Eberron-as corny as I think?

[Odhanan]

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

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

 

[rounser]

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

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

 

[I'm Cleo]

genshou,

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

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

I'm Cleo

 

[genshou]

genshou,

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

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

I'm Cleo

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

 

[Asmor]

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

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

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

 

[The Shaman]

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

I'm not suggesting either.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Sejs]

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


Fie! Fie upon you I say!

 

[Hussar]

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

Just a thought.

 

[caudor]

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

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

 

[The Shaman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's your point, Hussar?