D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[EzekielRaiden]

You have that bass ackwards.

Eberron, and its author, makes extremely clear that the one--and only--reason that official-D&D content isn't included in Eberron, is because the GM, purely personally, desired not to include it.

The DM isn't excluding anything from Eberron, which is the point. Nothing outside of Eberron proper is included unless the DM adds it in, not excludes it.

For example. Elves are in the Forgotten Realms. As DM I would have to act to exclude them from my game if I didn't want them in my Forgotten Realms game. If I don't act to exclude them, they are in the setting. The rabbit people(I forget the name and don't care enough to look) are not mentioned anywhere and are not in any Forgotten Realms book, so I would have to act to include them if I wanted them to be there. If I don't act to include them, they are not in the setting.

That makes absolutely no sense in the context of the repeated quotations.

Everything has a place, unless you don't want it there.

That means you are choosing to exclude. Eberron has been written to be inclusive of everything unless it's unwanted for some reason. That is the direct and obvious meaning of the words used. You have twisted them into Eberron being 100% identical to every other setting, which is patently ridiculous.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

apparently what Keith said is ““If it’s in D&D it has a place in Eberron” – it’s up to you if you want to put it there.”

What have YOU done with Eberron?

One of the core principles of Eberron is that you should make it your own. People often say “If it’s in D&D it’s in Eberron,” but the actual quote is “If it’…

keith-baker.com

So no, it is not exclusively not in Eberron because the DM ‘desired to exclude it’, as you put it. It can also not be there because the DM did not desire to include it, i.e. it simply was never added rather than actively excluded. Which isn’t really all that different from how it works in any other setting

Your statements are identical in the context of Eberron.

The GM not wanting to include it, because of how Keith Baker structured it, is completely identical to the GM wanting to exclude it. There is zero difference with Eberron, unlike any other setting, because it was specifically built to be maximally inclusive. Everything, literally 100% of anything officially published for D&D, has a place in Eberron UNLESS the GM decides otherwise.

Like look at the very words of the thing you're claiming to quote (bolding added for emphasis):
"You don’t HAVE to use abeil in Eberron. But if you want to, it’s a simple matter to add a lost city of bee-people in Xen’drik, to make them the Mourning-warped inhabitants of a Cyran city, or the latest creations of Mordain the Fleshweaver. It’s up to you to decide if the Sovereigns still exist or if divine magic is another form of sorcery. You decide the cause of the Mourning. And so on."

The one and only thing responsible for the presence or absence of ANY officially-published D&D material in Eberron is the GM. You don't get excuses there. It's completely, 100% on you. No one and nothing else prevents the inclusion of anything, and no one and nothing else prevents the exclusion of anything.

Whatever is in your Eberron game, it is unequivocally because you, the GM, chose. You can't hide behind any excuses, because the setting was written so that such excuses do not exist. Period. Nothing that is officially-published for D&D can ever be excluded because it is somehow a violation of "setting consistency" because Eberron, despite being very much its own setting with clear rules and clear world-building, was written with the very specific intention that no one could ever be told "well that doesn't really fit in Eberron, sorry".

Everything (first-party) can fit in Eberron. Everything. He even says that himself. “If it’s in D&D it has a place in Eberron”. The one, and only, reason why a thing in D&D would not appear in Eberron is because the GM intentionally avoided taking advantage of that place.

Again: for (nearly) any other setting, this would not be true. Choosing to exclude would in fact be different from choosing not to include. Eberron is (nearly) unique in that it was built, from the ground up, such that choosing-to-include is identical to choosing-not-to-exclude, and choosing-to-exclude is identical to choosing-not-to-include. They are equivalent because “If it’s in D&D it has a place in Eberron”.

 

[Maxperson]

That makes absolutely no sense in the context of the repeated quotations.

Everything has a place, unless you don't want it there.

Settings are created with specific things in them. Things not in them don't spontaneously appear without the DM putting them into the setting. If a new book with 10 races comes out tomorrow, none of them are in Eberron. Not one. Not until your DM sticks them in anyway.

You have twisted them into Eberron being 100% identical to every other setting, which is patently ridiculous.

You should read what people say a few times before responding if you think this is what I said. Eberron still has it's Dragonmarks, which no other setting has. It still has it's magic is common as spit theme. The gods are distant theme. And so on.

It's YOU who is arguing that all settings are identical, because according to your argument, everything is in all settings unless the DM acts to exclude.

 

[mamba]

Sure, often they don't, and are quite happy to go along with whatever the DM comes up with. But that doesn't give the DM the right to do whatever they want irrespective of the players. Simple good manners requires the DM, acting as host, to be attentive to the needs of guests (players). This is a moral code that goes beyond the game.

you know who else also is bound by good manners? Guests, or they will have been guests for the last time, and maybe even get kicked out right then and there…

 

[mamba]

Your statements are identical in the context of Eberron.

The GM not wanting to include it, because of how Keith Baker structured it, is completely identical to the GM wanting to exclude it.

no it isn’t, Keith even said so directly, see the part I quoted.

The Eberron setting mentions some species, presumably Tortles are not mentioned. My Eberron game includes what is mentioned in the setting book but does not include tortles. I did nothing to exclude them, and yet they are not in it

That is not in conflict with what you quoted. As it says, I could add them, but I do not have to. That is true for any setting.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Settings are created with specific things in them. Things not in them don't spontaneously appear without the DM putting them into the setting. If a new book with 10 races comes out tomorrow, none of them are in Eberron. Not one. Not until your DM sticks them in anyway.

You should read what people say a few times before responding if you think this is what I said. Eberron still has it's Dragonmarks, which no other setting has. It still has it's magic is common as spit theme. The gods are distant theme. And so on.

It's YOU who is arguing that all settings are identical, because according to your argument, everything is in all settings unless the DM acts to exclude.

I swear I remember you being one of the people who hated having your arguments summarized incorrectly. Please don't do that to me, then.

I've explicitly said there is a clear difference. The vast majority of settings do not naturally have a place for a variety of things. Dark Sun has no place for kobolds, for example, because they did exist and were exterminated centuries ago. You'd need to do some very heavy lifting--possibly breaking with the core principles of the setting--to include them. Hence: there are many things which simply do not have a place in Athas, or any other setting.

Your argument makes Eberron exactly the same as every other setting. It has no place for most things, unless the GM actively clears such a space, possibly changing it radically. That is explicitly rejected by the things everyone here keeps quoting.

Eberron always has a place for anything officially published for D&D. Always. That place is guaranteed. This is unique among settings. The fact that that place is guaranteed--as Mr. Baker himself explicitly said, “If it’s in D&D it has a place in Eberron”--is what makes "I chose to exclude it" identical to "I chose not to include it", and likewise makes "I chose to include it" identical to "I chose not to exclude it".

You are deleting that uniqueness. You are making Eberron exactly like every other setting. It contains some things, and excludes others, and you'll have to work, sometimes very hard, to alter either part. That is a complete rejection of the spirit of inclusivity that was one of Eberron's founding principles.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The Eberron setting mentions some species, presumably Tortles are not mentioned.

They were cited as an example of how to include other player species. The example being that they were natural animals mutated by the Mourning.

 

[Zardnaar]

If I run a non standard setting generally im interested Moore in what it offers vs whatever a player wants to run.

Eberrons more kitchen sink vs Darksun but would prefer a major campaign (mu first there) to focus more on RmEberron stuff than whatever else.

So if I run it ill advertise it specifically as Eberron. Find similar players.

Assuming it's a spin off game vs main campaign.

Looks like im a player soon. Ive told the DM I'll play whatever the party requires. Probably a cleric tbh or bard. Jeep ot simple its his first fane so phb only (self imposed)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

you know who else also is bound by good manners? Guests

Sure. I didn't suggest otherwise. Good manners and respect for others likes at the bottom of this argument, and frankly there is not enough of either.

 

[mamba]

They were cited as an example of how to include other player species. The example being that they were natural animals mutated by the Mourning.

no one says they cannot be added, I only say that they are not in it unless they get added by the DM