Eberron's Worth...

[Remathilis]

Count me in as an Eberronophile. My great love of the setting is it is a MODERNISTIC fantasy world. Many of the socio-political and religious elements of Eberron have more to do with the 20th century than the 12th. Sure, there are knights and longbows, but that is the trappings of fantasy (akin to why Star Wars has knights and "magic swords").

Mercantile Monopolies, spies and intrigue. Religions based on faith, not the heavy-handed touch of "Gods walking among us". Adventurers and Magic having a place in society. Ancient magic that keeps magic mysterious while allowing 9th level spells. The role of nationalism and aftermath of war. The majesty (but somehow loneliness) of Sharn (an impossibly big city). Foe's older than time. A world where a druid, swashbuckler, warlock and ninja adventuring together isn't a ridiculous concept. A subtle twist on classic D&D foes. Technology and its role in shaping society. All of these things are possible in Eberron but impossible in a Tolkienish setting.

Its not everyone's cup of tea. But it is a great way to handle fantasy without relying on Fairy Tales and Mythology as the only source material. I applaud WotC for having the guts to make a setting that does stray from the norms, and in much the same way I could never see Dark Sun, Al-Quadim, or Spelljammer never become D&D's default assumption, I don't think Eberron is going to be the 4e setting either. Its just the biggest and most innovative setting WotC has done since Planescape, but its strength (being different) is also its weakness. YYMV.

 

[gizmo33]

Things are taken at face value. IMO and IME most people don't want to do hours of research before being able to enjoy a night at the movies, or a session of D&D.

And btw, way too often do we roleplayers think we know a lot about the relevant time-periods in history, folk lore, mythology and so on that supposedly make it into our games. In reality, we only scratch at the surface of most of that stuff, and then tell ourselves we're experts only because we can tell a glaive from a guisarme.

I'm not saying that people need to be experts in whatever in order to play DnD, or express an opinion about what they enjoy playing. My comments are really addressing the "cliche" statements being made about Greyhawk and such. I guess it's more complicated than I thought, but it bothers me to hear people say that Tokien-esque fantasy is a dead-end creatively when I suspect that many of the folks involved in this latest dungeonpunk stuff really just don't know anything about Tolkien or his sources. It would be like me saying that Western/Cowboy stories are cliche if they don't have magic in them, just because I don't know jack about the Wild West genre and prefer fantasy.

Yea, it seems to be part of the gamer personality to be expert in stuff. Funny in the case of medieval weapon classifications that I think even experts don't agree on their terminology. Ultimately, I think that the "expert" label or status issues aren't of much use and ideas should probably be judged on their merits and not the authority of the person.

 

[gizmo33]

In no way are golems or warforged robots. It's a cute phrase, but utterly meaningless.

Folks who equate the two should probably try expanding what they mean by "robot," since it's pretty clearly not the dictionary definition.

I have a number of problems with you reasoning:

A statement like A is no way like B is meaningless if you're not going to support it, and you don't. It's really a minor nit but you used this strategy to try to berate someone with a "know what you're talking about before you speak" without really understanding what was being said. The bulk of the people on either side of this issue seem to understand just fine what is meant by "robot", and other than as a ploy to outmaneuver someone in a debate, I would expect that you get it too.

Secondly, nothing is "clearly" the dictionary definition of robot since there are many published dictionaries out there. And, par for the course, you've done nothing to clarify what it is that you mean, or what your dictionary says the definition is.

My dictionary says "an externally manlike mechanical device capable of performing human tasks or behaving in a human manner" (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)

WARFORGED:
Mechanical? maybe, they're not biological exactly
human tasks - check
behaving in a human manner - check

Thirdly, I can look up words like "cute", "meaningless", and so forth in the dictionary but I strongly suspect I would not recognize your usage. I think all of these rhetorical flourishes are unecessarily confusing.

 

[Gez]

"Robot" is an interesting term. It comes from a Czech ("robot" actually is derived from the Czech verb "robota", to work) theater play where the robots actually looked very much like humans.

The word "robot" evolved in parallel in the realms of fiction (where it became the metal men we're all used too) and reality (where it became the much less glamorous computer-controled tools, like the mechanic arms that assemble together automobile parts to make a car). Few people would call their printer a robot, but technically, it's one.

Where do warforged fall in all that? Somewhere between Rossum's Robots and the metal men of classical sci-fi. So, they are robots.

 

[rounser]

In no way are golems or warforged robots.

Don't group warforged with golems; golems are a lot more interesting than warforged. The sentience thing makes warforged just a bunch of tin men, whereas with golems you're left wondering just how much they're going to act like an automaton, or something more than that. Golems are an interesting monster that can make multiple cameo appearances in the campaign as NPCs if you like them, and can take part in traps and puzzles as few non-automaton monsters can, or be created semi-sentient or fully sentient to serve plot needs.

The other way that warforged differ from golems is that they're PCs. A warforged PC is always there, so has a strong impact on the tone of the game (for the worse IMO). But then, one person's "kewl" is another's "lame".

 

[Valesin]

I think there is way too much bashing of people who aren't amazed by Eberron in this thread.

This was only the 5th post in the thread. I think it is difficult to have 'way too much' of anything in 4 posts.

In fact, there was only one instance of Eberron-basher-bashing in the first 4 posts.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I'm perfectly fine with shifting away from Tolkien influence. I don't mind keeping it, but I've got no attachment. But if you are going to toss aside your copy of LotR only to replace it with the lastest copy of X-Men comics, then you are moving in the wrong direction, AFAIAC. And all four new core races do exactly that.

I can't say I agree with this idea, since the new races all have very interesting aspects to them, and have more flexibility and potential than you are giving them credit for. I mean, I played a changeling in my first Eberron campaign, and she was hardly a spy. In fact, it was a human and a shifter who were the real spies in that campaign; my character was the team blaster.

And I don't buy that Eberron in any way is more cinematic than any other D&D game. And I don't believe that any Eberron fan out there can in full honesty claim that the day before they heard of Eberron that they had a problem with D&D because it could not do Indiana Jones. I didn't have trouble with that before and I don't have trouble with it in my non-Eberron games now.

Well, I can claim that no campaign setting has ever inspired me to play Indiana Jones before, but Eberron has come close. Further, the vast amounts of old, exotic ruins and unexplored lands in Eberron caters to an Indiana Jones or even a Tarzan story more than classic campaign settings have. It may have been possible in D&D before, but the previous published settings were not based around the concept, and settings do not support different character types equally. How easy is it to play Indiana Jones in Birthright, for example?

And lastly (for now), it seems that virtually everything that makes Eberron BE Eberron is a restriction. These monsters are from over there. This race has this background. It is all scripted. And yes, I understand 100% that I am free to revise anything and everything to fit my preference. But if I'm doing that then what is the point of Eberron again?

I am beginning to get the feeling you just don't like published campaign settings, since this complaint would not be limited to just Eberron. Honestly, compared to the Forgotten Realms and some other settings, Eberron goes out of its way to leave very large tracts of "unwritten space", places specifically left for the DM to fill in. The entire cause for the Day of Mourning, for example. I admit, this is declining a bit with some of the new sourcebooks (Secrets of Xen'Drik and Sarlona), but it is still very much part of the intention of the designers. Besides, having restrictions is nowhere close to being the same as not being fun. Historical or Low-Magic campaigns are an example of very restrictive campaigns, but there are many who swear by them.

 

[PallidPatience]

It appears to me that the majority of people who have problems with Eberron have problems with the two main concepts underlying Eberron:

Modernity in society:

Most people seem to prefer the more clearly "medieval fantasy" flavor of the Tolkienesque campaign settings. Though why that would apply to the FR, I honestly don't know. Greyhawk seems far more "medieval" to me, and FR seems only a step below Eberron in modernity, except for a few key points. Mainly, this has to do with the role of Faith in religion. Most settings have concrete gods. Those gods are actual entities that actually exist somewhere and actually communicate, actually affecting the Prime Material. Case in point, most of the history of the FR. Eberron's religions are based on faith, and gods may or may not exist, don't dictate what their followers should do, and don't show any evidence of existence. Similarly, the atmosphere following the end of the Last War in Eberron is one of cautious paranoia, wherein intrigue is far more integral a part. Likewise, the Dragonmarked houses operate in much the same way that corporations do in the real world. These things dictate the flavor of Eberron, and push people away who want no modernity in their game (or at least very little).

Magic as Technology:

This second tenet of Eberron I've seen denounced across the board. "Magic should be special!" "Magic should be rare!" "Magic should be hard to find, and harder to master!"

Personally, I don't really like that position, myself, but meh. I have no problem with people who do, however, prefer it. Eberron completely discards it.

This leads to things that make some people I know consider it "monty haul". Magic items are fairly common (among adventuring circles). There are well-established places for people to go buy them. People with money are capable of paying for travel via Lightning Rail, which is the magic equivalent of a train. People with more can charter a Lyrandar Airship, which is the magic equivalent of a zeppelin. People with even more could even afford an Heir of Orien with the appropriate Dragonmark to Greater Teleport them wherever. However, Eberron does not have guns (though the FR does). It does, however, have a magically created race of constructs which may or may not have souls, and has to face the problem of living among non-created races, many of whom hate, distrust, or only dislike them for being the main tool used in the Last War.

Honestly, those are the reasons that I LIKE Eberron.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Don't group warforged with golems; golems are a lot more interesting than warforged.

This is the first time I've heard this opinion, interesting.

The sentience thing makes warforged just a bunch of tin men, whereas with golems you're left wondering just how much they're going to act like an automaton, or something more than that. Golems are an interesting monster that can make multiple cameo appearances in the campaign as NPCs if you like them, and can take part in traps and puzzles as few non-automaton monsters can, or be created semi-sentient or fully sentient to serve plot needs.

Aren't golems by the RAW non-sentient, or is it a gray area?

The other way that warforged differ from golems is that they're PCs. A warforged PC is always there, so has a strong impact on the tone of the game (for the worse IMO).

You can have a golem PC. There have been plenty of spells and templates, depending on the edition, to give sentience to non-sentient beings for a very long time.

But yes, the warforged definitely change the tone of a game. That wasn't a point I was disputing.

 

[Maggan]

I guess it's more complicated than I thought, but it bothers me to hear people say that Tokien-esque fantasy is a dead-end creatively when I suspect that many of the folks involved in this latest dungeonpunk stuff really just don't know anything about Tolkien or his sources.

On the flip-side of the coin, do you feel that you have a good enough understanding of the current trends and influences in fantasy to sum it up as the "latest dungeonpunk" with great confidence?

I sure don't.

I'm just reading China Mieville (Perdido Street Station). It's miles away from Tolkien, but I'll be darned if it can be summed up as the "latest dungeonpunk".

People might not know a lot about Tolkien, but then again there are more to current fantasy than many give it credit for.

On the topic of warforged being robots or not, I don't really care that much. It's just funny that "warforged are robots, and robots are not D&D" is heard so often, given the sci-fi legacy of the game.

One of my fondest recollections of D&D is the old D&D Companion module Earthshaker. A giant machine man, manned by gnomes. And there were robots in the game as well way before that.

/M