

genshou said:
			
		

> Now, in Eberron would you say that for these races the "over 50%" still applies to the races as a whole, or have you gone even further and made them truly culturally broad as an entire race?



The latter, definitely. That's the point. As you said, the "usually" alignment is based on culture and religion. In Eberron, monstrous cultures are every bit as diverse as those of humans. Looking to orcs, you have the balancing Gatekeeper-Dragon Below traditions of the Shadow Marches, which span the full spectrum of alignments; the noble Ghaashkala of the Demon Wastes; the more aggressive Jhorash'tar of the Mror Holds; and whatever else you may add to the setting. There's no inherent "Orcs are usually evil"; it's all about culture, and there are many different cultures. Ditto for medusas, minotaurs, and even red dragons!

The dragon is another "always" point. Again, the only creatures I hold to "always" are creatures whose alignment is dictated by a metaphysical nature (outsiders) or overriding magical force (lycanthropes). You could argue that a dragon is in some ways an iconic entity like an outsider, but the dragons of Eberron are not. They are intelligent creatures whose alignments are shaped by culture and tradition, just like humans. Within a culture, dragons often share an alignment - but this can lead to the noble blue Storm Guardians of Adar. So when you see a red dragon you can't just say "Red means evil"... you need to know his background.


----------



## genshou (Jul 7, 2006)

Hellcow said:
			
		

> [Stuff snipped for brevity]



I heartily agree with everything you said, except the part where you said it may be cheesy.  That's not cheesy at all.  It's sensible.

We may have different ways we like to go about it, but we're both really after the same thing in campaign design.

I may still not want to pick up a copy of the campaign setting and play a game in it, but now that I've gotten a chance to have some intelligent conversation with you I feel a lot better about some of the issues I had with it.


----------



## genshou (Jul 7, 2006)

Hellcow said:
			
		

> The latter, definitely. That's the point. As you said, the "usually" alignment is based on culture and religion. In Eberron, monstrous cultures are every bit as diverse as those of humans. Looking to orcs, you have the balancing Gatekeeper-Dragon Below traditions of the Shadow Marches, which span the full spectrum of alignments; the noble Ghaashkala of the Demon Wastes; the more aggressive Jhorash'tar of the Mror Holds; and whatever else you may add to the setting. There's no inherent "Orcs are usually evil"; it's all about culture, and there are many different cultures. Ditto for medusas, minotaurs, and even red dragons!
> 
> The dragon is another "always" point. Again, the only creatures I hold to "always" are creatures whose alignment is dictated by a metaphysical nature (outsiders) or overriding magical force (lycanthropes). You could argue that a dragon is in some ways an iconic entity like an outsider, but the dragons of Eberron are not. They are intelligent creatures whose alignments are shaped by culture and tradition, just like humans. Within a culture, dragons often share an alignment - but this can lead to the noble blue Storm Guardians of Adar. So when you see a red dragon you can't just say "Red means evil"... you need to know his background.



Very cool.  I like the idea of dragons not having a set alignment.  I think I may just start using it in my homebrew.


----------



## Stone Dog (Jul 8, 2006)

genshou said:
			
		

> Now, in Eberron would you say that for these races the "over 50%" still applies to the races as a whole, or have you gone even further and made them truly culturally broad as an entire race?



Keeping with the orcs as the default conversation...

As far as I know there are three main orc cultures.  The Jhorash'tar in the mountains of the Mror holds who are in the traditional territory conflict with the dwarves.   The Ghaash'kala who live on the boarders of the Demon Wastes and worship the Silver Flame in their own tongue calling it the Kalok Shash who are devoted to keeping the evil of the Wastes on the otherside of the mountains.  The orc tribes and human clans of the Shadow Marches who are mostly split between the Gatekeeper druid faith and the more insidious cults of the Dragon Below.  

In the first you can only really guess that they don't like the dwarves all that much at all.  In the second they may be savage and primal, but their overarching faith is still lawful good.  In the third case you really... really can't guess by looking.  There is about as much chance that they are just folk trying to get by as they are cultists of madness and evil.

As far as orcs go, you have a pretty broad base of cultures!

Edit-  KEITH!  MR BAKER!  Damn, we go from nothing for months to dancing around each others posts just like old times.  Makes me all nostalgic and stuff.


----------



## Felon (Jul 8, 2006)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> How did Eberron become a major D&D setting? It doesn't seem like fantasy at all.  I mean, it has robots warforged and airplanes airships.  It seems like somebody was trying to make "science fictasy"




Why do folks feel the urge to get cutesy with their polls? "Yes" and "no" are quite adequate. You didn't need to tack the extra commentary--in fact, doing so pretty handily excises all the votes from people who don't love Eberron or think it's "cheap and corny".

Personally, I would've voted "no" myself, and I find it pretty lame that folks try to assert that robots and bullet trains in a fantasy campaign aren't even slightly out of place. Spare us the vaguely applicable references to Lord Dunsay or Jack Vance stories. If Jack Vance wrote a fantasy book with that stuff, rest assured it was one of his absurdist pieces. 

I don't mind a setting trying to be different, but simply introducing "spellpunk" analogues of modern or futuristic technologies, and being rather blatant about it ("lightning rails" my coddlings) isn't terribly innovative. 

Of course, that's what I _would have_ voted, had the poll been properly generated.  :\


----------



## Stone Dog (Jul 8, 2006)

genshou said:
			
		

> Very cool.  I like the idea of dragons not having a set alignment.  I think I may just start using it in my homebrew.



I personally keep to the idea that dragons still have certain impulses based on species.  Good reds are still pretty damn egotistical and overconfident, whites tend to be more savage and primal in thought even if they want to help more than harm.  Beware the evil Brass dragon who may torture you for idle chit chat or the merciless bronze who enforces his solitude with deadly intent.

Dragons have certain iconic behaviors based on color, but their methods can be as inscrutable as need be and their morality is almost always difficult to divine.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 8, 2006)

Sorry, I was off responding to another thread.

Keith summed my comment up very nicely. In many settings, it's not just outsiders who's alignment is predictable. In addition to dragons, the "evil humanoids," giants, drow, and so forth come to mind. I like demons, devils and angels (the "true outsiders") having fixed alignments. I even use that in my _d20 Modern_ games, which don't even HAVE alignment.

The one that REALLY irks me is clerics. I addressed this in passing, but while the standard D&D notion that every deity is so active that his clerics all have to roughly conform to his alignment is not exactly suspension of disbelief jarring, it does shoot down some very good plot ideas. Every cleric of Pelor (or whoever) is on your side and can be trusted. Nice, I guess, but it really messes with things in a way that eliminates religious figures as sources of interesting stories - they really become only suitable for motivating very simplistic black and white adventures. Which tends to make for quite cliche gaming.



			
				genshou said:
			
		

> Very cool. I like the idea of dragons not having a set alignment. I think I may just start using it in my homebrew.




I started doing that ages ago.  I also give tend to give dragons fire breath by default, but that's a whole separate issue.



			
				Hellcow said:
			
		

> Actually, I never thought it was. My point is that *standard D&D* is far higher than I would like. By the DMG demographics table, the standard metropolis will include an 17th or 18th level cleric (along with a few more in the 15th level range), along with a 16th level wizard and sorcerer. Even in a small city, you've got a good chance at 5th-level arcane and 6th-level divine spells. Again, with Eberron the point is more magewrights and adepts, more 1st-4th level magic... but considerably less 5th-level and above.




See, like Keith, *standard D&D* is far higher than I would like. By the demographics in D&D, a "standard metropolis" has, IIRC, 25,000 people. That means Waterdeep (say) would have something like 20 16th level wizards/sorcerers, and an equal number of 17th level clerics. Umm...excuse me??? That just makes me cringe. If I'm wrong about the 25,000 number, it goes down, but it still makes them a bit too common for me.

And I personally appreciate that Eberron doesn't take itself TOO seriously. At the end of the day, D&D is, after all, a game. And, in my opinion, fun can be had by tweaking, or running with every assumption in it.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 8, 2006)

Hellcow said:
			
		

> This may VERY well be cheesy. But it's how I roll (dice). Essentially, when I'm running a game, it's a move. The PCs are the main characters. They may run into big, cool villains. But they don't running into a stormtrooper who's three levels higher than his buddies because he was on that mission where they killed all the jawas and the others weren't. He's a background character, and background characters often get screwed.




Speaking of background characters who get screwed, remind me to tell you the epic of Bonk the Stormtrooper someday...

He's the one who (almost) single-handedly brought about the downfall of the Galactic Empire. You just THOUGHT he was a background character.


----------



## Hellcow (Jul 8, 2006)

genshou said:
			
		

> I may still not want to pick up a copy of the campaign setting and play a game in it, but now that I've gotten a chance to have some intelligent conversation with you I feel a lot better about some of the issues I had with it.



Glad to hear it!


----------



## Nyeshet (Jul 8, 2006)

Eberron has some nice ideas, but I've never particularly liked the setting. I like my fantasy a bit more grounded in the past. Eberron is more of an "Indiana Jones and the Isle of Doctor Moreau" mixed with vancian magic, dinosaurs, and robots. I like the fact that it adds more intrigue to the game, gives more support to psionics, and utilizes action points, and the new races based on the Doppelganger and the Werecreatures have potential. The oddity of the (moving) planes is also interesting. On the other hand I dislike adding in carnivorous dinosaur mounts (How do you feed them without going bankrupt?), and more particularly the use of high(er) level techno-magic (railroads, robots, etc).

I decided not to vote in the poll as my view is rather between the two. I don't view Eberron as 'corny', but neither is it my cup of tea. I will admit to mining it for a few ideas, however.


----------



## genshou (Jul 8, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> See, like Keith, *standard D&D* is far higher than I would like. By the demographics in D&D, a "standard metropolis" has, IIRC, 25,000 people. That means Waterdeep (say) would have something like 20 16th level wizards/sorcerers, and an equal number of 17th level clerics. Umm...excuse me??? That just makes me cringe. If I'm wrong about the 25,000 number, it goes down, but it still makes them a bit too common for me.



The stats for a metropolis say "25,001+".  It never gives an upper limit before it should be considered two metropolises for the purposes of highest-level NPCs and the like.  At 132,661, Waterdeep is pretty damn big.  Even if you split that up into 5-6 metropolises, however, you would not end up with 20 16th-level Sorcerers/Wizards.  On average you would get 5-6.  In standard D&D, that makes perfect sense for a sprawling metropolis of that size.  Certainly that's not everyone's cup of tea.  But how much of an effect can those 5-6 Sorcerers and 5-6 Wizards have on the 132,661 they live among?


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jul 8, 2006)

genshou said:
			
		

> The stats for a metropolis say "25,001+".  It never gives an upper limit before it should be considered two metropolises for the purposes of highest-level NPCs and the like.  At 132,661, Waterdeep is pretty damn big.  Even if you split that up into 5-6 metropolises, however, you would not end up with 20 16th-level Sorcerers/Wizards.  On average you would get 5-6.  In standard D&D, that makes perfect sense for a sprawling metropolis of that size.  Certainly that's not everyone's cup of tea.  But how much of an effect can those 5-6 Sorcerers and 5-6 Wizards have on the 132,661 they live among?




A huge amount, actually, when some powerful threat comes to the city. Even the evil ones aren't going to let someone wipe out the city they live in. Meanwhile the typical non-heroic citizen hides or flees in terror.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 8, 2006)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> A huge amount, actually, when some powerful threat comes to the city. Even the evil ones aren't going to let someone wipe out the city they live in. Meanwhile the typical non-heroic citizen hides or flees in terror.




True, but, by and large, this likely won't be a daily occurance.  Could be, but, I doubt it.  Heck, even Godzilla didn't stomp on Tokyo THAT often.


----------



## Nightfall (Jul 8, 2006)

No but you hear thousands of Americans cheering him on when he did, Hussar.  

Still I'd like to see a demonic invasion via the Abyss of GH into Eberron. See how they like it.


----------



## genshou (Jul 8, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> (Psi)SeveredHead said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Both very good points.


----------



## Nightfall (Jul 8, 2006)

What? No love for my thoughts?


----------



## ssampier (Jul 8, 2006)

Kestrel said:
			
		

> I have yet to understand the point of these threads.
> 
> "Oranges are incredible!  I love oranges!"
> 
> ...




Pears are where it's at. Yeah!  

All I can say is, "Welcome to the Internet. Enjoy the stay. Try the fish."


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jul 8, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> What? No love for my thoughts?



No.


----------



## Nightfall (Jul 8, 2006)

Well at least you're honest Mh.


----------



## Kishin (Jul 8, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> Ahh but see, to me that's where the metagaming crawls in.
> 
> While the mass creation of Golems for war purposes can make sense, giving them sentience at the cost of other, more useful abilities for such a creation doesn't make sense...  Unless you figure in that, later on, they will be ECL +0 PCs.




Warforged sentience wasn't the original intent of the experiments, it, from what is hinted,  evolved of the other experiments and modifications House Cannith was performing on them in attempts to increase their functionality (Without getting into the whole sentient constructs in Xen'drik, Cannith pillaging the technnology, etc al.). After that, they were just playing with the cards they dealt. Sure, sentient constructs may still feel emotion, but they're also a lot more flexible than a golem. Early Warforged were, as someone already mentioned, more along the lines of the Warforged Titans.


----------



## Staffan (Jul 8, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Still I'd like to see a demonic invasion via the Abyss of GH into Eberron. See how they like it.



Eberron has already dealt with two planar invasions, of far more interesting things than ordinary demons. First there were the nightmare creatures from the plane of Dreams, and then there were the madness-inducing creatures from the Far Realm. There are also plenty of fiends that already live on the plane, just trapped deep underground (the Rajahs).

Eberron is doing just fine without any silly fat goat-headed demon princes, thank you.


----------



## Hellcow (Jul 8, 2006)

Kishin said:
			
		

> Warforged sentience wasn't the original intent of the experiments...



Yes and no. Aaren d'Cannith was trying to create a new form of life. However, the key factor is that Aaren was trying to create LIFE - not the perfect soldier. He, in fact, opposed the use of the warforged in battle and was excoriated from House Cannith as a result. 

So, the HOUSE didn't seek full emotional sentience. But Aaren did, and Merrix simply seized and took advantage of what his son had done. And yes, as others have said, even Aaren's breakthrough was largely a matter of adapting the old magic of Xen'drik - rediscovering something instead of creating it from scratch.

Aside from the question of whether you can actually buy an iron golem, the key is that a squad of intelligent warforged soldiers can perform many actions that neither humans or iron golem can replicate. If they possess Craft (which as intelligent beings they can), warforged can repair themselves... or maintain the armor or weapons of their human comrades, if there are no warforged to repair. Needing neither sleep or food, warforged make excellent scouts or deep strike teams, moving into territory controlled by the enemy where no supply chain can be maintained. And again, with no need for sleep, they make great guards, manning the walls of a fortress at all hours. And as scouts or guards, the fact that they CAN respond in a creative manner to unexpected situations is the key. Likewise, the point made earlier about holding a battlefield: once you've captured the enemy city, which is more useful, a tank, or a hundred soldiers that never need to sleep and can be repaired if they are ambushed by insurgent attacks? 

Tied to this is the fact that warforged possess class levels (as I said, I see the typical warforged as a 2nd-level character - I've discussed elsewhere what this could mean for your 1st-level warforged). Which means that a warforged can be a fighter, but he could also be a mithral body scout, ranger, or rogue... again, capable of recon and intelligence gathering operations beyond the capabilities of the golem. And as others have said, the warforged can even improve his abilities over time! 

For a frontal attack, the warforged is inferior to the golem, or for that matter to the warforged titan. But they key to the warforged is that they are tireless and self-sustaining, and yet capable of taking orders and responding in a creative manner to problems they encounter... something the golem cannot do. They serve a different role than the golem, and in that role - especially for raids or scouting missions behind enemy lines - intelligence is certainly an asset. Emotion? Not so much, and that's something Cannith tried to surpress as best as they could. But that was Aaren's work, and it was part and parcel of the Xen'drik-inspired breakthrough... which comes to the role of the warforged in history and the world, not just in this war. Who created the very first warforged, and why?


----------



## Barak (Jul 8, 2006)

Well, they key to having Warforged make sense is those forges that allow them to be created for so cheap (1500gp).  If one was to remove those magical forges, the cost of making one warforged, if possible, would have to be much higher.  But that's ok, it's part and parcel of the setting, and add an interesting element (gaining control of said forges, assuming they still exist).

Note that I disagree (with the maker of the setting, no less!) that it's "fair" to consider a basic warforged as a 2nd level character, and were I to run a campaign in Eberron, in which the forge plaid a part, they'd come "out" as 0th level character.  Otherwise, 1500Gp is just way too cheap for them.


----------



## Hellcow (Jul 8, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> Note that I disagree (with the maker of the setting, no less!) that it's "fair" to consider a basic warforged as a 2nd level character, and were I to run a campaign in Eberron, in which the forge plaid a part, they'd come "out" as 0th level character.  Otherwise, 1500Gp is just way too cheap for them.



It's fair for you to do so, Barak. But the key is that if they came out as 0-level characters, they are far less useful; even commoner recruits are at least first level. One of the things that makes the warforged valuable is the ability to purchase a unit of elite troops - soldiers that would take years to train on your own, assuming you could find people with the potential - in short order to meet an immediate need. And that's the point of the warforged. The warforged never replaced humans on the battlefield. They were too expensive and too few in number, and there was always a use for that 1st-level commoner peasant recruit, if only to hold the battlefield. Warforged are expensive, elite units, capable of performing tasks that the peasant simply can't.  

Furthermore, you're not really disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with the designers of _Lords of Madness_. By LoM, the normal cost of purchasing a 2nd-level slave is _400_ gp; by upping it to 1,500 or 1,600 gp, I'm setting it at their suggested maximum, for a slave with tremendously exceptional traits. Obviously, you have every right to disagree with THEIR numbers. But the point is that I'm not simply setting an arbitrary price, I'm drawing on a WotC sourcebook... and actually setting the warforged at the upper end of that spectrum.


----------



## Barak (Jul 8, 2006)

Hellcow said:
			
		

> It's fair for you to do so, Barak. But the key is that if they came out as 0-level characters, they are far less useful; even commoner recruits are at least first level. One of the things that makes the warforged valuable is the ability to purchase a unit of elite troops - soldiers that would take years to train on your own, assuming you could find people with the potential - in short order to meet an immediate need. And that's the point of the warforged. The warforged never replaced humans on the battlefield. They were too expensive and too few in number, and there was always a use for that 1st-level commoner peasant recruit, if only to hold the battlefield. Warforged are expensive, elite units, capable of performing tasks that the peasant simply can't.
> 
> Furthermore, you're not really disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with the designers of _Lords of Madness_. By LoM, the normal cost of purchasing a 2nd-level slave is _400_ gp; by upping it to 1,500 or 1,600 gp, I'm setting it at their suggested maximum, for a slave with tremendously exceptional traits. Obviously, you have every right to disagree with THEIR numbers. But the point is that I'm not simply setting an arbitrary price, I'm drawing on a WotC sourcebook... and actually setting the warforged at the upper end of that spectrum.




Perhaps, but I see a big difference between buying a slave of a certain skill, and a warforged straight out of the forge, of the same skill.  To me, the warforge is better.  Much better.  With no life-experience and preconceived notion about slavery, assuming I treat it somewhat decently, he most likely won't even consider "rebelling", and will probably obey orders, complete it's mission, and _come back_, even without supervision.  Why wouldn't it?  The aforementioned slave, most likely, require immediate, constant supervision to perform, or at the very least a high likelyhood of immediate, -effective- persecution if he just..  Walks away while deep in enemy territory.  

Also..  It's sorta hard to get a big number of 2nd level fighter slaves.  I mean, you have to find them -somewhere-.  Warforged are made, and I assume that while they don't come out in infinite number at the drop of a hat, they were a bit easier to make than it was to find a bunch of 2nd level fighters.  In which case, supply and demand come into play.


----------



## Kishin (Jul 8, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> Well, they key to having Warforged make sense is those forges that allow them to be created for so cheap (1500gp).  If one was to remove those magical forges, the cost of making one warforged, if possible, would have to be much higher.  But that's ok, it's part and parcel of the setting, and add an interesting element (gaining control of said forges, assuming they still exist).
> 
> Note that I disagree (with the maker of the setting, no less!) that it's "fair" to consider a basic warforged as a 2nd level character, and were I to run a campaign in Eberron, in which the forge plaid a part, they'd come "out" as 0th level character.  Otherwise, 1500Gp is just way too cheap for them.




By contrast, I'm pretty inclined to agree with 1,500 GP pricetag, because there are other limiting factors besides the monetary ones, primarily the complexity and rarity of Creation Forges and the time required to prepare them for their new role. I would also assume that there exists something of a 'gestation period' so to speak with regards to the time it for a warforged to emerge from a Creation Forge, mainly because I can't imagine an arcane process that synthesizes rare materials like mithral and adamantine from apparent nothingness to operate at the same speed as my microwave. (Of course, this is largely conjecture, so if the Creation Forges do spawn warforged at a rabbit-like rate, all I can say is wow, where did they all go?)

Lastly, certain secondary sources (and boy do I feel like a tool for plugging/referencing Keith's novels in a thread Keith himself is posting in) do show us that there isn't a 100% success rate amongst Certain Forges, and that sometimes you get warforged that are, uh, not quite so right, to put it mildly.


----------



## Barak (Jul 8, 2006)

Kishin said:
			
		

> By contrast, I'm pretty inclined to agree with 1,500 GP pricetag, because there are other limiting factors besides the monetary ones, primarily the complexity and rarity of Creation Forges and the time required to teach Warforged the necessary skills of their trade. I would also assume that there exists something of a 'gestation period' so to speak with regards to the time it for a warforged to emerge from a Creation Forge, mainly because I can't imagine an arcane process that synthesizes rare materials like mithral and adamantine from apparent nothingness to operate at the same speed as my microwave. (Of course, this is largely conjecture, so if the Creation Forges do spawn warforged at a rabbit-like rate, all I can say is wow, where did they all go?)
> 
> Lastly, certain secondary sources (and boy do I feel like a tool for plugging/referencing Keith's novels in a thread Keith himself is posting in) do show us that there isn't a 100% success rate amongst Certain Forges, and that sometimes you get warforged that are, uh, not quite so right, to put it mildly.




But..  Wouldn't everything you mention make the price go up, rather than down?


----------



## Hellcow (Jul 8, 2006)

Kishin said:
			
		

> There are other limiting factors besides the monetary ones, primarily the complexity and rarity of Creation Forges and the time required to teach Warforged the necessary skills of their trade. I would also assume that there exists something of a 'gestation period' so to speak with regards to the time it for a warforged to emerge from a Creation Forge, mainly because I can't imagine an arcane process that synthesizes rare materials like mithral and adamantine from apparent nothingness to operate at the same speed as my microwave.



Correct on both counts. House Cannith was able to produce something like 2,000 warforged/year (averaging over the period... fewer initially, more at the end). And while we've talked about warforged coming out with skill, that is a slightly exaggeration. If one refers to the Dragonshards, they DID require a period of training: it's simply the case that they advanced to the 2nd-level mark in a remarkable short period of time, attaining a level of skill one couldn't expect from a standard boot camp trainee. So yes, if you had to literally push the warforged out the door the moment he emerged from the forged, you WOULD be dealing with a lack of skill; it's all about the swift acquisition of skill, getting a soldier in a few months that you'd be lucky to get with years of training otherwise.  

And while a warforged is certainly more reliable than the average slave, a) that's why the cost is bumped up to the maximum value listed for a slave of that level, and b) as Kishin has pointed out, warforged DON'T always come out right or do what you expect them to. That training period involved heavy indoctrination and efforts to supress warforged emotion, but it wasn't always successful, as warforged like Indigo, Harmattan, and the Lord of Blades show.

Anyhow, I'll let it rest there, as I have other matters to attend to. The 1,500 gp figure is a suggestion, and in no way official; if you don't like it, Barak, you're certainly free to change it to whatever seems reasonable to you.


----------



## Kishin (Jul 8, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> Why wouldn't it? The aforementioned slave, most likely, require immediate, constant supervision to perform, or at the very least a high likelyhood of immediate, -effective- persecution if he just.. Walks away while deep in enemy territory.




I'm not so sure about this. There's a psychological element to slavery you're neglecting here, and its perfectly possible that a slave has been conditioned to their status such that such an idea is ludicrous, especially if said slave was born a slave, rather than grabbed off a streetcorner somewhere and thrown in irons.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 8, 2006)

I don't know alot about Eberron, but based on its description, I would prefer the Mystara setting for a game of high magic/technology. That campaign, or at least the Known World portion, also has a nice mix of "real world" cultures integrated with the high fantasy that makes it easier to digest. And as for pulp, the planet of Mystara is hollow, filled with dinosaurs and lost civilazations! Doesn't get more pulp than that!


----------



## Barak (Jul 8, 2006)

I must say, throughout this thread, my opinion of warforged -has- changed.  Both because of campaign-specifc things (the Forges that enables them to be made in the first place), and through simply discussing some issues (as one example, the worth of warforged compaired to Iron Golems).  That said, I'd probably modify a few things were I to run an Eberron campaign, but not nearly as much as I thought I would before this thread.

Oh, and of course, Eberron is t3h suck, and would never have won the contest had I bothered to submit my -awesome-!!1!eleven!! setting.


----------



## Barak (Jul 8, 2006)

Kishin said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure about this. There's a psychological element to slavery you're neglecting here, and its perfectly possible that a slave has been conditioned to their status such that such an idea is ludicrous, especially if said slave was born a slave, rather than grabbed off a streetcorner somewhere and thrown in irons.




Probably.  But the odds of that compared to a warforged are low, especially if we are talking about a 2nd level PC class slave.


----------



## ssampier (Jul 8, 2006)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> I don't know alot about Eberron, but based on its description, I would prefer the Mystara setting for a game of high magic/technology. That campaign, or at least the Known World portion, also has a nice mix of "real world" cultures integrated with the high fantasy that makes it easier to digest. And as for pulp, the planet of Mystara is hollow, filled with dinosaurs and lost civilazations! Doesn't get more pulp than that!




I didn't know that; interesting. I may just to have... steal... that idea for my Wilderlands/Blackmoor game.


----------



## Hellcow (Jul 8, 2006)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> IAnd as for pulp, the planet of Mystara is hollow, filled with dinosaurs and lost civilazations! Doesn't get more pulp than that!



Absolutely! Of course, while not "a big empty sphere", Eberron itself also includes its inner world (Khyber). Along with the Mourning and Xen'drik, this is one of the main sources of the claim that "anything that exists in D&D has a place in Eberron." I have no particular plans to ever use derro in my campaign, but if I did, it would involve PCs descending into Khyber and discovering a hidden city of derro, never before seen by people of the surface world. 

So yes, Eberron isn't "The Hollow World" that Mystara is... but within Eberron, Khyber is certainly there for all your Journey to the Center of the Earth/Pelucidar/Vril/Agharta-inspired storylines.


----------



## Turjan (Jul 8, 2006)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> I don't know alot about Eberron, but based on its description, I would prefer the Mystara setting for a game of high magic/technology. That campaign, or at least the Known World portion, also has a nice mix of "real world" cultures integrated with the high fantasy that makes it easier to digest. And as for pulp, the planet of Mystara is hollow, filled with dinosaurs and lost civilazations! Doesn't get more pulp than that!



Didn't they have magical waste disposals and public transport in the streets of Alphatia in Mystara?


----------



## Stone Dog (Jul 8, 2006)

Kishin said:
			
		

> (Of course, this is largely conjecture, so if the Creation Forges do spawn warforged at a rabbit-like rate, all I can say is wow, where did they all go?)



Assuming an average of 2,000 warforged produced each year over the course of 33 years (fist modern warforged in 965, current year 998) gives you a world population of 66,000 spread out across five nations.  Well, mostly four.  I understand Karnnath was more into their improved undead soldiers.    Alot of them were casualties of the war or victims of human predudice and I bet around a fifth of them vanished in the Mourning event along with the rest of the population of Cyre.  I'd roughly estimate there is a world population of around 35,000 warforged remaining with no legal means of increasing their numbers (all forges were supposed to have been dismantled).  Thirty five thousand spread out to one degree or another over Aundair, Breland, Daargun, Droaam, Eldeen Reaches, Karrnath, the Lhazaar Principalities, Mournland immigrants, Thrane, Q'Barra and the Shadow Marches. 

That is where they all went.


----------



## Kishin (Jul 8, 2006)

Stone Dog said:
			
		

> Assuming an average of 2,000 warforged produced each year over the course of 33 years (fist modern warforged in 965, current year 998) gives you a world population of 66,000 spread out across five nations.  Well, mostly four.  I understand Karnnath was more into their improved undead soldiers.    Alot of them were casualties of the war or victims of human predudice and I bet around a fifth of them vanished in the Mourning event along with the rest of the population of Cyre.  I'd roughly estimate there is a world population of around 35,000 warforged remaining with no legal means of increasing their numbers (all forges were supposed to have been dismantled).  Thirty five thousand spread out to one degree or another over Aundair, Breland, Daargun, Droaam, Eldeen Reaches, Karrnath, the Lhazaar Principalities, Mournland immigrants, Thrane, Q'Barra and the Shadow Marches.
> 
> That is where they all went.




Nice work, there. That sounds very reasonable.

I was never questioning the number of warforged in the setting, myself, I was merely musing on the idea some have that the Cannith forges were spewing warforged forth in droves. 2,000/year doesn't seem too large when we consider how it was spread out across any number of forges.

In any event, I think we can even say that the the lion's share are most likely concentrated in the four remaining kingdoms of Galifar, as I can't imagine Droaam or Darguun sporting huge warforged populations.

Also, while there are two Creation Forges still running,  I assume Merrix is at least producing his new 'forged at a very limited rate in order to keep suspicions down, and I don't think there's any indication of what the Lord of Blades is doing with his. I imagine he'd be operating it at peak efficiency, but that hinges on him understanding to the same degree the Cannith artificers did. Hazy territory there, but it should rightfully scare the hell out of any inhabitant of Khorvaire who discovers the possibility that the Lord of Blades might be pumping out a new construct army on a round the clock basis.


----------



## Stone Dog (Jul 9, 2006)

Kishin said:
			
		

> I imagine he'd be operating it at peak efficiency, but that hinges on him understanding to the same degree the Cannith artificers did.



Well, to that point the forges have been built so that they require the operator to have a mark of Making.  That means that somehow the Lord of Blades has a human of Cannith providing the power of a Dragonmark.  Do with that what you will.  Is it a hostage?  A sympathetic worker?  Or is the Lord of Blades really Aaron d'Cannith gone mad at the end of the Renegade Mastermaker PrC ?


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 9, 2006)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Didn't they have magical waste disposals and public transport in the streets of Alphatia in Mystara?



Don't remember, but such a thing in a magocracy wouldn't surprise me!

I do know there was a sky-island protected by gnomish bi-planes!


----------

