D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[Zardnaar]

My only past gripe with Eberron is a DM not using ANY of the cool “magitech” stuff at all. That was mismatched expectations. I don’t think we met a single warforged.

If I run it you'll met them.
I'm doubling down on the Eberron. I wouldn't put any restrictions on it but would point out if youre not interested in running Eberron stuff we should pkay sonething else.

I don't care if 1/5 does whatever. I would care if 4/5 did.

In that scenario theres no point in running Eberron and I would get frustrated as I would want to see the Eberron stuff get used.

In that scenario I wouldn't bother running the game. May as well run FR or whatever at that point.

I highly doubt that would happen as I would double check everyone was on bored long before we got to session 0.

 

[Dire Bare]

What?

"In Middle Earth, there are no Tieflings. This is Tolkien's setting, and we all declare parts of it inviolate".

Anwyay, we're not getting anywhere.

Well . . .

How much fidelity a group is paying an established setting is also a "dial" that can be tuned! If the DM and the play group are okay with a Middle-Earth game, but expanding on it in ways outside the Tolkien legendarium . . . are they doing it wrong? Tieflings in Middle-Earth? Why not?

If I were a player joining a Middle-Earth game, especially if I wasn't familiar with the players, I probably would not ask to play a tiefling or a tortle. But if the group are long-term friends . . . I just might . . . or I might not . . .

If I were DMing a Middle-Earth game (which I am) and a player asked to play a tiefling . . . I wouldn't scoff, "What? A tiefling in Middle-Earth? Are you one of those entitled players trying to destroy my fun?!?!" Rather I would consider the play group and probably bring it up under discussion during Session Zero. How comfortable are we all as a group straying from Tolkein? And by how far? If the group is okay with the idea of introducing tieflings to Middle-Earth . . . I'm finding a way to do that. Heck, I've already got ideas percolating, even though none of my players made this request in my actual game . . .

In our actual game . . . we are all Tolkein fans, but have varying degrees of setting knowledge and none of us are Tolkien scholars. When we've come up on lore issues that nobody knew what was "right" . . . we either looked it up quickly on a phone or if that didn't work . . . we just made something up! We've already moved into an "alternate Middle-Earth"! And we've already started discussions about the storyline diverging from the novels/movies . . .

 

[Zardnaar]

Sigh. Let me get the quotes...

If it Exists in D&D, It exists in Eberron
1. If it exists in D&D, then it has a place in Eberron. A monster or spell or magic item from
the core rulebooks might feature a twist or two to account for Eberron’s tone and attitude,
but otherwise everything in the Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master’s Guide, and Monster Manual has a place somewhere in Eberron. Also, this is the first D&D setting built entirely from the v.3.5 rules, which enabled us to blend rules and story in brand-new ways.
(Eberron Campaign Setting, pg 8)

1. If it exists in the D&D world, then it has a place in Eberron. Eberron is all about using the core elements of the D&D world in new ways and interesting combinations, with some unique elements thrown in. It's still a D&D setting, so any information for players that appears in another D&D core rulebook or supplement—from the classes and races in a Player's Handbook to the new powers and other features in a book such as Divine Power—should fit right in to your Dungeon Master's EBERRON campaign. (Of course, your DM always has the final word about what parts of the D&D game are allowed and not allowed in
the campaign.)
(Eberron Player’s Guide, pg 4)

7. D&D with a Twist. Every race, monster, spell, and magic item in the Player's Handbook,
Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual has a place somewhere in Eberron, but it
might not be the place you expect. Eberron has a unique spot in the D&D multiverse, and
many familiar elements of the game play different roles in the world. In particular, mortal
creatures are products of culture and circumstances, rather than the direct influence of the gods. As a result, you can't assume that a gold dragon is good or a beholder is evil; only in the case of celestials, fiends, and certain other creatures whose identity and worldview are shaped by magic (such as the curse of lycanthropy) is alignment a given.
(Eberron: Rising From the Last War, pg 5

Where people get that Eberron isn't a kitchen sink with a twist is beyond me.

You can quote page numbers all you like. Its not if you can its if you should.

If I had a group pull this and just made up a party of random crap I would cancel the Eberron game before it started.

See previous response. I wouldn't care if one players did whatever but if you destroy my enthusiasm for a setting before the game even starts you dont get to play said fame because there is no game.

Unless you want to run it yourself or another player runs it.

One lesson ive learnt somewhat recently. It wouldn't hapoen IRL anyway as I would double check everyone's on board 1st.

 

[Remathilis]

You can quote page numbers all you like. Its not if you can its if you should.

If I had a group pull this and just made up a party of random crap I would cancel the Eberron game before it started.

See previous response. I wouldn't care if one players did whatever but if you destroy my enthusiasm for a setting before the game even starts you dont get to play said fame because there is no game.

Unless you want to run it yourself or another player runs it.

One lesson ive learnt somewhat recently. It wouldn't hapoen IRL anyway as I would double check everyone's on board 1st.

A DM can remove things if he wants. He can scream and yell and throw a tantrum and say warforged are stupid and people who play them are stupid if he wants. But there is NO LORE REASON anything can't be used in Eberron. None. Zero. Not "But Keith said", not "but the novels said" not "according to this source book". If a DM wants something banned, he had to own it and say HE doesn't like it and not hide behind setting lore.

 

[AlViking]

That's fine, Eberron specifically says the DM can change it. But that doesn't stop making Eberron a kitchen sink by default. There are a half-dozen settings that D&D makes that aren't kitchen sinks. Eberron isn't one of them. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I simply don't see the point of making Eberron into Generic D&D World.

 

[Zardnaar]

A DM can remove things if he wants. He can scream and yell and throw a tantrum and say warforged are stupid and people who play them are stupid if he wants. But there is NO LORE REASON anything can't be used in Eberron. None. Zero. Not "But Keith said", not "but the novels said" not "according to this source book". If a DM wants something banned, he had to own it and say HE doesn't like it and not hide behind setting lore.

Nope DM doesnt have to even do that.

Banning Warforfed would be silly. More typical a DM just wouldnt run Eberron. Its not universally popular.

The quality is really good imho. It converted me 2005 or so. Books have mostly sat on the shelf.

I would run it as PHB and Eberron material only probably. At least with classes and races. I dont care about Xanathars spells.

If Eberron was our default world I woukd expand it. Early on oo I would prefer a heavy focus on Eberron stuff.

A setting I'm just not interested in i woukd just not play vs insisting it meets my desires. Example Dragonlance, 1480's DR FR, probably Ravenloft. Why ruin it for others?

 

[Dire Bare]

At the end of my last campaign I asked the group without qualifying it in any way what we wanted to do next. Everybody just sort of looked at me and said they trusted me to do something fun and exciting without a single suggestion. I guess my hypnosis abilities must be better than I thought if the majority of players secretly want collaborative world building.

While we have very different styles . . .

I've had that problem. As the DM, trying to push my players to engage in creating the campaign and/or world with me . . . some players get excited about that prospect . . . others could not care at all, or are just not used to or comfortable with the idea.

I've had players look at me like I was crazy and mumble something like, "Well, you're the DM, isn't that your job?" Both in selecting a campaign frame for the next game, or in emergent world-building at the table. Everybody's comfort and interest levels are different.

But slowly, over time, I've been getting my players to be more and more comfortable joining me in a more collaborative D&D games. But still, most of them aren't in the same place I am on this stylistic issue. But that's okay, we have a great deal of trust and we're having a good time!

 

[Remathilis]

I simply don't see the point of making Eberron into Generic D&D World.

Eberron is a setting with magical trains, sentient golems and magic so common crafters use it in their work. The potential that turtle people can exist does not make it generic. Feel free to make Eberron a low magic humanocentric world if you want, the setting as It was made was designed to be a kitchen sink.

 

[Dire Bare]

"There is not tortles in this world" is a campaign premise that is incompatible with tortles. That's it, it doesn't need any more justification.

As the DM . . . no you don't. But, IMO, that is being a pretty poor player and friend, and it's a huge "red flag" for me. I mean, if your reasoning and justification doesn't align with my own preferences, that's okay. But to simply say, "No tortles. Why? Because, that's why!" Ah, no thanks.

 

[tetrasodium]

I already explained that in the post you quoted. If the difference is still confusing, I lack the desire to provide more clarity then I already have.

That's not what the post was saying. The difference between the act of curating a setting and the desire to do so out of GM preference is not unclear, but 2491 didn't leave things there. Between the two you included this

.

There are good ways and bad ways to do curated settings. When the curation flows from a shared understanding of the setting (like a published setting, a known IP, or a agreed-upon transmitted concept), I think that's better. When the curation flows from the GM's preferences into the shared fiction, I find that not as good.

.that right there sounds a lot like an effort to declare one preference as superior to the other and is why I commented as much. Absent clarification I'll just say that you are mistaken and neither is innately more or less good. The gm is typically the one who gets to decide how they curate the setting without bringing the players up for a fate style collaborative worldbuilding simply because the gm puts in more work and needs to decide how to juggle the desires/preferences an average of 3-5 individual players express through the ties their characters have with that curated world.