Eberron-as corny as I think?

[Asmor]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.