Questions for Everyone about Eberron.

[Deadguy]

Errrmm... Radovarl, no.

Strictly when that little note was added at the start of the Eberron Campaign Sourcebook, it meant that if it was in the Core Rules, it had a place in Eberron. Generally that's extended to: if it exists in the rules, you can, if you wish, find a place for it in Eberron. The world is big enough and ancient enough, and sufficiently scarred by war, to accommodate most anything if you really want to.

But, you needn't include anything other than Core material (plus ECS of course), unless you want to. See a reference to how Warlocks can be fitted into the setting, but don't use them? Well then in your game there are no Warlocks, and the game will run just fine. Heck you can even ignore psionics if you don't want them, and just not use a small part of the setting. Add other stuff if you want to, but nothing compels you to do it.

That's the elegant part of Eberron's design. It feels complete yet open-ended at the same time.

And as to the question I own all the Eberron books as I run a bi-weekly Eberron game based loosely round the published adventures. Normally I homebrew - and this is the first time I have ever felt so inspired by a created setting so as to want to run it.

 

[Remathilis]

Love it. Own every major release. DMed it once. Use some of it for Homebrewing. Wouldn't mind DMing/Playing in it again.

 

[ThirdWizard]

When I first heard about it, I didn't like Eberron.

Then I heard people talking, and it sounded pretty good.

So, I borrowed the CS book from a friend of mine, and found I really don't like it after all.

The weird thing is that the parts that most Eberron-haters dislike about the setting, I think are really cool. The real problem is that for everything I find that I like, there's something else I don't like. I can't really remember details, I read the book too long ago. But it seemed like every time I read something and thought "That's cool!" I would read the next page and think to myself "That's just stupid." Repeatedly.

It would be a great CS for stealing bits and pieces, though, if I were inclined to purchase it.

 

[heirodule]

I *like* eberron, not love it, though it's growing on me.

I bought Secrets of Xen'drik because I'm running a RPGA Xen'Drik Expeditions DMs Mark campaign, and wanted some background. I don't even own the ECS. (Though that may change)

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Don't DM or play the setting but I own the CS, Sharn, and Races books for Eberron. Many good ideas in the first two I've mined for my homebrew. Races of Eberron was not so useful as the other two but still don't regret the purchase. Would have bought the CS and Sharn books even from another publisher.

 

[Glyfair]

Unfortunately, there seems to be a conflict between Keith Baker and WotC whereas WotC attempts to cram anything into Eberron. Raptorans? Illumians? Whisper Gnomes? (Ok, the latter was the fault of the RPGA.)

I think it's partially that the WotC writers are more "old school." They expect when they put some suggestions in a book, it would be automatically assumed to be optional. The new school players want it in bright bold print that these are "optional elements."

One of Eberron's major themes is that it's a world for you to mold. Indeed, the Secrets of Xen'drik book is really a toolbox to build your own Xen'drik for your Eberron campaign. There isn't much of a supposed canon Xen'drik.

 

[pogre]

Not interested in the setting is a long way from not liking the setting and that's where I sit. I'm sure it accomplished its goal of pulpy D&D very well and I admire the designer, but I don't own any of it. It would be unfair and inaccurate to say I don't like it.

 

[Graf]

While some of the books (fie kingdoms; explorers; magic) were weak and a bit redundant I really dig the system and I appriciate the way that the setting is broadening DnD with the inlcusion of elements of horror, pulp/detective and chunks of sci-fi.

I also like the combination of Epic, but low level.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I enjoy Eberron because it has a coherent history with a reason for things to exist where they are in the setting. All the other game worlds have large spots of 'here be monsters' with no real reason other than adventure fodder.

This may, of course, be simply a matter of the ECS nicely packaging that history into a neat package whereas for FR you would need to read all the books to understand it all....

I also enjoy Eberron because of the depth of the political game. Greyhawk and its ilk have little set in place for the social skills portions of the game, leading to the Bards sux threads, whereas ECS has enough political depth to build an entire campaign on it.. if you wanted to.

The last reason I enjoy Eberron is because you can take virtually any relatively generic module and plunk it down in a spot that 'fits' into the campaign setting. No more of my homebrew world where the lack of map means I can put published adventures anywhere and dismiss the castles sudden disappearance after the session as a fluke of the mists.

 

[Pants]

I really enjoy Eberron as a setting, but the few times I've run it I've had a hard time nailing the 'feel.' It always ends up feeling like D&D+ rather than pulpy, high action, overly dramatic and cool. I'd love to give it another go, but I'm not sure if my DMing skills are really up to adequately portraying the world.