Mike Mearls is a Genius

[Odhanan]

Yes, I have strong doubts about this marketing move. A designer making this choice is taking the risk of "diluting" the conceptual points of the setting into a soup where in the end, you don't know as a reader where the core idea resides. And this is how you get a Mike Mearls wondering where the eck Eberron is going.

 

[fanboy2000]

Looking at the d20 FRCS, I'd have to say you hit it on the head. The important thing, from an adventure writting standpoint, is the last part: "to discover the world, its history and factions, they need to go to various locals, kill monsters, loot them and sell their stuff every time they're back to town." I can't compair it to the Old Gray Box because I don't have it.

 

[fanboy2000]

Yes, I have strong doubts about this marketing move. A designer making this choice is taking the risk of "diluting" the conceptual points of the setting into a soup where in the end, you don't know as a reader where the core idea resides. And this is how you get a Mike Mearls wondering where the heck Eberron is going.

Ok, last post before I go outside to enjoy my Memorial Day!

For me the concept behind Eberron became crystal clear when I was reading Leife Across Khorvaire on page 131 of the ECS:

The Treaty of Thronehold was signed on the 11th day of Aryth in 996 YK, thus ending the Last War.

Aryth is the elevaneth month of Galifar Calendar. I knew then, exatly what kind of campaign I wanted to run.

 

[eyebeams]

In a basic, high school English sense, a story has:

* a goal
* a conflict that represents the impediment to that goal.
* the resolution of that conflict.

In these loose confines, you can describe the way folks play games as stories. In D&D the goal is to level up. The conflict is that characters risk death or resource loss in attempts to level up. Resolution is episodic: campaign arc by campaign arc.

Where I differ from Mike is in the above: Note that my description above does *not* need to have anything to do with the game world or narrative flash. Really, a "core story," is what's invented after the fact from metagame concerns.

So "dungeons" and "loot" are really narrative skins for a way to power up and fight for said powerups. A series of wilderness treks does basically the same thing.

Lets look at Vampire:

In Vampire the goal is to remain socially viable by becoming more powerful without losing excess Humanity. The conflict pits character against stimuli that threatens their ability to become more powerful or retain Humanity. Resolution is, again, episodic.

It doesn't matter whether a Vampire game involves fighting elders or an in-depth examination of the consequences of feeding. They hit the same triggers.

However, outside of the gears that encourage a certain structure that flash *is* important to actually enjoy the same. To games of D&D and Vampire can have radically different moods, but cleave to the rules' suggested story. When something conflicts with the structure that the rules encourage, then things don't work so well.

As far as Eberron goes, the problem is that much of the doesn't really stick to the gears. There's no system for patronage, for example. It's designed to encompass the core D&D game, but the exotic elements aren't backed by much.

 

[Odhanan]

Aryth is the elevaneth month of Galifar Calendar. I knew then, exatly what kind of campaign I wanted to run.

11th of November. The "Last of the Last" War. Yep that's one of its (other) core stories, absolutely.

Edit - enjoy your Memorial Day, by the way.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yes, I have strong doubts about this marketing move. A designer making this choice is taking the risk of "diluting" the conceptual points of the setting into a soup where in the end, you don't know as a reader where the core idea resides. And this is how you get a Mike Mearls wondering where the eck Eberron is going.

I think Mike Mearls comes at this from a point of view that non-designers (not including the would-be designers who are on every RPG board) never would.

Of COURSE D&D is about "kill stuff and go through their pockets." Nothing about Eberron would suggest otherwise.

"Conceptual points?" Both Faerun and Greyhawk have an everything and the kitchen sink approach to them, leaving out only psionics as a core element (FR has recently inserted it into the snakey history in a supplement, but that's a substantially different level of support for the concept). The only difference, to the extent that there is one, is that those other settings are larger, so everything's not quite so cheek-by-jowl. And, of course, it looks like Tolkein, which is important to a lot of people.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

As far as Eberron goes, the problem is that much of the doesn't really stick to the gears. There's no system for patronage, for example. It's designed to encompass the core D&D game, but the exotic elements aren't backed by much.

Neither are the exotic elements of FR or Greyhawk, unless there's secretly a whole lot of rules in the back of the LGreyhawk book about becoming a member of the nobility that I missed, or a Chosen of _____ Prestige Class in the FRCS I skimmed past.

In both cases, much of what makes the world interesting has to be done by DM fiat -- much like in Eberron.

Eberron can't be deficient because it lacks things that both the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk both are lacking, unless the argument is that all three have issues, which it isn't -- Mike's assertion is that Eberron isn't doing the same things right that FR and Greyhawk do. Of course, it's doing the exact same thing, and no one seems to be having much problem using it in the ways they'd use any other setting.

 

[Odhanan]

it looks like Tolkein, which is important to a lot of people.

Yep. To me for instance. It is Tolkien, not "ein".

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yep. To me for instance.

And does the lack of JRRT flavor make the setting seem less fun to you than it would otherwise? Is perhaps the apparent lack of core story Mearls alleges (sort of) more a case of "LotR-lite is familiar to me, this thing isn't, I don't know how to run an LotR-lite game without the usual trappings?"

Honestly, that's what most of the criticism, including Mearls', feels like to me. And I'm not saying that's wrong -- I've got leather-bound editions and the CE of the DVDs and all the rest -- but it does seem a bit unfair to attack it for things that other settings don't also have, when the biggest problem is style preferences.

 

[Odhanan]

And does the lack of JRRT flavor make the setting seem less fun to you than it would otherwise? Is perhaps the apparent lack of core story Mearls alleges (sort of) more a case of "LotR-lite is familiar to me, this thing isn't, I don't know how to run an LotR-lite game without the usual trappings?"

I don't think so: I love Eberron, and Mike Mearls was running his Boston campaign in the Eberron setting, if I remember well (he'll be able to confirm or refute when he reads this, if he does).

Have a good Memorial Day!