D&D 5E Eberron popularity in 5E

[delericho]

The difference is that the Potterverse has S.P.E.W. and Hermione Granger as part of the actual story presented...

In the context of the Harry potter universe, Hermione is one of the PCs.

 

[Bolares]

That's exactly the heart of my point; It can be an awesome theme for stories, and it is right there, ready to be utilized... and yet I know of no NPC organization(s) in the setting which dedicate themselves to liberation of these enslaved sentient creatures, pursuit of a different method to power ships, or anything to do with the topic - and that means that unless I have the setting respond to PCs taking the time to think "Hey... wait, isn't this slavery?" with anything other than immediate and complete "Nah, it's cool." or "Yeah, and it would be totally weird if you weren't on board with that." then I am diverging from the setting in a pretty major way, and if I am going to diverge from a setting in a major way, I'd rather just use a different setting I'm not diverging from so significantly (just like how I'd rather play 5th edition with next to zero house-rules, or play 2nd edition with next to zero house-rules, rather than take one and make major changes to make it more like the other).

I dislike that the setting misses such a major and obvious opportunity for those cool stories to actually be part of the setting rather than something I bolted on.

But there is no diverging from the setting in Eberron, per Keith Baker's definittion there is no cannon in Eberron, but what you choose to be cannon. Maybe de devs didn't see this possibility when developping, but for you to create an anti elemental slavery organization is not diverging from setting in my opinion.

 

[TwoSix]

In the setting, use of airships powered by bound elementals is fairly ubiquitous, much like house-elves in the Potterverse. There is an analogue.

The difference is that the Potterverse has S.P.E.W. and Hermione Granger as part of the actual story presented, rather than the actual story presented being that no one of note openly thinks that house-elves should be treated differently and S.P.E.W. being introduced to the story by way of fan-fiction only.

That's probably where I differ in my interpretation. Hermione isn't part of the setting, per se, she's an example of what a protagonist in a story SHOULD be doing. She's noticing and taking action against something she's recognized as a moral failing within her world. Noticing and taking action against the bound elementals of Zilargo is something that should be a PC driven action, that's why these moral conundrums are placed in the setting in the first place. Having a NPC faction in place for the PC to attach themselves to would just dilute the PC's possible protagonism, in my opinion.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

In the context of the Harry potter universe, Hermione is one of the PCs.

No, in the context of comparing RPGs and novels there are numerous reasons why the comparison always breaks down.

In this case, the breakdown is that novels don't actually have PC-equivalent characters, not even among the protagonists because everything that can be pointed to as evidence of their being a PC can point to a known NPC in a role-playing game setting being a PC, especially "well, there is a story in which she is a protagonist and does things that have a lasting impact on the world around her," since basically every role-playing game setting is bursting with NPCs of which the same is true. Example: Corellon Larethian took out Gruumsh's eye, banished Lolth and cursed the dark elves, plus a bunch of other stuff I read about in stories about him and his friends... but he is only a PC if I am running "let's play through that one story we already know the end of" or "let's play that established character in this new scenario I made up", much like Hermione would only be a PC in a Potterverse RPG if I am running one of the stories already told in the novels, or something along the lines of "let's play through some stuff that happened to Hermione between the final chapter of the last book and it's epilogue." Otherwise both are NPCs because they are part of the setting as presented by it's author, not added by me and my friends around the game table.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

But there is no diverging from the setting in Eberron, per Keith Baker's definittion there is no cannon in Eberron, but what you choose to be cannon. Maybe de devs didn't see this possibility when developping, but for you to create an anti elemental slavery organization is not diverging from setting in my opinion.

I get the thought behind the statement that there is no canon (the double n is for artillery) but what you choose to be canon, as empowerment to tell the stories one wants to tell is helpful to some folks (and assumed by everyone else) - but that doesn't change that there is what is in the book, and what I have added at my own table because it's not in the book.

 

[Remathilis]

Wait, are you saying PCs aren't a part of a setting because their actions aren't mapped out yet, or that NPCs only matter when they are being "PCs"?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

That's probably where I differ in my interpretation. Hermione isn't part of the setting, per se, she's an example of what a protagonist in a story SHOULD be doing. She's noticing and taking action against something she's recognized as a moral failing within her world.

If that line of reasoning is applied consistently to characters found labelled as NPCs in RPG setting products, there would be no characters labelled as NPCs outside of "this farmer farms, that's all he cares about" sorts.

Noticing and taking action against the bound elementals of Zilargo is something that should be a PC driven action, that's why these moral conundrums are placed in the setting in the first place. Having a NPC faction in place for the PC to attach themselves to would just dilute the PC's possible protagonism, in my opinion.

The setting does not present this detail as a moral conundrum.

As for dilution of protagonism... sure, it is true that having NPCs to align and associate your PC with does mean some measure of dilution - but there is also a measure of increased assimilation with the setting. Having NPCs to align and associate with is what turns an otherwise generic character that could exist as-is within any campaign setting into a character that belongs in this campaign setting.

I mean, a knight is knight and could come from any campaign setting, but a purple dragon knight is a Forgotten Realms character. (Sorry for the non-Eberron example... haven't cracked an Eberron book for some number of years and can't really bring to mind any appropriately illustrative example from within the setting.)

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Wait, are you saying PCs aren't a part of a setting because their actions aren't mapped out yet, or that NPCs only matter when they are being "PCs"?

Neither.

 

[Bolares]

I get the thought behind the statement that there is no canon (the double n is for artillery) but what you choose to be canon, as empowerment to tell the stories one wants to tell is helpful to some folks (and assumed by everyone else) - but that doesn't change that there is what is in the book, and what I have added at my own table because it's not in the book.

Thanks for the correction, I tend to mix the terms. About existing a difference in what is in the book, and what you have added, I don't see it like that, there is no value difference between fluff on the book and fluff being added by players or DMs. My opinion is that if a setting allows you to bring interpretations that the developers had not thougth of, its a quality not a problem

 

[TwoSix]

That's exactly the heart of my point; It can be an awesome theme for stories, and it is right there, ready to be utilized... and yet I know of no NPC organization(s) in the setting which dedicate themselves to liberation of these enslaved sentient creatures, pursuit of a different method to power ships, or anything to do with the topic - and that means that unless I have the setting respond to PCs taking the time to think "Hey... wait, isn't this slavery?" with anything other than immediate and complete "Nah, it's cool." or "Yeah, and it would be totally weird if you weren't on board with that." then I am diverging from the setting in a pretty major way, and if I am going to diverge from a setting in a major way, I'd rather just use a different setting I'm not diverging from so significantly (just like how I'd rather play 5th edition with next to zero house-rules, or play 2nd edition with next to zero house-rules, rather than take one and make major changes to make it more like the other).

I dislike that the setting misses such a major and obvious opportunity for those cool stories to actually be part of the setting rather than something I bolted on.

I think an even bigger, probably more fundamental, divergence here is in the last sentence. Keith Baker has been pretty explicit in his statements that PCs are supposed to be the ones to create the cool stories. In general, there's a dearth of NPC factions that can ally with the PCs in order to accomplish their goals, or that are, in general, actively working to oppose the setting's big bads. Eberron's general design expectation is that the setting does NOT exist in some sort of stasis; if an NPC starts a world-destroying plot, there's no good guy group opposing them to stop it, and only the PCs can stop it form happening.

More so that most settings, Eberron is actively designed with the idea that PCs won't stay within the boundaries of the setting. The mystery of the Mournland is MEANT to be solved. Vol is designed to be opposed and eventually defeated. The Last War is supposed to start up again (or possibly, Galifar is meant to be reunited.) il-Lashtavar is supposed to be replaced by il-Yannah. Riedra should be liberated. The settings books don't tell you how that's going to be accomplished because it wants the players and the DM to do it themselves.