what makes Eberron different

[BryonD]

As one of the people who thought the pre-release cries of "magitech! magitech!" where overdone, I have a few explanations for this.

The first is that Eberron's approach to widespread low-level magic doesn't act like any "magitech" I've seen in other games or works of fiction. Most times I've seen magitech, it has taken the form of complex machines with lots of gears and moving parts powered by magic rather than steam or electricity. Simply put, Eberron does not feature any magically-enhanced complex mechanical devices. Inside warforged, you'll find sinuous, animated wood rather than gears. Airships don't have propellors or hot-air balloons; they're boats with rings of bound elemental power. The Lighting Rail is the closes to traditional magitech, but it's a bunch of floating compartments suspended over crystals, none of which required post-medieval technology to develop. I won't argue that Eberron has "magic-tech," but it's not a Final Fantasy or Arcanum clone. It's more like a less silly Ringworld (though again, not to that extent).

Well, I think it was you that I had this exact discussion with before.
I don't for the life of me see how you can look at the sentence "In Eberron, magic is almost technology." and then turn around and try to argue that it is not magic-tech on the basis of your own personal and highly narrow definition.

Magic-tech means that magic functions as technology. Of course the insides of a magic tool will look completely different than the insides of a physics and chemistry technical tool. Who cares? Magic tech is about magic as the alternate process of achieving the same function.

Quite simply, you were wrong.

And if that were the end of it, then no big deal. But to then go around slamming other people for being "ill-informed" when it turns out they knew what they were talking about better than you did is fairly lame.

On the "pulp" thing, I think you are taking advantage of this term being used to mean different things. If "pulp" simply means what you are now saying, the Eberron is no more pulp than Greyhawk. Seriously, by the defintion you are now using, how are FR NOT pulp? Action points? I've got Unearthed Arcana, so I can add Action Points in a snap. What does Eberron got that meets the definition you are now using that FR does not?

Eberron is described (on page 8, among other places) as a setting of "Swashbuckling action and dark adventure". Other terms used to describe it include heavy in intrigue and political and economic conflict. Plots are described as strongly inspired by Indiana Jones meets Casablanca style action. "Pulp" has been used as a shorthand for this. And it is a sufficiently accurate defintion. But just because the term has other, more generic, defintions, you can not ignore the context of the usage.

IMO, a world where you are told where the drow are and where the half-orcs are, and so on and so forth, and many of the character features (feats, PClasses) are tied to houses and other political groups, then you are nudged (not FORCED, but nudged) into having these intrigue elements built into your character's lives and those into the plots that they go into.

And I know that you can shoot down these points one by one. I can list more and you can shoot down those as well. The point is not that these issues are unassailable. It is that if I don't want to deal with one or more of these issues, then a setting that does not require me to shoot them down is preferable. And I do think that the intrigue, cold war (whatever term you prefer) thing plays into this and to some degree requires it. The intrigue is based on the set dynamic of the setting. Political strife between houses and other groups is important. But it is hard to be in a cold war and keeping secrets from other houses when there are F'ing drow coming out of the ground everywhere trying to destroy ALL of the houses. That would change the political dynamics and take away from the +2 to bluff and intimidate that two of the four new PC races have. Of course, I can easily throw Keith's recommendations out the window and have a massive drow invasion. But I would be out of step with the plan.

If I read your comments correctly, then Eberron is 100% as good as FR in every way, except for certain types of action, in which it is better. Is that truly your assessment? I do not believe that this lack of give and take exists.

Mouseferatu,

My turn to nitpick. On the changing defintion of "pulp". You first brought up the Ravenloft example. And in these two quotes you change the working defintion from the Eberron context, to this new (applicable to virtually any D&D setting) defintion. I'm not trying to simply be an ass and say "I got you." Because I haven't and that isn't the point anyway. I am simply demonstrating that the defintion in which my point about "pulp" is reasonable, is and has been used.

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.

A lot of us--and I include myself in the guilty party--have been throwing around "pulp" while talking about Eberron, without necessarily specifying what we meant. I usually use "pulp" to mean "pulp action adventure." But pulp also includes horror, mystery, sci-fi, noir... Heck, Conan is pulp; it just happens to be pulp fantasy. Pulp, as Johnny so well put it, is an approach, rather than a genre. Rather than looking at Eberron as a setting that encourages any specific type of game, it might be better to look at it as a lens through which you can look at any sort of game, and it'll look a bit different than it does in other settings.

Now, it is funny that I need to be on the defensive about all this. If you go back and look I don't think you will find anywhere that I have said Eberron is bad. Hell, I seriously think I may use it for some one-offs. I have been a bit aggressive about the "you are ill-informed if you think it is magic-tech" thing. I'm sorry that I am not enough of a Zen dude to be less irked by that. But I'm not. But none of those comments have been aimed at Keith or WotC or Eberron. There is no reason they should be.

This thread is about "what is different?". To me, two things jump out that are different. 1) It IS magic-tech and 2) It colors the plots within the setting with "pulp definition #1", politics, whatever.

There is not a single thing in the world that makes either of these things bad. And OF COURSE there are going to be lots of people for whom this is EXACTLY what they want. If those things are neutral or positive to you and you are even slightly in the market for a campaign setting, then GO BUY THIS BOOK. It is well done. I can show you where I said that before, can you show me where I contradicted it?

I get the idea that some people are really caught up in Eberron, though, and any statement that can be viewed in any way as a downside for anyone is to be attacked. These two things just are not that big a deal. But there just may be some people out there who are interested in hearing opinions from people other than those in the choir.

 

[fanboy2000]

1. I think your right about Eberron being mage-tech. I also think it's well done.

My turn to nitpick. On the changing defintion of "pulp". You first brought up the Ravenloft example. And in these two quotes you change the working defintion from the Eberron context, to this new (applicable to virtually any D&D setting) defintion.

Fritz Leiber's Lankhmar books were first published in pulps. Fafhard and The Grey Mouser were definatly an insperation for Greyhawk. The broader defination of pulp fits, but has the problem of being less persice, making the word useless for the thread. (And what word should we use to replace the narrower defination of pulp?) I'd rather use the narrower defination of pulp, everyone knows what it means.

This thread is about "what is different?". To me, two things jump out that are different. 1) It IS magic-tech and 2) It colors the plots within the setting with "pulp definition #1", politics, whatever.

I think the diffrences are more than that, but those are the big ones.

The reasons you gave eairlier for only running a one-off are the reason's I'd give for running a continuing campaign.

I think that, on the scale of campaign setting broadness for D&D Greyhawk and FR are on one end, and Ravenloft and Dark Sun are on the other, with Eberron in between, closer to FR. Eberron is broad, but deffinatly not as broad as FR, which I think is kind of setting WotC needed. (Again, we already have a campaign setting that does Forgotten Realms well.)

All in all, agree with you on everything but the frequancy of the game sessions.

 

[BryonD]

I don't think we need a new word. I just think we shouldn't change the working defintion along the way.

And I will agree with you that there many other differences.

Your assessment of Eberron being closer to FR than to Ravenloft is certainly reasonable. And, as more products come out, it may very well move further that direction. For now I can only speak to the one book.

 

[Gargoyle]

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.

Congrats!! Actually this thread seemed less grumpy than usual for you, so you must be mellowing out.

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.

Yes, but you also used the term fanboy in a non-negative way, and you know how many people feel about that. Magic-tech and steampunk aren't really negative in the same way, but many people dislike those genres; they don't want tech muddying the waters of their fantasy worlds.

But did we need a new setting at all?

The market will decide that.

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.

I'm actually of the opinion that generic settings are less interesting and less valuable to me. A setting with more focus will probably do what it does better than one without such direction. The risk of publishing something like that is that if I don't like the direction they took, I won't run it, and probably won't buy it unless I just want to scavenge some parts of it.

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.

That's why I admire the setting...they have taken some risks. If they did FR take two, then I would also be asking why do we need another campaign setting?

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.

No doubt, IMO FR has a permanent place in D&D. But I think there is room for other settings now and then, and to me it seems like the right time for something new.

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....)

Heh

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.

Gosh Bryon, you old geezer. Glad I'm only 33.

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.

I'm doing better. It's a long story, I'll e-mail you the details when I can.

 

[Dark Psion]

1. Eberron breaks a lot of D&D stereotypes.
The drow are no longer spider worshiping dominatrixes in the dark, half elves are a race unto themselves, and Alignment is no longer absolute. You can rework aspects of D&D that some gamers know by heart and make the game new and fresh again. For example, I have decided that the Githyanki and Githzerai still serve the Illithid in Eberron. There was no revolt by Gith and those wishing to face the Mind Flayers here with have a much harder time getting to them.

2. Eberron feels open to other material.
As I read, I can’t help but think here’s a place for the Expanded Psionic Handbook’s new Maenad race in the Lhazaar Islands. How the Half Hobgoblin race from Kalamar would work well in Darguun. How the Book of Vile Darkness would be required reading for the Demon Wastes and even how the Rokugan Courtier would be a great class for the Dragonmarked Houses.
This setting feels like outside material is welcome, where other settings (Dark Sun, Dragonlance, etc) felt closed off to some materials.

3. It feels complete.
As others mentioned, sometimes a new Forgotten Realms book would come out and it just didn’t feel like it fit in the realms (and according to Ed of the Greenwoods some of it didn’t belong). Eberron feels like it has been worked out and has a working plan behind it.

4. You are the Hero.
One complaint about both Greyhawk and especially the Forgotten Realms has always been all the “other” heroes in the setting. PCs feel overshadowed by the Elminsters and Dritzzts.
In Eberron, you are the hero, even the NPCs mentioned in the book are in the 10th character level area.

5. Psionics are part of the setting.
Yes, I know not everyone likes psionics, but it is far easier for you to ignore it than it is for me to improvise it. It is nice to be welcomed in the front door for once and invited to the big table and not directed to the card table in the corner.

 

[Gargoyle]

Getting back to the subject of the thread, here is what I perceive as different in Eberron, as compared to FR and Greyhawk, the two "traditional" D&D settings.

1. Magic is a commodity. There are working class spellcasters who make a living with their spells. Magic is commonly available for communication, healing, hospitality, transportation, and other services, as well as magically created mundane goods, magic items, and magebred livestock. Artificers are a new PC character class that eventually can craft any type of magic item and use infusions to magically enhance items temporarily, rather than casting spells. IMO Magitech is an appropriate term for the setting because magic fills many roles that technology fills in the real world. And it is done well...not hokey at all, again IMO of course.
2. New PC races include the changelings, kalashtar, shifters, and warforged.
3. Alignment is rarely absolute with regard to race. A band of orcs might be lawful good, and a silver dragon just might be evil.
4. Action points are used to make things a bit more cinematic.
5. There are quite a few new feats, including dragon marks...inherited tatoos that grant spell-like abilities.
6. The cosmology is different from the standard; there is some description of neighboring planes, which are designed to be visited.
7. The deities do not, by default, meddle too much in the affairs of immortals. For instance, clerics do not have to be of the same alignment of the deities they revere, and even corrupt clerics can cast spells. The power of faith and the skill of the caster seem to power their spells.
8. There are a great variety of organizations, many of them secretive, on Eberron that are not strictly good or evil, but more of a shade of gray. Adventurers might find themselves allied with them one day and fighting them the next. This is one of those things that in itself is not unique to Eberron, but there is more emphasis on it.
9. Various regions seem to have a more fantastic, rather than realistic, feel to them with regard to geography and culture. I'll write more on this later; I haven't read most of the regional stuff.
10. Psionics are "built-in" to the world, rather than tacked on. For that matter so is the role of monks and sorcerers.

 

[tarchon]

Artificers are a new PC character class that eventually can craft any type of magic item and use infusions to magically enhance items temporarily, rather than casting spells.

Infusions? They're like potions or something?

 

[Mythtify]

For one thing, it is magic-tech.

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 appreciate your point of view. Though I am having trouble seeing the Realms as providing anything close to a blank slate.

The Realms has always seemed to me to be very restricting in providing opritunity for the characters to really effect the world.

With Gods, and mega-npc's like Elminster running about the world, what can a small group of players really do?

On the other hand, I quite like the fact that there are very few high level NPC's in Eberron. The campaign feels like a world that needs heroes. Not a place where my players are just another would be Elminster or Drizzt.

I like the level of intrigue. I can accept the ideas of thiefs guilds and mage guilds as centers of power much easier in Eberron than I do with other settigns. They just make more sense in Eberron, with it's weak nobility, than in a more "tradtional" with powerful nobility and centerlized government.

The artificer is an interesting class. I can not wait to hear how they are working out.

I like the overall feel of the game. Like I said earlier, Eberron is a world that needs heroes. I like it.

 

[Staffan]

Infusions? They're like potions or something?

No. They're more like temporary item enchantments. For example, bull's strength is on the artificer's infusion list. However, because it's an infusion, you can't cast it directly on someone, you need to cast it on an item they're wearing, making a temporary belt of giant's strength +4.

You can cast infusions directly on warforged though, and I think other constructs.

 

[Belen]

Johnny- I have to take almost everything you say with a SUV-sized grain of salt. It'd be different if you ever said anything different, but you always feel the need to praise or jump in to defend Eberron on every thread. It makes it difficult to accept your statements because it looks like you see the setting through rose-colored lenses, even before it was released. It reminds me a lot of ArthurQ's dogmatic assertions about the Book of Elf P0rn.

BryonD gave a very compelling argument about Eberron that in no way detracted from the setting and gave us an informed opinion and I saw no need for a "defense of Eberron" statement. I happen to disagree with him about FR and published campaign worlds in general. They are great for short campaigns, but I would never want to play them all the time. They tend to be a very limiting factor in a game because you're always pigeon-holed. They are good for stealing pieces to fit homebrew worlds though.

In any event, it never helps a case when even rational comments are attacked because someone does not agree that Eberron is the "best world evar." Personally, BryonD made me feel MORE positive about Eberron because he likes the world, but does not have to praise every inch of it.

Dogmatic praise really becomes a negative effect over time.

Just a thought.

Dave