# Forgotten Realms VS. Eberron. Which should I run?



## Gundark (Jan 12, 2005)

I run 2 DnD games. One is the Iron Kingdoms, which I enjoy and is quite and unique and interesting world. The other is Forgotten Realms which I run when I feel the need for "standard fantasy". Lately I've been looking at Eberron and wondering if it should replace FR.The pros of FR is that I know the world, the history, religions, orgnaizations, and I like the world. The cons is that sometimes it feels a bit bland. I don't know much about Eberron, but the stuff that is coming out for it looks very interesting. I was wanting to know about the pros and cons of the Eberron seting, and how it stacks up to FR.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 12, 2005)

It's fairly traditional in terms of technology, but a bit more radical in terms of the practical uses of magic and the sociology.

I like Eberron a lot.  It's like standard D&D to keep it familiar, but with just a twist of something else to keep it fresh.  It's not too hard to learn the setting; what's available so far, anyway, since there's just the main book, the Sharn book and the adventures in print at this point.  Novels always help, and I think the first one (authored by Keith Baker) is available sometime this month.


----------



## Henry (Jan 12, 2005)

I would go to www.wizards.com/eberron and read Keith Baker's Dragonshard articles, to get a glimpse of what the world is like. It will leave you with some questions and holes in your knowledge that only the Eberron Core book can fill in, but it may whet your appetite and see if you want more or not.

The things I like about Eberron:

--Low level good NPCs, mid to high level Neutral NPCs, some high-level evil NPCs in the default world, so that the PCs are often the only ones who can possibly do something about a catastrophic action.

--Many slight mechanics changes and conceits to make the world a more pulp/noir place, e.g. full functional evil clerics of good causes, a recent catastrophic war that the world is JUST healing from, a couple of metropolis cities ripe for urban intrigue, but plenty of untamed wildlands and ruined areas

-- not one but TWO nations of "monsters"

--plenty of environments for pirate games, lost world games, "playing the enemy/underdog" games, apocalyptic landscape games, etc.

--few to no real-world analogues for cultures, religions, etc.


What I like about the Realms:

--The tolkienistic heroism elements in the background

--The clash of medieval european, asiatic, egyptian, etc. cultures

--The ancient pockets of evil and godlike magic waiting to be encountered

--The absolutely prevailing years of history that are available for this setting.

Take your pick, but I would definitely go wander WotC's Eberron boards before I took the plunge. It will either get you going, or turn you off, and you'll make up your mind cleanly.


----------



## ZSutherland (Jan 12, 2005)

My group and I ran FR for some time, but we're going to run Eberron next and we're all very excited about it.  I think it has the following advantages over FR.

1) The Artificer and Magewright classes, Dragonmarked Houses, and world's history combine to allow magic to be a very pervasive element of the world without requiring Elminster like NPCs.  As Henry said, there are very few high level NPCs.  When your PCs reach 10th+ level their really in a very elite class, ready to tackle major world problems and feel important.

2) While I enjoy the expansive pantheons of FR, I think I prefer the smaller pantheon of Eberron, especially since the gods are so inactive in the world.  No one can be absolutely certain they even exist.  In the same vein, I like that clerics are not alignment restricted, so you can't simply trust that a cleric of diety X is good.  It allows for stories involving corruption in religion, etc.  Finally, I really like that the book suggests that most of the clergy are experts, commoners and the occassional adept.  Clerics are champions of their religion and don't sit around handing out healing magic like some sort of divine merchant.

3) With FR, I always felt like I could only focus on one section of it at a time.  It's so large and diverse, with so many important and powerful NPCs that any attempt to weave it together seemed futile.  With Eberron, it seems that would be possible, which I feel suggests a more well thought out world.

Good luck,
Z


----------



## Pseudonym (Jan 13, 2005)

I'm beginning an Eberron campaign in February.  After well over a decade in the Realms, I like the fact that my group will be heading into the unknown.  I'm looking forward to the process of discovery as I reveal more and more of the meat of the campaign setting as time goes by, rather than having a table full of people who can quote the grey box as if it were holy catechism.


----------



## BigFreekinGoblinoid (Jan 13, 2005)

The easy answer is to run what your players want, but in my experience, they may tend to choose what they know, and that may not always be the decision that leads to the most fun.

I'd suggest Eberron for many of the reasons already voiced above. 

FR is almost too familiar sometimes, but here in it's infancy, you can really make Eberron your own, instead of dealing with a lot of assumed knowledge that your players might have that you don't necessarily want their characters to know.   

One of the things I like most about IK is also true in Eberron - There seem to be more plausable explanations for the existance and application of magic. No setting is perfect in this respect, but FR is such a hodgepodge of history and the legacy of dozens and dozens of different writers, that it seems really convoluted.


----------



## IronWolf (Jan 13, 2005)

I prefer the Forgotten Realms.  I am just having a hard time getting my head around Warforged, trains and such.  I just prefer my fantasy a little more like the Realmsian world.  Of course even with that said you should certainly take a look at the Wizards site with the Eberron material and make your own decision.  The things I don't like may be things you think are great.  There are certainly a number of people having a great time in the new setting.


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Jan 13, 2005)

Eberron!

Eberron!

Eberron!


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jan 13, 2005)

Eberron, yes; Forgettable Realms, no.


----------



## Psion (Jan 13, 2005)

FR bashers will come and say Eberron

FR fans will say FR.


As for me:

I don't know about how you are, but I often have a hard time shifting gears. And once you shift, you may have a hard time shifting back. I'd ask yourself: have all the ideas about FR you consider interesting been explored in your game that you couldn't do in Eberron? If so, maybe time to try something new and move on to Eberron. But if you are the sort for whom your familiarity and knowledge is a wellspring of ideas, you may have difficulty getting there with Eberron again.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 13, 2005)

Greyhawk!


----------



## Thanee (Jan 13, 2005)

Just get the ECS and give it a try... can't do much wrong... if you don't like it, sell it on ebay  and start running FR games again.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Jan 13, 2005)

I always recommend game worlds that the players are not as familiar with. It adds to the mystery, intrigue, and sense of adventurer. It also makes the DM's life a heck of a lot easier.


----------



## Sun Wukong (Jan 13, 2005)

Once upon a time (in 2001), I was thinking "What would a D&D world be like if they actually used all those magic items and spells for the good of society?" I was a starting DM (15 years old at the time) and was never really able to flesh out the setting other than for the fact that they used _magic carpets_ and _winged boots_ for transportation in a big metropolis built with magic. So that was the end of that setting.

Then, in RoPeCon 2003, I picked up that blue Eberron pamphlet, read it, and fell in love with the setting portrayed in it, for it was everything I wanted in a setting.

In short, if you want the magic of your world to make sense, choose Eberron.

And the dinorider halflings of Talenta are just plain cool.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jan 13, 2005)

I'm a Realms fan, I make no secret of that, so I'll tell you what turns me off from Eberron.

A race of sentient golems.  Playing a fantasy robot PC just seems a little too wacky, and the entire warforged concept really stretches (breaks actually) what I'll consider themati for a "normal" D&D setting.

A D&D version of Coruscant, with the insanely tall towers we can't engineer today with 21st century technology and a population density that makes those towers more empty than farmland.

The nonsensical demographics, magic is insanely common, but PC's that should only be roughly coming of age are supposed to be world class.  Even though magic is insanely common, it's hard as heck to get divine magic cast.

The lack of real gods to the religions and the lack of alignment restrictions on Clerics.  I don't want moral ambiguity in my clerics and good faiths with evil congregations in my games, I play D&D to get away from things like religions of peace being perverted into crusades and torture and hypocritcal clergy who pervert holy books and use a good name as an excuse for hatred and intolerance.  

"Design by committee" feel.  Eberron was made so that everything from the Core Rules could be used in it, and it shows.  You can look at it and see the part that was bolted on here so that you could have this here, and here is this, and we had to make a way for suchandsuch to exist, so we came up with this.

No real personalities.  I think it was supposed to be a selling point of Eberron that their aren't any major, powerful NPC's, but I see that as unrealistic and frankly a little boring.  Eberron seems highly contrived to make PC's the center of the entire world, even if they shouldn't be.  They should be the center of the game, but not of the entire campaign world (unless it's an Epic game). 

And I'll speak in favor of the Realms, why I like it.

Analogs of real world cultures exist.  If a PC wants to play an egyptian themed character, he can be from Mulhorand, or be from Zakhara or Calimshan if you want an arabian character, and so on.  It helps PC's and DM's get a quick grip on a kingdom if it's thematically similar to a world they already know.

It feels like a real world.  It's got an unparalelled breadth and depth of setting, you can point almost anywhere on the map and have reams of information available.  If you don't want to read through it all, you can get a feel for the basics quickly and work with that, but if the PC's decide to go to some random town on the map, you can know the local culture, history, politics and the like very easily.  There may well be a powerful wizard or a renowned warrior who lives there, but he won't be at the PC's beck and call, he's got his own battles to fight and he's off adventuring too.  

More than one flavor.  Eberron is going for a dark fantasy/pulp look and feel, and the Realms are more of a traditional tolkienesque high-fantasy, however Eberron in its theme is pretty one note, while the Realms do have places that are darker, and places of wonder and discovery, and while both Eberron and the Realms have been written by many people over time (based on one persons concepts), the Realms shows more distinct voices in my experience, and it seems like it's not a one-note setting.


----------



## David Howery (Jan 13, 2005)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Greyhawk!



yes!  Bypass those other two upstart worlds and go with the best!


----------



## FireLance (Jan 13, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> No real personalities.  I think it was supposed to be a selling point of Eberron that their aren't any major, powerful NPC's, but I see that as unrealistic and frankly a little boring.  Eberron seems highly contrived to make PC's the center of the entire world, even if they shouldn't be.  They should be the center of the game, but not of the entire campaign world (unless it's an Epic game).



And I think that's the core of it. Do you want your PCs to be the centre of everything, or do you want them to be just another adventuring party among many? If you want the former, go with Eberron. If you want the latter, go with the Realms.


----------



## Darkness (Jan 13, 2005)

FireLance said:
			
		

> And I think that's the core of it. Do you want your PCs to be the centre of everything, or do you want them to be just another adventuring party among many? If you want the former, go with Eberron. If you want the latter, go with the Realms.



Does the setting make a real difference in this regard? Only if you want it to.

I've run tons of FR campaigns with no famous NPC, nor other adventurer bands, in sight.

Likewise, if you want more adventurers or other NPCs in Eberron, putting them in is easy.


----------



## Mystery Man (Jan 13, 2005)

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> Eberron, yes; Forgettable Realms, no.




 Wow, only nine posts before the witless show up.


----------



## Mystery Man (Jan 13, 2005)

Gundark said:
			
		

> I run 2 DnD games. One is the Iron Kingdoms, which I enjoy and is quite and unique and interesting world. The other is Forgotten Realms which I run when I feel the need for "standard fantasy". Lately I've been looking at Eberron and wondering if it should replace FR.




 Replace forever? Better make a dry run first before you take that big of a step. I tried that with another setting and ended up going back because it just didn't work out, your mileage may vary. However, it's good to step away and run something else for a time though.


----------



## jester47 (Jan 13, 2005)

Three words:

ITS ALL GOOD!

A.


----------



## Pseudonym (Jan 13, 2005)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> Wow, only nine posts before the witless show up.




 So anyone not avidly dryhumping Ed Greenwood's leg is witless?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 13, 2005)

I like Eberron a lot, but I haven't given up my standard FR game for it yet. On the ironic side, I have given up my FR game to run Slavelords of Cydnoia, a mega-module style vent from Bad Axe Games, but I'm using the Black Company rules for it.

Eberron, to me, is best for a new gm and a new group or those who just know too much about FR and want to be surprised again.


----------



## Gez (Jan 13, 2005)

Distorting names ("Forgettable Realms" or, in the other side, "Eboredom" or something like that) is witless. It's a 5-year-old's attack.

Eberron as that "oh, shiny, new!" feeling to it. There are lot of cool ideas. Forgotten Realms carries with it a lot of baggage that is both a strength (lots of flavourful details) and a weakness (continuity is hard). Both have very different feels, yet both are totally D&D.

If you've played or run FR a lot and want to try something new, give Eberron a try. You can always revert back to the Realms if Keith Baker's setting is not to your liking.


----------



## Christopher Lambert (Jan 13, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> The nonsensical demographics, magic is insanely common





You play FR, right?



> No real personalities.  I think it was supposed to be a selling point of Eberron that their aren't any major, powerful NPC's, but I see that as unrealistic and frankly a little boring.  Eberron seems highly contrived to make PC's the center of the entire world, even if they shouldn't be.  They should be the center of the game, but not of the entire campaign world (unless it's an Epic game).




There are a _lot_ of high-level NPCs running around. However, most of the named ones are _evil_. There's no Chosen of Mystra to steal your thunder.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 13, 2005)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> Wow, only nine posts before the witless show up.




Uncalled for don't you think? The post you responded to was very clear without being insulting and instead of trying to refute it (which isn't necessary since these are all opinionso n campaign settings), you just out and insult the poster? Bad Myster Man, no cookie for you!


----------



## Mystery Man (Jan 13, 2005)

Gez said:
			
		

> Distorting names ("Forgettable Realms" or, in the other side, "Eboredom" or something like that) is witless. It's a 5-year-old's attack.




 Thank you Gez, that just about sums it up.


----------



## Mystery Man (Jan 13, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Uncalled for don't you think? The post you responded to was very clear without being insulting and instead of trying to refute it (which isn't necessary since these are all opinionso n campaign settings), you just out and insult the poster? Bad Myster Man, no cookie for you!




 It was clearly insulting. If the witless can't get their opinion across without being insulting they get called out for what they are.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 13, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Uncalled for don't you think? The post you responded to was very clear without being insulting and instead of trying to refute it (which isn't necessary since these are all opinionso n campaign settings), you just out and insult the poster? Bad Myster Man, no cookie for you!



The actual yes/no opinion was obviously very clear, but without any supporting evidence (i.e., why he preferred one to another) its also not very helpful.

Then again, it wasn't insulting either.


----------



## Henry (Jan 13, 2005)

I think I need to sum it up for everyone: *Knock off the personal attacks, please.*

I'll further sum up that it's pointless to insult a game setting with hyperbole. The original poster wants informed opinions. He's not likely to play the setting a person loves, whichever it is, if all a person can offer is groundless badmouthing.

Anyway, on with the show!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 13, 2005)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> It was clearly insulting. If the witless can't get their opinion across without being insulting they get called out for what they are.




Who was it insulting to? The setting? Ed Greenwood?


----------



## Mystery Man (Jan 13, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Who was it insulting to? The setting? Ed Greenwood?




  It was insulting to _me_ Joe. But, this is getting way off the point of the thread. Feel free to email me if you want to discuss it.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 13, 2005)

Campaign Settings have feelings, too! 





			
				Christopher Lambert said:
			
		

> You play FR, right?




 Heh. Altho, magic isn't really so overly common in FR, just in some places, and of course, at the higher end of the scale. Commoners are just as poor as anywhere else and you can even play low-magic campaigns fairly well in many regions of the realms.

 And those NPCs are really rather irrelevant. If you don't want them you don't use them. Never had a problem with that.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Keoki (Jan 13, 2005)

Personally, I don't use either FR or Eberron, being an old school Greyhawk fan who has enough books to buy as it is. I'm familiar with and have played in both settings before, however, and I really don't think one is inherently better than the other. Both are very imaginative and fun. It depends more on your group's tastes in fantasy and gaming.

FR is much more developed, having been around longer than D&D has. So it has much more depth than Eberron at the moment. Many DMs, though, myself included, don't consider such detail to be an asset if players insist on sticking to the "real" Realms. Keeping track of all those novels, comics, computer games, etc. is a full-time job. Just ask Lucasfilm.

Eberron, on the other hand, is entirely new, giving DMs a lot of creative license to develop things on their own. Of course, they may end up "invalidated" by later Eberron source material, but that's the risk you run with any published campaign setting.

I don't know why so many people point to "a recent catastrophic war" as something interesting in Eberron. So many campaign setting feature "recent global catastrophes" (The Greyhawk War, The Time of Troubles, The Cataclysm, et al.) that it's become a cliche.

Eberron is much different in tone from most other published settings, however, in that it feels closer to sci-fi than fantasy, with walking "robots" a common site, lightning-powered trains, etc. Like Star Wars, it marries the two genres, with Eberron being closer to fantasy and SW closer to sci-fi. I assume this "fresh" approach was a conscious decision on WotC's part when they chose Keith Baker's submission, to keep D&D from becoming stale. A lot of people seem to like it, but it's just not my cup of tea.

People have different tastes, and I think that's great. If you do end up trying Eberron, though, I suggest you leave out warforged or adjust them somehow, because they're very broken. They're immune to practically everything under the sun, which is only balanced out by them being vulnerable to _shatter_ spells, basically. Good gaming!


----------



## The_Universe (Jan 13, 2005)

I prefer Eberron to the Realms, and homebrew to both.  

Eberron puts the spotlight on your PCs by design and leaves it there.  They'll be the stars of this story, because there really isn't anybody else. 

Forgotten Realms seems contrived to constantly remind them that while they may be the good guys, they're certainly not the _best _guys.  Not only does it remove some of the joy of victory, but there's a tangible loss of the fear of defeat, as well - if they don't stop the apocalypse (or whatever), they know that there's another adventuring party, or a Drizzt or Elminster or Blackstaff to solve the problem.  

Who wants to play Green Arrow to someone else's Superman?    

But YMMV.  Play what you enjoy.


----------



## LoneWolf23 (Jan 13, 2005)

I've come to enjoy Eberron mostly because of the factors mentionned above: Religion that is more about Faith then just following the orders of a Supernatural Being; magic being applied to more then just adventuring; The Warforged; Sharn; Alignment being a guideline, not a straight-jacket, and creatures who aren't bound to "ALWAYS" be of a certain Alignment (Want a Neutral Good Red Dragon?  Sure!  How about a Lawful Neutral Archon?  No Problem!  Chaotic Evil Mind Flayer?  Why Not?)...

...I admit, there are things I like about Forgotten Realms too.  The Tolkienesque flavor, the High Fantasy flavor, the recognizable cultures...  The sheer amount of existing details is rather daunting, though.

...And I haven't really checked out Iron Kingdoms, though I do have DragonMech.

Now, just to inject a little more spice in this debate:  Has anyone considered combining Eberron and Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk?


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 13, 2005)

(double post)


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 13, 2005)

Keoki said:
			
		

> If you do end up trying Eberron, though, I suggest you leave out warforged or adjust them somehow, because they're very broken. They're immune to practically everything under the sun, which is only balanced out by them being vulnerable to _shatter_ spells, basically. Good gaming!



Uh, no, that's not true at all.  They have very few of the construct immunities at all, unless you take lots of levels of the Warforged Juggernaut prestige class, and they have many of the construct frailties instead (immune to healing magic, for one.)  My experience does not indicate that they are broken at all; in fact, the warforged player in our Eberron game (who is not at all a power gamer; he's all about suboptimal characters if they're interesting, and is in fact playing one in another campaign I run) thought that if anything the Warforged could be called underpowered.

Not only that, they are a signature component of the setting; leaving them out is a bit like leaving elves out of Forgotten Realms.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jan 13, 2005)

Gez said:
			
		

> Distorting names ("Forgettable Realms" or, in the other side, "Eboredom" or something like that) is witless. It's a 5-year-old's attack.




No. It was a perfectly acceptable and economical way of displaying my contempt for an inferior setting. Why is it inferior you ask? Here are some reasons off the top of my head:

A) An ineptly cobbled together, bloated pantheon of disparate gods, many of which were lifted from the _Deities and Demigods_ book without further reflection or research (e.g., there is no Keltic "Sylvanus"--that's a Roman name) .

B) Nonsensical geography, such as a huge glacier coterminous with a hot and dry desert.

C) Anachronisms, such as an Ancient Babylonian culture and an Ancient Egyptian culture coexisting with High Middle Age cultures.

D) Lame novels that often work their way into the setting (e.g., the Avatar trilogy)

E) Lack of verisimilitude--FR doesn't even attempt what Walt Disney called the "plausible impossible."

F) Annoying, 2-D uber-NPCs

In fine, the Forgotten Realms is an inferior setting that makes for inferior fantasy. D&D would be much better off if it had remained forgotten in the dank recesses of Ed Greenwood's mind.


----------



## MetalBard (Jan 13, 2005)

*Why narrow your options?*

You might want to look someplace other than Wizards of the Coast.  I am a huge Realms fan, but I know that if one gets tired of the Realms, it's usually good to try a bit of a break.  Permament replacement might be too hasty, I would give Eberron a try with a one-shot.  I tried that with a friend who was really excited about Eberron, one that was decidely not so excited and one that hadn't really known about it, other than that it's a new D&D setting.

I found out some things I liked and didn't like about the setting and I decided not to go with it as far as DMing (playing in it would be cool for me), but it was valuable to try it out rather than making a permanent decision on it without any first hand experience.

The other thing you may want to consider is casting your net a little farther out for more traditional fantasy.  You say you're into Iron Kingdoms.  That's a pretty cool setting and there are a lot more of those out there.  There are a lot of variations on the "traditional fantasy" that you may get more mileage out of.  There's Midnight, for a more serious and probably closer to Tolkien approach than FR.  There's also Blackmoor, which has the quirkier elements of fantasy thrown in with the more typical.

Anyway, to wrap up, I would consider a setting that doesn't bump too much into the concepts that the Iron Kingdoms is covering.  Eberron may do that in unexpected ways and it sounds like you're tired of FR, so I would look around more at some of the other settings available.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 13, 2005)

LoneWolf23 said:
			
		

> Now, just to inject a little more spice in this debate:  Has anyone considered combining Eberron and Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk?



I've heard a few people talk about locating Sharn in Halruaa or some such site, but beyond that, no.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 13, 2005)

MetalBard said:
			
		

> Anyway, to wrap up, I would consider a setting that doesn't bump too much into the concepts that the Iron Kingdoms is covering.  Eberron may do that in unexpected ways and it sounds like you're tired of FR, so I would look around more at some of the other settings available.



I've heard a lot of comparisons made between IK and Eb, but I don't find them to really be very similar.  They have completely different tones and themes, and the points of similarity are much more superficial and specious than they might appear at first glance' i.e., warforged and lightning rails does not at all make Eb into a "steampunk" setting, for instance.


----------



## Mystery Man (Jan 13, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Uh, no, that's not true at all. They have very few of the construct immunities at all, unless you take lots of levels of the Warforged Juggernaut prestige class, and they have many of the construct frailties instead (immune to healing magic, for one.) My experience does not indicate that they are broken at all; in fact, the warforged player in our Eberron game (who is not at all a power gamer; he's all about suboptimal characters if they're interesting, and is in fact playing one in another campaign I run) thought that if anything the Warforged could be called underpowered.
> 
> Not only that, they are a signature component of the setting; leaving them out is a bit like leaving elves out of Forgotten Realms.




 Agreed, warforged are not overpowered at all. What they are is a race that players will fight over to play.  One of my players is wanting to run an Eb game that is months off and the arm wresting is already starting.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 13, 2005)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> Agreed, warforged are not overpowered at all. What they are is a race that players will fight over to play.  One of my players is wanting to run an Eb game that is months off and the arm wresting is already starting.



Is that because they think its a powerful race, or because it's something that's very different from what they've done before and therefore intriguing, though?  Our current Eberron game (with four players) are exploring a fair amount of the new Eberron races (we have a human, a warforged, a shifter (me) and a kalashtar) but none of that is because those races are better, it's just because, hey, that's new and different.

Hmmm...  I really need to work on cutting back on comments (in parenthesis); I rely on them too much (to be effective (at writing.))


----------



## ReignMan (Jan 13, 2005)

At the end of the day its Horses for Courses, Diferent Strokes for Different Folks, whatever you want to call it.

I'm a big fan or the traditional fantasy that is FR but I'm currently running an Eb campaign and the PC's are loving it. It's different, new, cinematic yet still based on the traditional emelments. Whether or not the novelty will wear off I don't know, the campaign is till very young.

I can't see it working for Epic campaign sessions though - PC's are allready the centre of attention at low-med level.

From a DM's point of view it's not all plain sailing, a lot of work is required to backfill adventures that are thin on detail from the core and CS books. Some encounters are a little liniar and set peice and the books don't really account for your PC's doing something out of the ordinary (e.g. My PC's came up with a really good plan and completeley obliterated an encounter from which the adventure assumed they would run away).

Agree with Henry though - go to the message boards on WOTC and get a flavour for it.


----------



## MetalBard (Jan 13, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I've heard a lot of comparisons made between IK and Eb, but I don't find them to really be very similar.  They have completely different tones and themes, and the points of similarity are much more superficial and specious than they might appear at first glance' i.e., warforged and lightning rails does not at all make Eb into a "steampunk" setting, for instance.




I completely understand this.  I was more referring to the superficial than anything else.  I'm not sure about other people, but while running two games at a time I like to keep even some of the superficial details somewhat different.  That's all.


----------



## Von Ether (Jan 13, 2005)

ReignMan said:
			
		

> At the end of the day its Horses for Courses, Diferent Strokes for Different Folks, whatever you want to call it.
> 
> I'm a big fan or the traditional fantasy that is FR but I'm currently running an Eb campaign and the PC's are loving it. It's different, new, cinematic yet still based on the traditional emelments. Whether or not the novelty will wear off I don't know, the campaign is till very young.
> 
> ...



 For someone who has no interest in Epic rules, wouldn't that be a bonus. A setting where PC are the penlutimate powers without needing another rulebook to do so?

It goes without saying a savvy FR GM could do the same by ignoring the NPCs or just having an "event" take them out. I say give Eberron a spin for a change of pace and see if it sticks. If not, you have a long running game to go back to, no loss.

***
I can't say much on FR, though, I've never played it. Most "standard" fantasy settings haven't appealed to me in a looooong time. (I used to think that made me "better" than other role-players. Now I realize it just means I'm jaded.  ). 

THe only "negative" I've ever had with game world is it's ubiquitousness. Like a muzack song that played too long, you sorta wish the background music would change at least once in a while. Overall, I am in the "DM who doesn't need continuity-fan players know more about the game world than he does" catagory.


----------



## Henry (Jan 13, 2005)

Guys and Gals, I'll say it one more time: _*Knock off the personal attacks, or people start getting bans.*_

Surely we can discuss pros and cons without nastiness.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 13, 2005)

> Henry, via Joshua Dyal]EDIT - Removed Joshua's comment on Gez's comment about Brennan's comment - Henry



D'oh!  Sorry!


----------



## ZSutherland (Jan 13, 2005)

I originally posted with a general favor towards Eberron, and I stand by it, but to be fair I thought I'd mention some things I don't particularly like about Eberron and some things I do like about FR.  Keep in mind that I have run a good deal of FR but have only prepared the beginnings of a campaign for Eberron.

Eberron Cons:

1) The new races.  I really like Changeling, but am fairly ambivalent towards Kalashtar since I don't have the Expanded Psi HB yet.  As for Shifter and Warforged, I'm not a huge fan.  I really liked Monte Cook's AU, though not Diamond Throne, but I just can't get into fuzzy races.  I think it may have something to do with the fact that they're generally represented as being crude dolts, and Eberron's shifters are no exception.  I don't mind the race, per se, but I don't like it as a PC option.  Warforged strikes me as weak mechanically and kind of boring (mileage obviously varies since many are apparently quite excited by them.)  Again, I don't mind the race, but it strikes me as a poor choice for a PC.

2) Religion.  I like the very large and well fleshed-out pantheons in FR.  It makes sense to me because religion and faith play such a large role in the campaign setting.  Eberron's religion seems like it was intended to be less intrusive.  However, their pantheons (while small in comparison to FR) seems bulky for the intent.  Nine gods in one pantheon, six in another, the silver flame, the blood of Vol, 5 specified druidic orders with textual indications that there are more, etc.  That's quite a bit of religion for a fairly sparse population where dieties are gods not GODS.

3) Dragons.  I really like the concept of a large group of philosopher/seer dragons who engage themselves with concerns far beyond the lesser races' ken.  However, I'm mildly irked that the text suggests that nearly all the dragons live on this particular island/continent that's basically inaccessible to the PCs.  It sort of takes the Dragons out of Dungeons & Dragons.  I realize I can ignore this as the DM, but we're talking about actual facets of the setting.

Forgotten Realms (Pros)

1) Highly diverse terrain.  I, like others, don't like the glacier parked next to the desert, but I'm glad there is a glacial plain and a serious desert area (a few actually).  It makes it easy for me to escape the woodsy feel that infuses so much of D&D.

2) NPC Organizations.  These abound in FR.  Admittedly, there are many present in Eberron as well, but simply due to the longer life of FR, they are more fully developed and you're probably more familiar with them if you've been running FR for quite a long time. They make planning intrigue and adventures easy by supplying you with an extensive list of potential antagonists and supporters for your PCs.

3) High Magic.  Magic is prevelant in both settings, but in Eberron it's more mundane.  That strikes my mood at the moment, but I do like the intense, in your face feel to magic in FR.  I disagree with those who say FR is tolkienesque.  Magic in LotR is a fairly subtle effect.  In FR, it's huge and everywhere.  Dragons lair all over the place, the gods take an active hand in the events of the mortal world, spell casters are common, pockets of wild magic dot the landscape, etc.  It's obvious why there are so many adventurers in the Realms.  There's so much for them to do.

Anyway, I hope these help you get a feel for Eberron.  Henry's right in that you can probably find better info on Wizard's boards.  I know there's a primer stickied near the top of the Eberron board there that gives a broad overview.

Z


----------



## MerricB (Jan 13, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> I'm a Realms fan, I make no secret of that, so I'll tell you what turns me off from Eberron.
> 
> No real personalities.  I think it was supposed to be a selling point of Eberron that their aren't any major, powerful NPC's, but I see that as unrealistic and frankly a little boring.  Eberron seems highly contrived to make PC's the center of the entire world, even if they shouldn't be.  They should be the center of the game, but not of the entire campaign world (unless it's an Epic game).




In fact, Eberron definitely has personalities. It's one of the stronger features of the world. What it doesn't have is 23rd level Wizards or similar running around.

Instead it has lower-level characters with _influence_. If you annoy the head of House Jorasco, your access to healing magic will be cut off pretty much entirely...

A good Eberron campaign should make use of recurring NPCs. Patrons, enemies, allies and the like.

In the first three Eberron adventures - _The Forgotten Forge_, _Shadows of the Last War_ and _Whispers of the Vampire's Blade_ - the idea of recurring NPCs is used, and very effectively. The meetings with the party's patron, Lady Elaydren, are entirely different in feel, and provide much impetus for the adventures that follow.

Then too, you have mysterious characters like Baron Merrix d'Cannith. Grandson of the original creator of the warforged, we know that he's somewhere in the depths of Sharn maintaining the illegal manufacture of warforged, but he doesn't step out onto centre stage - but his activities do, as seen in a _Dungeon Magazine_ adventure.

With _Sharn: City of Towers_, several new NPCs have been added to the mix. From politicians such as the Lord Mayor, to important religious figures such as Archierophant Ythana Morr, to the artists like the satirist Kessler, _Sharn_ gives a new look at Eberron and at how the NPCs can relate to the PCs. Although Eberron can easily be run in a standard D&D style, it also has plenty of material for politics and intrigue.

Personalities? Eberron has them. It's just that they have to be subtler than just being able to kill the PCs. Thus, they will attempt to gain the allegiance of the PCs, because whoever influences the PCs will have influence over one of the major forces of Eberron.

Cheers!


----------



## jester47 (Jan 14, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> While technically an anachronism really only refers to something out of place in time; i.e., Julius Caesar consulting his wristwatch to get the exact time of Vercingetorix's surrender or something like that, in common usage (especially in fantasy) it's used to refer to any element that's out of place.  There's really no better word for it either.




Yes there is: 

*Non sequitur*
-OED definition #2: A thing that is not in harmony with its surroundings; an incongruity. 
-OED definition #3: An inference or a conclusion not logically following from the premisses; a response, remark, etc., that does not logically follow from what has gone before.

An anachronism is a nonsequitur with respect to time.  Since fantasy is ahistorical, it does not and cannot have anachronisms except in its own continuity.  It can however have non sequiturs, and in fact these often are what make fantasy interesting as the non sequitur is what generates surrealism.  Surrealism is what makes fantasy fun.  

The Glacier next to the Desert is a classic non sequitur that generates surrealism.  Thus is fully acceptable in the fantasy genre.

As for Anarouch and the Great Glacier-  Anarouch is an artifically created desert.  The Glacier is an atificially enhanced glacier (From the neaklace of an Ice God).  The lattitude of Waterdeep is about at the 45th parallel of Toril.  Anything north of that is generally cold, even Anarouch *It is noted in the materials that the northern reaches of Anarouch are very cold in the winter, and fairly warm in the summer as per a cold desert at that lattitude.*  The glacier is sustained by a god.  And even if it wasn't the mean annual temperature at that lattiude in a dry climate would have a hard time denting a glacier of that size.  

And cold deserts are not too far removed from reality.  If I drive 3 hours east of Seattle, I am in one.  Spokane gets into the 100s in the summer and is in the deep freeze in the winter.  Aside from the river valleys there, Eastern Washington State is a desert in most places.  The Mongolians agree, they have some deserts that get really cold and really hot right next to glaciers forests and mountains.  Washington is very much the same in that if I were hiking I could make it from a glacier into a desert inside of 3 days.  

Anarouch and the High Ice/Great Glacier are quasi-non sequiturs.  They have reasons for being there and the weather and temp patterns around them are explained in a believable way.  I am not sure how much realism you can expect from a genre built on the non sequitur and the plot device. 



			
				Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> A) An ineptly cobbled together, bloated pantheon of disparate gods, many of which were lifted from the Deities and Demigods book without further reflection or research (e.g., there is no Keltic "Sylvanus"--that's a Roman name)




This description is applicable to the Wilderlands and to an extent, Greyhawk also... perhaps you don't like borrowed pantheons... anyways, why care about real world research in a FANTASY world?  It doesn't really matter. 



> B) Nonsensical geography, such as a huge glacier coterminous with a hot and dry desert.




Anarouch aint all that hot in the north bucko.  This is debunked above, in FR background and in real world examples. 



> C) Anachronisms, such as an Ancient Babylonian culture and an Ancient Egyptian culture coexisting with High Middle Age cultures.




Even though anachronisms in fantasy have been debunked above, I really don't see what is wrong with this.  Babylonian and Egyptian culture existed in our world and the people of these places were brought to Faerun (a Medieval style culture) from Earth.  Its not that they developed historically that way, magic was involved. 



> E) Lack of verisimilitude--FR doesn't even attempt what Walt Disney called the "plausible impossible."
> 
> F) Annoying, 2-D uber-NPCs




Both of these are the dominion of the DM, no matter the setting.  If I want annoying 2D uber PCs in my Eberron game, guess what?  Eberron becomes the twink uber NPC world.  I just have to make them up.  The same is true for Versimilitude.  Its the DMs call.  If you have a problem with the Campaign setting doing this then you probably have a problem with your DM and don't know it.  When you see non-sensical geography there is ussually a reason in the world for it.    

Dissing FANTASY campaign settings based on lack of versimilitude and non sequiturs is stupid.  THEY ARE ALL GOOD.  Each one offers different variations on the same things.  Enjoy them for what they offer.  People should not be so intellectually arrogant that they can't have fun with them.  

Aaron.


----------



## Bobitron (Jan 14, 2005)

I think Baker and the rest of WOTC have done an amazing job with Eberron, and there is finally a "generic" D&D world that is not without flavor. It is currently my second favorite setting after, of course, the incredible Iron Kingdoms. I will always have a soft spot for FR, but I don't expect I will ever start a new campaign there.

Edit: Hi Gundark! Nice to see another face from the PP boards on here


----------



## Christopher Lambert (Jan 14, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Heh. Altho, magic isn't really so overly common in FR, just in some places, and of course, at the higher end of the scale. Commoners are just as poor as anywhere else and you can even play low-magic campaigns fairly well in many regions of the realms.




Magic is very common in 3e. As a 3e-designed setting, Eberron fits the rules better.



> And those NPCs are really rather irrelevant. If you don't want them you don't use them. Never had a problem with that.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




Easier said than done. You know they're there, and they can do your job better than you. There's little point of playing an adventure such as "City of the Spider Queen" when the Chosen of Mystra could do the job for you.



			
				Keoki said:
			
		

> I don't know why so many people point to "a recent catastrophic war" as something interesting in Eberron. So many campaign setting feature "recent global catastrophes" (The Greyhawk War, The Time of Troubles, The Cataclysm, et al.) that it's become a cliche.




FR has suffered many such crises. These catastrophic events tend to be unpopular, however. (See the Dark Sun thread, and the anger about the Prism Pentad novels, or ask DragonLance fans what they think of so many Ages in so few generations.) The Time of Troubles is probably the least popular aspect of FR.

PS IMO the FR pantheon is too big and redundant. (Err... and someone kill Eilistraee. Please.) The Eberron deities are much better. They don't interfere, they will never create a Chosen, they will never appear as an avatar, they rarely (if ever) talk, they don't spark racial wars over petty dislikes, and they won't possess a certain drow wizardess who I will not name so she can kill her chief rival because she's too much of a wimp to do it herself, and then throw the deity away with no consequences whatsoever!


----------



## Gez (Jan 14, 2005)

Christopher Lambert said:
			
		

> There's little point of playing an adventure such as "City of the Spider Queen" when the Chosen of Mystra could do the job for you.




They could. But can they? Don't they have some other work to do? In my homebrew setting, there are several very powerful characters, too. They don't interfer with the players' adventures, they're too busy fending off attacks from malafides, ethergaunts, kaorti, illithids, and similar threats to the whole world. No time to fight a petty dictatorship or an ogre infestation.

All the PCs have heard of them were pretty vague stuff (things like "Caleor the Elder's knowledge about planar anomalies is awe-inspiring, matched only by the demented gynosphinx Kelarie of the Mysteries' lore"). They have no idea what they do, and it'll stay that way.

And it was the same in the FR campaigns I played in. Sure, everyone has heard of Elminster, the legendary sage. But he's somewhere in the Nine Hells, for whatever reason, and can't help right now.

And it's the same in Eberron. You have A CONTINENT FULL OF ANCIENT DRAGON LOREMASTERS, for Aureon's sake! That's not exactly wimpy. And they have an excellent reason to know of that Daelkyr plot to _polymorph any object_ the whole friggin' planet into a needle: they knew it through the Prophecy, and their Chamber spies. Why don't they take it on themselves?

Because it's not their job. It's an adventurer's job. And they aren't adventurers. That's why.


----------



## ReignMan (Jan 14, 2005)

Von Ether said:
			
		

> For someone who has no interest in Epic rules, wouldn't that be a bonus. A setting where PC are the penlutimate powers without needing another rulebook to do so?
> 
> 
> THe only "negative" I've ever had with game world is it's ubiquitousness. Like a muzack song that played too long, you sorta wish the background music would change at least once in a while. Overall, I am in the "DM who doesn't need continuity-fan players know more about the game world than he does" catagory.





I agree - if you want High Profile & High Power at low level then Eberron is great. It's a good setting but not to everyones taste. I personally like it, and, more importantly my PC's do.


----------



## jester47 (Jan 14, 2005)

Christopher Lambert said:
			
		

> Magic is very common in 3e. As a 3e-designed setting, Eberron fits the rules better.




I dunno I think this is an interpretive illusion.  I don't find magic to be very common in any 3e game.  I think the commonality of magic is simply part of the story the DM develops.  



			
				Talking about Uber NPCs said:
			
		

> Easier said than done. You know they're there, and they can do your job better than you. There's little point of playing an adventure such as "City of the Spider Queen" when the Chosen of Mystra could do the job for you.




Yeah, great idea, at work I will stop doing stuff because my boss can do web application security better tham me.  I figure he can do the job for me.  Oh wait, he has other, bigger fish to fry, like really complicated exploits.  Hrm.  Maybe I should keep doing stuff.  The flaw in the above logic is that while it correctly assumes that there is a number of dogooders of varying skill level, it fails to consider that there is an equal and opposite number of dobadders.  The assumption being that the only problem in the world is one confronting the players.

This is a result of  metagame thinking.  The player knows that in real life the DM probably only has one problem to throw at the player characters.   So what the player does is projects this real world knowledge into the game and assumes that said challenge is the only one of consequence at the moment in the game world.  This is when the question as to why the uber characters are not taking care of said problem arises.  If we re-examine the nature of the world we find that there are many other problems pressing the resources of those who fight for "good" in the forgotten realms.  

Lets see, we have the problems with City of the Spider Queen, we have the Phaerimm, we have the Zhents up to their old tricks, we have King Olbuld Many Arrows prepping to take over stuff in the north when millions of march out of the Spine of the World because there is not enough food in the mountains, we have the machinations of the behind the scenes events of the Thayans, The Yuan Ti, and the Xanthanr's Guild, we have the cult of the dragon consolidating power around the Well of Dragons, we have Cormyr in chaos because the king is 3 and too many people want the throne, and the list goes on.  

Yeah, the Uber characters can handle all that.  Sure. /sarcasm.  If it were just one guy with a lot of power causing the big problem, then yeah, the chosen or whoever could take care of it.  But almost all of the operations listed above are happening on an organisational or distributed scale.  There are just too many evil doers for 12 really poerful people to take on.  

Its the age old superman question.  If you are superman, who do you help first?  You are not going to be able to get everywhere and stop every evildoer or save everyone.  The same is true for the Uber NPCs.  Achilles can only kill one man at a time. He still needs an army to win the war.  



> PS IMO the FR pantheon is too big and redundant.




Well see thats the problem.  There is no FR pantheon.  There are the FR Pantheons.   The gods in FR are made up of pantheons that have clashed, been absorbed, killed off and mixed up.  In truth this is very realistic its a pattern that shows up all over our world.  I mean Mithras was Babylonian but he was worshiped by many many Romans.  The Romans did not all worship the Roman gods.  There were numerous cults from different cultures all over the empire.  



> (Err... and someone kill Eilistraee. Please.)




Trust me my friend, FR gets a lot better if you look at the game setting and the novels as two different worlds.  When you do this, you get control over Eilistraee, because none of that stuff in the novels ever happened.  I would suggest not reading the novels if they make it hard to separate your game from the author's imagination.  

I like reading the Drizzt books, they are fun.  But don't think for a minute I am going to let it change my FR game.  

The novels do not advance the setting.  The setting books do.  The setting may draw on some of the stories of the novels, but it comes down to what the setting book says.  For example, if you try to use the novels and the setting books to figure out what happened to Tilverton, you will get about 3 different stories.  All of them vastly different.  I get to choose what happens also.  If I don't like the Shadowvar coming back, they don't come back.  If I don't want Cormyr in Chaos, the chaos gets sorted out right quick.  

TRust me, forget about the novels.  Think of it as published fanfic cause thats what it is.  



> The Eberron deities are much better.  They don't interfere, they will never create a Chosen, they will never appear as an avatar, they rarely (if ever) talk, they don't spark racial wars over petty dislikes,




But the reason Greek mythology is so great is because the Greek gods do all the stuff you said the Eberron gods didn't.  Oh wait we were talking about the FR deities... who behave the exact same way.  Hmmmm...

Aaron.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jan 14, 2005)

I strongly disagree that Eberron has only one tone. I think it actually presents hooks for more sorts of adventures than the typical D&D world does, and I've read most of them since the days of 1E. Everything from "All Quiet on the Western Front" to "Raiders of the Lost Arc" to "Mad Max" to the more FR-iffic LotR analogues are totally viable.

Heck, they've even found a way to make psionics fit (which still amazes me), make the clunky "aberrations" category at least as compelling as the demon or devil categories (more, actually, in the native cosmology), make pirate adventures a comfortable fit (they never really worked for me in Faerun) and hell, they made GNOMES cool without changing the race (on the surface) an iota. That alone is a pretty remarkable achievement.

They even broke drow out of the traditional mold. They're still there -- and can be quite ubiquitious in games, in a very natural way, if the DM wants them to be -- but no more D3-by-way-of-Salvatore bits, at long last.

Eberron is not what its detractors -- or even an unbiased cursory glance -- would make it out to be. It really is possessed of a lot of interesting depth and is definitely set up for both high adventure (pulp) and very mature RP gameplay (noir).

It's hard to over-recommend it.


----------



## ecliptic (Jan 14, 2005)

I got bored of Eberron quickly, sold all my books. I simply didn't like it.


----------



## Christopher Lambert (Jan 14, 2005)

Gez said:
			
		

> They could. But can they? Don't they have some other work to do? In my homebrew setting, there are several very powerful characters, too. They don't interfer with the players' adventures, they're too busy fending off attacks from malafides, ethergaunts, kaorti, illithids, and similar threats to the whole world. No time to fight a petty dictatorship or an ogre infestation.




High level characters don't fight off petty dictatorships or ogre infestations... certainly not the latter.



> All the PCs have heard of them were pretty vague stuff (things like "Caleor the Elder's knowledge about planar anomalies is awe-inspiring, matched only by the demented gynosphinx Kelarie of the Mysteries' lore"). They have no idea what they do, and it'll stay that way.




So they haven't heard how one mage runs a city and has never lost a mage duel and, oh yeah, is a superlative adventurer to boot?

Elminster, Storm and the SImbul are also known as powerful troubleshooters.



> And it's the same in Eberron. You have A CONTINENT FULL OF ANCIENT DRAGON LOREMASTERS, for Aureon's sake! That's not exactly wimpy. And they have an excellent reason to know of that Daelkyr plot to _polymorph any object_ the whole friggin' planet into a needle: they knew it through the Prophecy, and their Chamber spies. Why don't they take it on themselves?




Because they're not good aligned and they don't adventure ... unlike the Chosen of Mystra, Drizzt, and the umpteen number of high-powered good aligned NPCs running around Faerun.


----------



## Christopher Lambert (Jan 14, 2005)

jester47 said:
			
		

> I dunno I think this is an interpretive illusion.  I don't find magic to be very common in any 3e game.  I think the commonality of magic is simply part of the story the DM develops.




The players are covered in magic items. I don't think that's part of the story the DM develops 



> Yeah, great idea, at work I will stop doing stuff because my boss can do web application security better tham me.  I figure he can do the job for me.  Oh wait, he has other, bigger fish to fry, like really complicated exploits.  Hrm.  Maybe I should keep doing stuff.  The flaw in the above logic is that while it correctly assumes that there is a number of dogooders of varying skill level, it fails to consider that there is an equal and opposite number of dobadders.  The assumption being that the only problem in the world is one confronting the players.




Web security application isn't fatal, last time I checked.

FR was supposed to be about the villains, and it doesn't feel that way. The villains always lose, frequently because they're being stared down by incredibly competent, intelligent and powerful do-gooders who are way better than them and, oh yeah, fated to win anyway.



> This is a result of  metagame thinking.  The player knows that in real life the DM probably only has one problem to throw at the player characters.   So what the player does is projects this real world knowledge into the game and assumes that said challenge is the only one of consequence at the moment in the game world.  This is when the question as to why the uber characters are not taking care of said problem arises.  If we re-examine the nature of the world we find that there are many other problems pressing the resources of those who fight for "good" in the forgotten realms.
> 
> Lets see, we have the problems with City of the Spider Queen, we have the Phaerimm, we have the Zhents up to their old tricks, we have King Olbuld Many Arrows prepping to take over stuff in the north when millions of march out of the Spine of the World because there is not enough food in the mountains, we have the machinations of the behind the scenes events of the Thayans, The Yuan Ti, and the Xanthanr's Guild, we have the cult of the dragon consolidating power around the Well of Dragons, we have Cormyr in chaos because the king is 3 and too many people want the throne, and the list goes on.
> 
> ...




FR is filled with _multiple_ powerful do-gooders. If there was only Elminster, he couldn't deal with all this. But a quick do-over of the Heroes' Lorebook gives you good-aligned Chosen of at least two deities, not to mention 20th-level kings, archmages of multiple kingdoms, cities with at least six archmages, cities with 8 or 9 paladins who might as well be Chosen, cities run by good-aligned Chosen...

You're still playing second fiddle in that setting.



> Well see thats the problem.  There is no FR pantheon.  There are the FR Pantheons.   The gods in FR are made up of pantheons that have clashed, been absorbed, killed off and mixed up.  In truth this is very realistic its a pattern that shows up all over our world.  I mean Mithras was Babylonian but he was worshiped by many many Romans.  The Romans did not all worship the Roman gods.  There were numerous cults from different cultures all over the empire.




Yeah, realistic, right down to the species war and magic.



> But the reason Greek mythology is so great is because the Greek gods do all the stuff you said the Eberron gods didn't.  Oh wait we were talking about the FR deities... who behave the exact same way.  Hmmmm...




You should check out the Egyptian pantheon. It's a _lot_ smaller.


----------



## Prince of Happiness (Jan 14, 2005)

I'm not helpful: I like my version of the Shining South.


----------



## jester47 (Jan 14, 2005)

Christopher Lambert said:
			
		

> The players are covered in magic items. I don't think that's part of the story the DM develops




Yes, it is.  If I don't want my players to have a magic item, they don't get it.  Period.  There is nothing about 3e that says your characters should have X ammount of magic.  You can assume that from the "fair wealth table" that they are supposed to have X ammount of stuff, but thats just so they can keep pace with the monsters.  No, not in my games.  The fact that I can state the previous sentence and have it be true indicates that your above ascetation is patently false.  Rule 0.



> Web security application isn't fatal, last time I checked.




I was talking about responsibilities.  It would be the same if I was a power line worker.



> FR was supposed to be about the villains, and it doesn't feel that way. The villains always lose, frequently because they're being stared down by incredibly competent, intelligent and powerful do-gooders who are way better than them and, oh yeah, fated to win anyway.




This is in the novels only.  Of course the main characters are fated to win, the plot is on thier side.  In your game it is as different as the DM wants it to be.  



> FR is filled with _multiple_ powerful do-gooders. If there was only Elminster, he couldn't deal with all this. But a quick do-over of the Heroes' Lorebook gives you good-aligned Chosen of at least two deities, not to mention 20th-level kings, archmages of multiple kingdoms, cities with at least six archmages, cities with 8 or 9 paladins who might as well be Chosen, cities run by good-aligned Chosen...




Right, so thats what maybe a couple of thousand powerful (level 10+) dogooders?  Vs the multitudes of Zhentarim, a number of Yuan Ti Lords equal to the number of 10th level + do gooders, etc etc.  There are more problems in the FR than there are 10th level + do gooders to deal with.  



> You're still playing second fiddle in that setting.




Only if you put stock in the novels and your DM wants you to. 



> Yeah, realistic, right down to the species war and magic.




We seemed to have erradicated Homo Erectus pretty well in this world pretty well.  Why can't people try it in FR?  Sorcerers and Witches were known in greek times too...



> You should check out the Egyptian pantheon. It's a _lot_ smaller.



[/QUOTE]

And used in FR. 



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Eberron is not what its detractors -- or even an unbiased cursory glance -- would make it out to be. It really is possessed of a lot of interesting depth and is definitely set up for both high adventure (pulp) and very mature RP gameplay (noir).  It's hard to over-recommend it.




Forgotten Realms is not what its detractors -- or even an unbiased cursory glance -- would make it out to be. It really is possessed of a lot of interesting depth and is definitely set up for both high adventure (pulp) and very mature RP gameplay (noir).  It's hard to over-recommend it.

Its funny, I can find this to be true of any campaign setting.  I think if you find a setting to not fit this description you are doing one or more of several things:  Letting someone elses (DM or Author's) perception shape yours, not reading enough of the setting material, not really making an effort to understand it, or failing to coallate all its contents.  

FR was/is a great setting.  But it got hurt by its novels and 2nd edition.  Wilderlands of course is the best, because it has no novels, never was 2e, and is mouldable enough to be what any DM wants it to be.  But just because I think Wilderlands is a better setting does not make FR a bad one.  It is very usable and very versitile.  And as they keep rewriting it for 3e it becomes less and less what its detractors claim it to be.  FWIW Chris- 10 years ago I would have agreed with you.  17 years ago I would have disagreed.  Now I disagree because the realms got fixed. 

Aaron.


----------



## Darkness (Jan 14, 2005)

> a quick do-over of the Heroes' Lorebook gives you good-aligned Chosen of at least two deities, not to mention 20th-level kings, archmages of multiple kingdoms, cities with at least six archmages, cities with 8 or 9 paladins who might as well be Chosen, cities run by good-aligned Chosen...



A lot of that was because of TSR's policy that evil must be dumb.

Fortunately, WotC did a lot to fix that in 3e.

Azoun IV (the 20th-level king) is dead and Cormyr has lost quite a bit of its prowess and glory.
Bane is back.
The Zhentarim are probably stronger than ever. (Manshoon is a badass now. Fzoul is a Chosen. They secretly control their former rival, Mulmaster. And so on.)
The shades are back.
The Red Wizards have finally started acting _smart_.
A lot of minor evil organizations (e.g., People of the Black Blood) have cropped up as well.
Kiaransalee has become stronger.
Orcus is worshipped as a deity.
There's much more evil, and a bit less good, than in previous, TSR-tainted editions.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jan 14, 2005)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> Wow, only nine posts before the witless show up.



Please refrain from personal insults.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jan 14, 2005)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> It was clearly insulting.



No. It. Wasn't.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jan 14, 2005)

Eberron = good
Best Forgotten Realms = bad


----------



## Darkness (Jan 15, 2005)

Hey Doug, it's cool that you're trying to help but Henry already addressed the problems in this thread. Let's move on.


----------



## The_Gunslinger658 (Jan 15, 2005)

Hi-

To the original poster; FR is a great setting, Eberron is also a cool setting, in fact there are alot of parts in Eberron I like, the Artificer, Sharn, Changling and so on. This is stuff I plan to add to my FR campaign. I could see the city of Sharn as an underdark Drow stronghold. The Warforged as a cylon type of race trying to eradicate all living things, the ideas are limitless.

So buy both products and mix them up, heck, throw the city of Greyhawk in for good measure. ; )


Scott


----------



## Gundark (Jan 15, 2005)

Thanks for the input

Well I talked to my group and asked them what they wanted. We considered Iron Kingdoms however since the world book isn't out yet we decided to hold off on that. We took a good look at Eberron and considered that while it is definetly a cool setting we thought that something that was familiar was what we wanted in the end. So we chose to go with FR for now. I think I will pick up the Eberron book eventually. The whole uber -powerful PC in FR doesn't bother me. I use them to help the storyline along not to steal the story away. I can see of the patheon in FR is annoying. The Gods in the Iron Kingdoms sounds similar to Eberron. They give spells and influence clerics but they are never involved directly with the inhabitants of Caen. Anyhow I'll stop Iron Kingdoms pimping.


----------



## rounser (Jan 15, 2005)

> Eberron = good
> Best Forgotten Realms = bad



Four legs good!
Two legs baaaad!


----------



## IronWolf (Jan 15, 2005)

Gundark said:
			
		

> Thanks for the input
> 
> Well I talked to my group and asked them what they wanted. We considered Iron Kingdoms however since the world book isn't out yet we decided to hold off on that. We took a good look at Eberron and considered that while it is definetly a cool setting we thought that something that was familiar was what we wanted in the end. So we chose to go with FR for now. I think I will pick up the Eberron book eventually. The whole uber -powerful PC in FR doesn't bother me. I use them to help the storyline along not to steal the story away.




Good to hear your group made a decision!  I am sure it will work out fine since the group seems to be in agreement as to which setting to pursue.


----------



## Von Ether (Jan 15, 2005)

IronWolf said:
			
		

> Good to hear your group made a decision!  I am sure it will work out fine since the group seems to be in agreement as to which setting to pursue.



 Indeed. There's a classic rpg condrum. The GM has one thing in mind and the players the other.


----------



## BigFreekinGoblinoid (Jan 15, 2005)

BigFreekinGoblinoid said:
			
		

> The easy answer is to run what your players want, but in my experience, they may tend to choose what they know...




Sigh... They always choose the devil they know.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jan 15, 2005)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Please refrain from personal insults.
> 
> No. It. Wasn't [insulting].
> 
> ...




Thank you, fellow Kelt!


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jan 15, 2005)

jester47 said:
			
		

> I mean Mithras was Babylonian but he was worshiped by many many Romans.




Mithras was Indo-Iranian, not Babylonian.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jan 15, 2005)

jester47 said:
			
		

> An anachronism is a nonsequitur with respect to time.  Since fantasy is ahistorical, it does not and cannot have anachronisms except in its own continuity.




No. FR is supposed to be a parallel earth that has had contact with our earth. Also, fantasy cannot be completely ahistorical or it would be nonsensical (i.e., we have no point of reference if it is not at least nominally grounded in real world history).



> The Glacier next to the Desert is a classic non sequitur that generates surrealism.  Thus is fully acceptable in the fantasy genre.




To you, perhaps.




> Anarouch and the High Ice/Great Glacier are quasi-non sequiturs.  They have reasons for being there and the weather and temp patterns around them are explained in a believable way.




To you, perhaps. I think a huge chunk of permafrost coterminous with a dry, sandy wasteland is ridiculous, even for a fantasy setting.




> This description is applicable to the Wilderlands and to an extent, Greyhawk also... perhaps you don't like borrowed pantheons... anyways, why care about real world research in a FANTASY world?  It doesn't really matter.




You may be correct about the Wilderlands, but you are wrong about Greyhawk.



> Anarouch aint all that hot in the north bucko.  This is debunked above, in FR background and in real world examples.




I had to write "hot and dry desert" because a certain pedant pointed out that Antarctica is a desert the last time I raised my objection, though he knew full well what I meant.



> Even though anachronisms in fantasy have been debunked above, I really don't see what is wrong with this.  Babylonian and Egyptian culture existed in our world and the people of these places were brought to Faerun (a Medieval style culture) from Earth.  Its not that they developed historically that way, magic was involved.




Uh-huh. First of all, they were brought into the world several thousands of years in the past, as I recall, and yet they have not changed one iota, even though they have been in contact with the "native" Faerunians. Secondly, that explanation about those to cultures being imported from another world is post hoc, as is the one about Anauroch and the Great Glacier (I have the original boxed set and the subsequent hardback from 1990 or so--neither mention those events).




> Dissing FANTASY campaign settings based on lack of versimilitude and non sequiturs is stupid.  THEY ARE ALL GOOD.




To you, perhaps.


----------



## Gez (Jan 15, 2005)

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> To you, perhaps. I think a huge chunk of permafrost coterminous with a dry, sandy wasteland is ridiculous, even for a fantasy setting.




More ridiculous than building buildings atop other buildings for several miles in height, without everything crumbling under its own weight or tumbling down at the first storm? You have that in Eberron.

More ridiculous than people living both on the outer and the inner surface of a hollow world, with rotational inertia (the so-called centrifugal force) being enough to more than compensate for the gravity inside, but not outside, and all that without the whole planet exploding? You have that in Mystara.

More ridiculous than having the very embodiment of primordial Good and primordial Evil rubbing elbows in a gothic city and talking with a fake cockney accent? You have that in Planescape.

More ridiculous than having everything around you, from people to insects to cacti to just plain old dumb rock, possessing psionic powers and personally wanting to feed on your blood? You have that in Dark Sun.

More ridiculous than three whole populations of suicidal midget still living and even thriving despite a mortality rate tenfold the birthrate for countless eons? You have that in Dragonlance.

I can go on, and enumerate all the sillyness inherent in Greyhawk, Spelljammer, Birthright, _any D&D setting_, including my homebrew and -- just give me mind-reading powers -- your own, if you have made one. It's fantasy. Who cares about weather pattern in a world with druids who can cast _control weathers_?


----------



## Mystery Man (Jan 16, 2005)

Doug Mcrae said:
			
		

> No. It. Wasn't.




  Ah it's the old "yes it is, no it isn't" argurment. Hard to argue with logic like that. 

 You simply must understand that going out of your way to diss someone elses setting makes you look like a jackass. It's fine to say I don't like this setting "because", it's fine to be critical as long as you give reasons why. No one is going to fault you your opinion. But to be insulting with Ebersuck, or Forgettable Realms is childish. You step on someone elses dreams when you do that, and if it brings you joy and amusment to do so that is not only sad and scary but pretty pathetic as well. 



			
				Gundark said:
			
		

> Thanks for the input
> 
> Well I talked to my group and asked them what they wanted. We considered Iron Kingdoms however since the world book isn't out yet we decided to hold off on that. We took a good look at Eberron and considered that while it is definetly a cool setting we thought that something that was familiar was what we wanted in the end. So we chose to go with FR for now. I think I will pick up the Eberron book eventually. The whole uber -powerful PC in FR doesn't bother me. I use them to help the storyline along not to steal the story away. I can see of the patheon in FR is annoying. The Gods in the Iron Kingdoms sounds similar to Eberron. They give spells and influence clerics but they are never involved directly with the inhabitants of Caen. Anyhow I'll stop Iron Kingdoms pimping.




  Have a good campaign mang.


----------



## Bobitron (Jan 16, 2005)

Gundark said:
			
		

> Anyhow I'll stop Iron Kingdoms pimping.




Don't stop!

It's the best of all the published settings, and that's before there is even a world book.


----------



## Darkness (Jan 16, 2005)

This thread has outlived its usefulness in more ways than one. Closed.


----------

