what makes Eberron different

[Gundark]

I'm looking at getting Eberron, but I don't really get what makes it different, flipped thru it at my LGS. It looks not that different from other settings, yes I know it's high magic and there is warforged...but really what makes the setting different? (oh and yes I have been to the website)

 

[Crothian]

airships standard, lightning mono rails (think trains) standard

its also one of the few or if not the only setting that was desinged specifically for 3.5

from what I've read it seems good, it is a bit different then other setting. Some of the races are actually creative and that's something we hardly ever see. It has a good history unlike many setting. Its not good enough to take me away from my Homebrew though.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I'm looking at getting Eberron, but I don't really get what makes it different, flipped thru it at my LGS. It looks not that different from other settings, yes I know it's high magic and there is warforged...but really what makes the setting different? (oh and yes I have been to the website)

After doing a bit of reading and sifting (though I don't have the book) I think the big differentiating factor is the gods. Or rather, the lack of gods.

In Eberron the gods are not manifest. They don't meddle. Unlike, say, every other WotC setting except Darksun.

Eberron is a lot like Darksun, actually. Psionics. No meddling gods. Political intrigue. Wild halflings. Dinosaurs. Ancient empire of giants. Fairly modern cities (large middle class, guilds, luxuries for the rich etc.).

Maybe that's why I'm interested in it. I was a big Darksun fan.

-z

 

[Mouseferatu]

what makes Eberron different

This.

 

[Khairn]

Despite its pulp oriented theme, Eberron is still a setting specifically designed to incorporate all the elements of standard D&D. Everything has a flavorful slant to it, but in many respects its still the same basic D&D.

IMHO settings like Midnight and AU are truly "different" as they provide fundamental shifts in many of the core paradigms of D&D.

Now please do not think that I am taking shots at Eberron, because I'm not. I like alot of what I've read so far, and I hope to be part of a game in the near future. But I've also experienced some "deja vu" when reading the book as I came to realize that what I was seeing was the same D&D ... just wearing a different set of clothes.

 

[BryonD]

For one thing, it is magic-tech.

Now, it seems to be well done magic-tech. But it is magic-tech. So if you do not want magic-tech, keep that in mind.

It is funny that fan-boys (not always a bad thing, just a descriptive term) have been railing that anyone calling Eberron magic-tech are ill-informed. And then I open my copy (that I received for Father's Day) and there in the first few pages are at least three separate places where Eberron is given a completely function defintion of magic-tech.

Page 7: "Magic is built into the very fabric of the setting. It pervades and influences everyday life. It provides certain comforts and conveniences unknown in either the modern world or and world of medieval fantasy."

Page 9: "The setting supposes a world that developed not through the advance of science, but by the mastery of arcane magic." (A virtual exact defintion of magic-tech) And a few sentences later: "A working class of minor mages uses spells to provide energy and other necessities in towns and cities. Advances in magic item creation have led to everything from self-propelled farming implements to sentient, free-willed constructs."

Page 29: "In Eberron, magic is almost technology."

So, I don't know if the anti-"Eberron is magic-tech" people were ill-informed about Eberron or about what magic-tech is. But, seeing the book for myself, it is beyond question that they were the ones who were ill-informed.

Another thing about Eberron is that it seems to have a distinct direction to it. Not certain if that is the right way to put it or not. As others have described, it has a lot of WWI through Cold War type plot and background to it. And the setting does tend to push towards pulp style games. But I do not see it as enhancing pulp play so much as making other types of play be against the grain. You can do standard fare stuff, no doubt. But I can drop pulp, Indiana Jones, etc style adventure into the Realms no sweat. I guess it does not seem to me that it shines a spot light on pulp so much as it just dims the light on everything else. The Realms (with all the issues that it DOES have) seems a much better blank slate setting to me.

Now, with all that negative, I do think it seems to be rather well done. If having your hand forced a little in terms of the type of plot does not bother you (or this is simply the kind of plot that you always want anyway). And, using a magic-tech setting appeals to you. Then, by all means, buy this setting. And it may be that this is exactly the kind of thing that will help expand D&D. We will see. For me personally, it goes in the wrong direction.

 

[Gargoyle]

Hi Bryon, hope you're doing well.

For one thing, it is magic-tech.

Now, it seems to be well done magic-tech. But it is magic-tech. So if you do not want magic-tech, keep that in mind.

It is funny that fan-boys (not always a bad thing, just a descriptive term) have been railing that anyone calling Eberron magic-tech are ill-informed. And then I open my copy (that I received for Father's Day) and there in the first few pages are at least three separate places where Eberron is given a completely function defintion of magic-tech.

Page 7: "Magic is built into the very fabric of the setting. It pervades and influences everyday life. It provides certain comforts and conveniences unknown in either the modern world or and world of medieval fantasy."

Page 9: "The setting supposes a world that developed not through the advance of science, but by the mastery of arcane magic." (A virtual exact defintion of magic-tech) And a few sentences later: "A working class of minor mages uses spells to provide energy and other necessities in towns and cities. Advances in magic item creation have led to everything from self-propelled farming implements to sentient, free-willed constructs."

Page 29: "In Eberron, magic is almost technology."

So, I don't know if the anti-"Eberron is magic-tech" people were ill-informed about Eberron or about what magic-tech is. But, seeing the book for myself, it is beyond question that they were the ones who were ill-informed.

I agree. The reason people rail against the term magic-tech is that labels like "magic-tech", like the label "fanboy", have negative connotations. Such terms cause people to have preconceptions, and if you're a fan of the setting you don't want people to have negative preconceptions about the setting. Magic-tech seems to be a negative term, because it is not usually done well, and often comes off as hokey.

Another thing about Eberron is that it seems to have a distinct direction to it. Not certain if that is the right way to put it or not. As others have described, it has a lot of WWI through Cold War type plot and background to it. And the setting does tend to push towards pulp style games. But I do not see it as enhancing pulp play so much as making other types of play be against the grain. You can do standard fare stuff, no doubt. But I can drop pulp, Indiana Jones, etc style adventure into the Realms no sweat. I guess it does not seem to me that it shines a spot light on pulp so much as it just dims the light on everything else. The Realms (with all the issues that it DOES have) seems a much better blank slate setting to me.

Now, with all that negative, I do think it seems to be rather well done. If having your hand forced a little in terms of the type of plot does not bother you (or this is simply the kind of plot that you always want anyway). And, using a magic-tech setting appeals to you. Then, by all means, buy this setting. And it may be that this is exactly the kind of thing that will help expand D&D. We will see. For me personally, it goes in the wrong direction.

I like that it does have a direction. FR is certainly more generic, but did we really want another FR? I didn't. Eberron is definitely not written to appeal to everyone, and I like that. My bias, of course, is that the direction they chose does happen to appeal to me. Had they made the setting based on genres I disliked, I probably would have more negative things to say.

But even though you could run an FR campaign with a theme of dark swashbuckling adventure, it would take more work than using Eberron, and that defeats the point of using a campaign sourcebook. If I were to customize FR to be something else, I might be inclined to run a homebrew.

I haven't read the book enough to know whether it really does the job though. So far it looks fun and interesting, but I need more time with it. Aside from action points, the rapid travel offered by magic-tech, and some of the politics and organizations it seems to me that it may not push the game in a "dark swashbuckling" direction as much as it could have. For instance, the artificer was a neat addition, but why not have the swashbuckler from the Complete Warrior as a core class in the book as well? Yeah, I know they were published within a few months of one another, but a few repeated pages wouldn't be too bad, and certainly not something new. I think I would have backed up the theme of the campaign world with a few more rules. But I like my RPG stuff crunchy, so perhaps that's just me. And I'm sure we'll see more Eberron crunch in the future.

 

[Henry]

I'll let you know after Thursday.

 

[BryonD]

Hi Bryon, hope you're doing well.

HEY!

Things are going quite well. Second daughter is just over three weeks old now. Just funny that you caught me on a grumpy thread.

I agree. The reason people rail against the term magic-tech is that labels like "magic-tech", like the label "fanboy", have negative connotations. Such terms cause people to have preconceptions, and if you're a fan of the setting you don't want people to have negative preconceptions about the setting. Magic-tech seems to be a negative term, because it is not usually done well, and often comes off as hokey.

Maybe so. I guess I haven't really noticed magic-tech as being a negative term. It seems to be used somewhat interchangeably with steampunk and such, and I don't think those are negative. I don't even think magic-tech is a negative that much. And, regardless of how some magic-tech has been done, I do think this implementation seems to be fairly solid (so far).

I like that it does have a direction. FR is certainly more generic, but did we really want another FR? I didn't.

But did we need a new setting at all?

I'd prefer to have a generic setting where I can do whatever I want and a generic pulp sourcebook that I can use in any setting I want than an intertwined setting/pulp sourcebook.

Eberron is definitely not written to appeal to everyone, and I like that. My bias, of course, is that the direction they chose does happen to appeal to me. Had they made the setting based on genres I disliked, I probably would have more negative things to say.

Certainly. And it is clear that there will be people for whom this is perfect. But I have a hard time seeing that a campaign setting that nudges you in a direction is going to have as wide an appeal as a campaign setting designed to let you nudge it.

But even though you could run an FR campaign with a theme of dark swashbuckling adventure, it would take more work than using Eberron, and that defeats the point of using a campaign sourcebook. If I were to customize FR to be something else, I might be inclined to run a homebrew.

Again, I agree. But only by a little bit. I doubt there is anyone who before they every heard of Eberron would have claimed that you could not do dark swashbuckling, or Indiana Jones, or whatever in D&D. But now that Eberron is here, there seem to be these cries of "At last!", and I don't get that.

Eberron is a tiny bit easier to do one style of plot than FR, and FR is notably easier to do just about every OTHER kind. Love it or hate it, FR has been very successful. I think the blank slate aspect of FR has a lot to do with that. It takes traditional generic fanatsy archetypes and tacks on anything and everything. Players pick and choose what they want. Eberron has the "Ten things you need to know." In FR, I tell it what IT needs.

I haven't read the book enough to know whether it really does the job though. So far it looks fun and interesting, but I need more time with it. Aside from action points, the rapid travel offered by magic-tech, and some of the politics and organizations it seems to me that it may not push the game in a "dark swashbuckling" direction as much as it could have. For instance, the artificer was a neat addition, but why not have the swashbuckler from the Complete Warrior as a core class in the book as well? Yeah, I know they were published within a few months of one another, but a few repeated pages wouldn't be too bad, and certainly not something new. I think I would have backed up the theme of the campaign world with a few more rules. But I like my RPG stuff crunchy, so perhaps that's just me. And I'm sure we'll see more Eberron crunch in the future.

I think it does a good job of what it set out to do. And a lot of the Eberron copies do have repeated pages (oh wait, that isn't what you meant....)

Anyway, it may be that at 34 I am over the hill and this is the new thing that the next generation of gamers wants. And if so, good for them and for WotC. But I wish they had gone for a more broad scope.

Anyway, I hope things have settled down for you. I'd certainly look forward to learning what new things are brewing in your mind. my e-mail is the same as it was, so drop me a line any time you want.

 

[Mouseferatu]

But I do not see it as enhancing pulp play so much as making other types of play be against the grain. You can do standard fare stuff, no doubt. But I can drop pulp, Indiana Jones, etc style adventure into the Realms no sweat. I guess it does not seem to me that it shines a spot light on pulp so much as it just dims the light on everything else. The Realms (with all the issues that it DOES have) seems a much better blank slate setting to me.

I don't mean to nitpick, since your ultimate conclusion--which I agree with--was that the setting is well done.

But I have to say, I disagree strongly with this. The whole post-WWI feel, the sorts of adventures the history and current politics encourage, the general mood of the world... I think it very much encourages the adventure/pulp style of play, rather than merely dimming the light on other styles. The fact that you can make FR pulp doesn't mean Eberron isn't focused on pulp. I can run horror in Forgotten Realms, but I don't think anyone would argue that Ravenloft is more geared towards it. I feel the same applies here. Yes, you can run pulp in other worlds, and you can run non-pulp in Eberron, and you can do both very well. But Eberron does feel, to me, as though it's actively geared in that direction, without truly removing any of the other options.