Eberron: My issue with the 4e setting

[N0Man]

Whatever, dude. The original post was clearly "since NPCs don't have to resemble PCs at all, they can just do whatever the DM wants them to, regardless of whether or not a PC can do anything like it!", but even if you don't think it was, I don't really care. If you think furthermore that it's 100% A-OK for NPC wizards to have those abilities that are forever denied to PCs, then we have a disagreement, but this is utterly irrelevant to anything.

People responding to an argument with "whatever" has always been a pet peeve of mine. I find it extremely rude...

However, what I responded to was clearly the extremely ridiculous hyperbole presented. A DM making godlike characters because they don't "have to follow PC rules" is being ridiculous and probably a sadistic jerk. You can't realistically expect to make rules to prevent the DM from being a jerk who abuses rules. If there were some rule to prevent this, don't you think such a DM would be a jerk and abuse those rule too? This falls under, the DM is the final rulemaker, and a DM who makes bad rules will find himself without players.

Furthermore, there have always been differences between PCs and NPCs. How often do adventurers start at 0th level? Not very often, and on the rare occasion that it does, it *usually* sucks. Have you forgotten about classes that were designed to be NPC classes? There were feats that were monster only. There were spells that were written as specially researched by an NPC (sure a player could do it too, but only with DM permission; he didn't have freedom to do it all on his own). What 4E did was make NPC creation more streamlined and allows more freedom, without burdening the process with details that would never really matter, especially given that the NPC might be designed for only 1 encounter.

If NPCs with powers that players don't get bugs you that much, there's a solution for this. Don't use those NPCs types. Build your NPCs using the class templates. If you are really a stickler, you can even stat out your NPCs exactly like PCs. Considering that NPCs have no reason for saving action points and daily powers for a 2nd encounter, this would be vastly unfair to players, but it can be done. You're also really limiting yourself on the types of encounters you can have (both in the tricks an NPC can have, as well as the variety of NPC types (i.e. minions, normals, elites, solos), but perhaps those things bothered you too. Sure it's more trouble for me and it requires me giving up too many tools and tricks that I'm unwilling to sacrifice, but if the default approach just doesn't suit your approach, so you shouldn't mind the extra work.

Because he probably won't come up to me, he'll just write it on his sheet without telling me, and then point at the book if I take an issue with it. And at that point, I might not be able to carry the argument past "This is my viking hat", especially if I'm allowing another PC to take a cross-racial mark for what I feel is a good or at least vaguely interesting reason.

But even if they were still restricted, a 2nd player can come along to try to game the marks if you allow someone else an exception for a valid reason. Either way, you having one player play by the letter of the rules while another is playing by a DM decision. In the end, there's very little difference.

Besides, even if you let the powergamer have it, is it the end of the world? You don't have to look at this as abuse, but rather an opportunity to try to hook your powergamer into a story and maybe draw him into some more roleplay.

No, because I houserule to discourage abusing a mechanic to min-max all the time, especially in 3e. For instance, I houserule that you can't use Shivering Touch ever, because the game becomes terrible if you can. I just am usually of the opinion that if you want to make a min-maxed character, you have to deal with the restrictions and flavor that your choices impose on you. This removes that flavor imposition.

THe Eberron books clearly indicate that Aberrant dragonmarks (either those that are "Aberrant" due to not being from the from the accepted houses, or those among the "wrong" races) are things that do have potential story repercussions. There may be attempts to draw them into a house, but there may be the chance someone would respond violently or even hunt them down. Is that not enough?

I think it's a step back, especially because I can't even houserule it. If I say cross-racial marks are banned, then people will expect them to actually be banned.

That's if you make the hoserule that they are banned. If you make the houserule that they require DM approval, then where is the problem?

There isn't even a mention of DM approval now, but my player still asked me for permission. I was tempted toward a knee-jerk reaction of rejecting his request, but instead I just explained to him the context and repercussions and let him decide. It's not breaking anything, and it opens up new story possibilities.

 

[Asmor]

The setting has changed. It is not an aberrant mark, aberrant marks are different as the game clearly defines.

There's a sidebar on off-race marks which specifically says they'd probably be considered aberrant marks by the houses.

And how do we know there isn't some NPCs out there like this? Not all NPCs in the world are stated up in fact very few of them are.

Anything not specifically statted up is left to either the description in the books (which say that off-race marks are non-existent, unless you want them to be) or GM fiat (which is not canon). Thus, off-race marks do not exist (unless you want them).

And if it's only a PCs it doesn't matter that it is a small percentage of the population it's a character that gets all the face time!

And that's a problem... why, exactly? A PC's whole raison d'être is to be unique and break the mold.

It feels to me like you're not seperating the rules from the lore properly.

If you had a player who wanted to be a soldier who specialized in using the bow, would you tell them that they're SOL because a soldier should be a fighter but fighters don't use bows, or would you tell them that even though the default flavor may not fit they should roll a rogue or ranger and just change the flavor to suit their character?

It's the same issue, really. There are dragonmark feats which are game elements not intrinsically limited by race, and there are dragonmarks which are part of the world of Eberron and are limited by race.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think what we all have to do right now is take a deeeeeeeeeeeep breath and look closely at the silver lining here with regards to this one small particular change in the rules...




...we could have all been Forgotten Realms fans instead.

 

[N0Man]

I think this points to a big reason why out of race dragonmarks should have had an addendum of doublecheck with your DM. If any PC takes an out of race dragonmark, suddenly huge sections of the adventure become about that particular player. It also partially dictates what will happen in the adventure. It is a rare case where a single player's choice can limit other party members' choices (would the relevant dragonmarked house let one of the players be a member in good standing with an OOR dragonmark in the party?) in addition to limiting the DM.

Player choices in race, religion, and background nation can also have impact on other players in social encounters and possibly limit some story possibilities from the DM as well. Should each of these also require DM approval?

In the end, players, and not just the DM, are involved with the creation of the story.

However, there is always the chance that a DM might have a certain campaign theme in mind and that some player choices (whether they be race, religion, alignment, or background) provide unwanted complications. The DM might request that a player choose something different to fit the campaign better, even though those choices are completely valid and legal. Why can't the dragonmarks fall into the same scope?

Also, as I said before, only 1 player in my group asked for an out of race dragonmark, and they did ask permission.

 

[Crothian]

There's a sidebar on off-race marks which specifically says they'd probably be considered aberrant marks by the houses.

Ya, but that's just silly. Each mark does a very specific thing and an aberrant mark is very different.

Anything not specifically statted up is left to either the description in the books (which say that off-race marks are non-existent, unless you want them to be) or GM fiat (which is not canon). Thus, off-race marks do not exist (unless you want them).

According to the book any race can have any mark. That's all that matters. Just because they choose not to stat one up with these options is in material IMO.

And that's a problem... why, exactly? A PC's whole raison d'être is to be unique and break the mold.

First if something is seen every session like a PC it really isn't all that rare. And PCs do not always have to be unique and break the mold, but that';s a completely different thread.

It feels to me like you're not seperating the rules from the lore properly.....

...There are dragonmark feats which are game elements not intrinsically limited by race, and there are dragonmarks which are part of the world of Eberron and are limited by race.

I have no idea what you mean here. Dragonmarks according to the book can be had by any race that's the reality of the setting according to the book.

 

[MrMyth]

I think the change to Dragonmarks was absolutely brilliant. It opened up a ton of story options and interesting plots for those who wish to take advantage, and had absolutely zero negative impact on those who disapprove of it... other than apparently upsetting some people over how others are enjoying the game.

 

[MrMyth]

According to the book any race can have any mark. That's all that matters. Just because they choose not to stat one up with these options is in material IMO.

So, since this does seem to have caused quite a concern for you, in what way has this negatively impacted the game you play?

1) You have encountered an NPC which has an off-race mark in an official product, which you feel weakens the uniqueness of the dragonmarks within the setting?

2) You have had a player seek to use a Dragonmark outside the normal guidelines, and either let it happen in your game (and suffered the same above issue), or had to tell them no and were frustrated at the Eberron book for putting that burden on you?

If neither of these has happened... I don't see much reason for you to complain. In the official setting, there has never been a Dragonmark found outside of the appropriate race for it. The potential for it to do so - in the hands of DMs and players who will find their experience enriched by such a thing happening - should not have any impact on your game. You are concerned about the 'potential' for it to crop up in NPCs or elsewhere - I'd recommend you complain about that if and when it happens, rather than try and divine the future to justify your concerns about a product in the present.

As it currently stands, the 'potential' for it to happen in other player's games has no impact on your own. You are the DM - it won't crop up in your game unless you choose for it to happen. There is no conflict with the current canon setting if you treat it exactly as the setting previously did - indeed, the designers made it clear that is an entirely valid approach to take.

Given that the designers accomplished a very good thing, in making these options available to those who wanted to use them while leaving the default still in place for those who don't, it seems rather petty to be upset solely over how other people are enjoying the setting....

 

[Crothian]

So, since this does seem to have caused quite a concern for you, in what way has this negatively impacted the game you play?

It has impacted in no way since I'm not currently playing or using Eberron. Plus it has caused very little concern for me. Just enough for me to post a simple sentence on the first page but people have to keep challenging it. So, it has just become fun for me.

if neither of these has happened... I don't see much reason for you to complain.

I expressed an opinion and I stand by my opinion. I have a voice and I will use it. If you don't agree with me that's fine. But don't say I have no reason to complain or say what I think. That is part of the point for these discussion boards.

Given that the designers accomplished a very good thing, in making these options available to those who wanted to use them while leaving the default still in place for those who don't, it seems rather petty to be upset solely over how other people are enjoying the setting....

I don't see it as a good thing. And I'm not upset about how anyone is playing the game so please stop making things up about me. Again my position is rather simple. Allowing any race to have any dragonmarks is my biggest issue with the setting. This is purely an opinion on how the books are written and has nothing to do with how people play their games.

 

[MrMyth]

I don't see it as a good thing. And I'm not upset about how anyone is playing the game so please stop making things up about me. Again my position is rather simple. Allowing any race to have any dragonmarks is my biggest issue with the setting. This is purely an opinion on how the books are written and has nothing to do with how people play their games.

Well yeah, but they wrote the books so that 'any race can have any dragonmark' only so long as the DM and players want that to be the case. They wrote it so that it has never actually happened within the default of the setting itself. So your issue is with it happening in other people's games, and that is kinda uncool. I mean, yeah - your opinion, you are entitled to it, and so forth. But the setting itself has no off-race dragonmarks to take issue with. They currently only exist in other people's games, so any issue you have is, indeed, with how other groups are playing.

 

[Imaro]

Well yeah, but they wrote the books so that 'any race can have any dragonmark' only so long as the DM and players want that to be the case. They wrote it so that it has never actually happened within the default of the setting itself. So your issue is with it happening in other people's games, and that is kinda uncool. I mean, yeah - your opinion, you are entitled to it, and so forth. But the setting itself has no off-race dragonmarks to take issue with. They currently only exist in other people's games, so any issue you have is, indeed, with how other groups are playing.

Are you purposefully mis-characterizing Crothian's stance? Whether I agree with him or not, I certainly see his point (Officially the Eberron Campaign world now allows for any race to have any dragonmark...and he doesn't like the feel of this change to the setting) and it is not what you keep trying to make it out to be (That he has a problem with how other groups are playing). So I'm hoping that perhaps it is just a mis-understanding instead of a purposeful twisting of words on your part.