Eberron's Worth...

[Crothian]

I like eberron and it does have its flaws. But posters that just hate or vomit on it just because they don't like it should just goto threads that are more suited for them. There is a lot of thread crapping in good Eberron threads.

 

[Razz]

I am a fan of Eberron. Our current campaign is in Forgotten Realms but our DM has pulled a lot of stuff from Eberron and just plopped it down. The Merchant Houses, Dragonmarks and Warforged are all alive and well in our campaign.

Doing all that, it's not really a Forgotten Realms setting anymore...

 

[gizmo33]

I do object to people who express dislike for it based on false assumptions, such as the aforementioned "robots" and "steam punk," neither of which exist anywhere in the setting. My only requests are:

If you're going to bash the setting, bash it for what's actually there.

What's the difference between a warforged and a robot? Does steampunk require that there actually be steam? Is there a "super-heated air punk" ? Lightning-punk? Techno-fantasy? I know with better terminology I'd enjoy the Eberron bashing more.

If you can't be bothered to read the setting because what you've seen doesn't appeal to you, that's fine. But don't then turn around and bash it as though you've got insight into it, when you do not.

How can one earn the right to discuss Eberron? I've seen a lot of people bashing Eberron but I have yet to see anyone doing so claim that they have more than superficial information. Perhaps you weren't being literal.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

That said...

I do object to people who express dislike for it based on false assumptions, such as the aforementioned "robots" and "steam punk," neither of which exist anywhere in the setting. My only requests are:

If you're going to bash the setting, bash it for what's actually there.

If you can't be bothered to read the setting because what you've seen doesn't appeal to you, that's fine. But don't then turn around and bash it as though you've got insight into it, when you do not.

Hi, my name is Dave and I was an Eberron Basher.

Seriously, when I heard all the talk about the setting, I thought "this sounds really idiotic," and decided there and then to have nothing to do with it, except occasionally give my uninformed opinion of the setting.

Flash forward to a few months ago when I am invited to join a group playing in Eberron. Since I was not playing D&D at all, I figured, what the heck I'll give it a try, the other guys in the group have been talking about their other Eberron campaign and it sounds OK. Turns out that I am enjoying the game. That isn't to say I am loving every aspect of the setting, but it is interesting and different enough to bring back a little bit of that wonder I had when I first started playing D&D 27 years ago.

I now remind myself in gaming of what I try to tell my kids at dinner time: "How do you know you won't like it if you don't at least give it a try?"

 

[werk]

Although initially VERY resistant, I really like Eberron, and am glad they didn't redo one of their 'done' campaign settings from the past.

I've been playing since 19 something something and I'd much rather have radically different campaign settings instead of Middle Earth version 5218. RADICALLY DIFFERENT, not just changing names and maps.

I really wish that WotC published Dragonstar, or just went ahead and took the plunge into sci-fantasy.

Don't be scared of new things. Try new things with an open mind and decide for yourself after the experience. Only babies know they won't like something before they try it.

 

[Mercule]

As a fan of Eberron, I do think the warforged are, basically, robots. At least, they serve the same role as robots often do in scifi and are made out of metal. No, they aren't literally mechanical men, but for most purposes, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it might be a duck.

I really don't care for warforged, lightning rails, and Sharn -- heck, I'm ambivalent about shifters and changelings -- but I still find a lot of things that I like about Eberron. The goblinoids are nearly identical to how I run them, so that's a given. Necromantic elves are neat. Orcish druids. Philosopher dragons. Giants as the dawn civilazation and elvish slaves. Giants and dragons in a separate ecology from civilization. A nice pantheon, plus room for monotheism and cults. An interesting take on gnomes. Dragonmarks. Merchant houses. A nice, different cosmology.

Come to think of it, other than dragonmarks, there isn't much new and unique to Eberron that draws me. It's really the spin put on all the existing D&D elements that I love. Sure, a lot of even that isn't new, but the whole is new. It's also well done and thought out. For the first time, I find myself thinking about grabbing setting books not because I think I'll run the setting (though I might), or even because I'm looting for ideas, but because reading the books simply entertains me. It's a fascinating world.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

What's the difference between a warforged and a robot?

To be honest, it's hard to say with how that question is phrased.

Warforged are constructs (Living Constructs to be exact). If constructs are "robots" then warforged are indeed robots. I see no real reason that constructs can't be called "robots". But if warforged are robots then robots have been in D&D ever since the first construct made the monster manual.

I completely agree with the undead rodent in that I don't mind people who bash Eberron for what it actually is. I hate the Tomb of Horrors but a lot of people love it. More power to them. But if someone is going to bash Eberron for "robots" (and I'm not saying you are, gizmo) then I'd want them to bash it because "PCs shouldn't be able to play constructs" (or something), not because "D&D shouldn't have robots".

Edited: Because a single incomplete sentance can change the meaning of an entire paragraph.

 

[gizmo33]

I 100% echo the thoughts that Eberron is a breath of fresh air and a great campaign setting; certainly much better than tired fantasy cliches like Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms.

It's a little bit like saying - "OK, I've got this fantasy setting. You've got guys on horses, but instead of helmets they wear cowboy hats. And there's no law. And instead of a fantasy world, it's set in the historical Old West. And instead of magic, you've got technology. Oh, but you've got halfings. And there's a dragon that lives in Colorado."

So what's a cliche, and what's an attribute of the genre? Wouldn't any attribute that you'd use to identify the genre be a cliche?

A horror movie that tries to scare you is being cliche?

Part of the problem for me might just be the focus. If Eberron is the core effort of WotC in the fantasy world area, and there's already been plenty of dungeonpunk stuff in the core rulebooks, then maybe WotC and many DnD people are getting tired of fantasy.

It would be like me becoming a writer of Westerns, but because I know nothing about cowboys, I started adding wizards and orcs into my stories. At what point am I being innovative, and at what point do I just having nothing interesting to say within the genre?

Sometimes I suspect that a large part of the fantasy audience knows hardly anything about the relevant time-periods in history, folk lore, mythology, et. al. Sometimes I suspect they've largely been educated by comic books and video games and dungeon punk is an easy way of falling back on what they know. Plus, it's marketable. Guys with bowl-haircuts and crosses on their surcoats probably don't sell artwork.

I don't want to see WotC rehash old stuff (which they do, in spite of Eberron). I just don't think that a nose-ring and a train powered by lightning elementals is really innovative enough. There's more to Eberron though, so I have mixed feelings about it and I'm inclined to let it evolve. If WotC thought they had better ideas on what to publish I'm sure they'd go with them.

 

[gizmo33]

But if someone is going to bash Eberron for "robots" (and I'm not saying you are, gizmo) then I'd want them to bash it because "PCs shouldn't be able to play constructs" (or something), not because "D&D shouldn't have robots".

I've seen two different posters say "warforged aren't robots" without bothering to define either term. I suspected they were just being obtuse, so I wanted to get an honest answer about the differences.

I think calling warforged "robots" is a sloppy way that pointing out Warforged are not thematically (whatever I mean by that) the same as the golems of old DnD. A "robot" evokes images of the droids from Starwars, and frankly so do the warforged to me (again, detractors can simply enumerate the differences). Warforged are only superficially like golems. The main difference I see is that Warforged can think independantly. I really find them much closer to what R2-D2 and C3PO were in Star Wars than the way golems are used in DnD. Golems in DnD, and their folklore source, are small-scale creations that live for an adventure or two, turn on their maker and are destroyed.

Is it a bad thing that robots are in DnD? My feelings have to do with the genre, and it's boundaries.

 

[Glyfair]

TIf constructs are "robots" then warforged are indeed robots.

As are iron golems, stone golems, etc. Indeed, I wonder how many people believe the tin woodsman from the Wizard of Oz is a robot.

As a fan of Eberron, I do think the warforged are, basically, robots. At least, they serve the same role as robots often do in scifi and are made out of metal.

Made out of metal, wood, obsidian, stone and "organic materials." I honestly think less would draw the "warforged are robots" connection if there was more focus on their other materials. Looking at the ECS iconic picture of a warforged I see more wood than metal.

I do think they can serve the role robots serve in science fiction stories. Especially those that deal with the ethical and moral issues of them (such as Asimov's stories). I do not think that is their only role (indeed, I don't feel it's their major role).