Eberron-as corny as I think?

[Numion]

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

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

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

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

 

[Desdichado]

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

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

 

[boredgremlin]

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

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

 

[Desdichado]

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

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

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

 

[hong]

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

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

 

[Desdichado]

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

How is that any different than what he said?

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

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

What's your point, Hussar?

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

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

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

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

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

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


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

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

 

[jasin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Numion]

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

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

 

[The Shaman]

How is that any different than what he said?

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

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

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

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

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

You're really confused and completely missed the point.

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

Better now?