Will 4E Eberron be as bad as FR?

[JPL]

I like the new FR, and I have not seen some preponderance of critics panning it more than praising it, at least not any more or less than 3e FR.

If you don't like 4e FR, fair enough. But speaking on behalf of most critics, players, and DMs?

I think for this kind of product, it's kinda far fetched to make those kinds of claims with out some pretty extensive proof along with links and statistical counting and direct comparison to equivalent data from 3e.

Without that level of proof, I think you would be more persuasive if you just gave your personal opinion, rather than the false appeal to authority that you made.

As for Eberron, since I liked FR, I hope Ebberon lives up to 4e FR

Man, you can always spot a lawyer on a message board, can't you? With your evidence and your burden of proof and such . . .

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm still worried, given that we've already been told that Eberron's unique cosmology is going to be sacrificed on the altar of 4th edition.

Which is one of my aforementioned facepalm moments. But I don't think they'll be changing the idea of conjunctions and the like; they'll keep the essential unique properties of the setting, even if they (rather pointlessly) change the way it all looks on paper. The daily playing of an Eberron campaign won't be affected by it, I think, just because most Eberron campaigns aren't directly affected by cosmology models. They're more worried, for instance, about the damage you take falling from a speeding lightning rail as it plummets over the edge of the gorge because some political splinter-sect bombed the bridge.

 

[Drkfathr1]

I've never been a big fan of FR, but I can understand why fans of the setting would be upset with the changes that were made. Pretty drastic changes.

I don't think they intend to go as far with Eberron, so it should come out much closer to its previous incarnation, but we'll see. Maybe they've learned a little about what NOT to do after the feedback that's come from the FR releases.

 

[rounser]

What 4e in general, and 4eFR specifically, didn't take into account as well is the idea that the best way to attract new fans is to keep the old ones -- those dedicated fans are what bring in new players, so you should be careful not to alienate what is, ultimately, your best recruiting tools: people who like the game they play.

I suspect that they're trying to emulate Games Workshop: sell them stuff for a year or two, then make their stuff obsolete. Don't try to retain your old customers; they weren't buying much anymore anyway, and some will hang on and buy more. Hey, it works for selling miniatures, and 4E is clearly designed to do that.

I don't think WotC will be able to really nuke Eberron like they nuked FR.

So far as I can see, Eberron turned out to be what I suspected it was: a manifesto on what the current design team believed about D&D, and a harbinger of what was to come (the direction the game was going in). I disagreed with many of the underlying assumptions and philosophies behind Eberron, and can see it mirrored in 4E and what was done to FR. You're right that less will be done to Eberron, because apart from what will be required to bring it into line with the quirky and arbitrary 4E implied setting, it already reflects what WOTC believe about D&D.

1. Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide for 4th Edition is, by itself, a great product. It is a wonderful setting book that both inspires as GM, and allows him the freedom to build a campaign.
2. If there was no Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting previous to this edition, it would be widely loved, and wouldn't be judged as a poor product because of it's immense differences with a completely different product (yes, I understand that they are for the same setting).
3. Your opinion of the product is going to be almost entirely colored by your previous experience with Forgotten Realms. If you have no previous experience, you're likely to enjoy the product and make good use of it. If you were attached to the lore of the setting for a long period of time before this edition, you are likely to not agree with the changes, which some feel (with legitimacy) throw away everything good about the old setting.
4. It is ok to be upset about the changes. I can empathize with this frustration, and felt much the same way myself. Some people know enough about Forgotten Realms to have a doctorate in Realms lore, and for these people, the Spellplague might as well have actually happened to them. Just because others like the new setting doesn't mean that there's something wrong with your dislike of it.

That's all fine for Theoretical Land, but unfortunately for your argument we live in the real world, which has a history and expectations connected to certain branding. WOTC's problem is that they want to have their cake and eat it: the sales of D&D and FR from the name and logo, but without enough of the hallmarks of the brand that make it deserving of that title. Yes it would have been better received if it was Donjons & Dragonborn and the Misbegotten Regions, but without the D&D and FR names, those games would probably sink into the morass of RPG sales mediocrity without much trace. You probably wouldn't even bother to get on the bandwagon with "Poison Ivy Press" if those names weren't involved. And what you're being told here is that the new product doesn't do what it says on the tin.

 

[fba827]

Regardless of my personal opinion on FR in general or the specific changes that were made, I believe that the first setting that WotC published -had- to conform to as much of a 'general base line' as possible in order to accomodate as many people. You can't make your first published setting be a 'niche' setting, it's just not usually a feasible way to do things. I would expect that later settings can be more niche.


As a matter of personal taste, I don't often like published settings (to DM or Play) because it is hard for me to remember history and places and people that i did not make up myself (i sucked at history subjects in school for that same reason). So I stick to homebrewed stuff. I did get the FRPG for the crunch (specifically the swordmage class) and honestly, the fact that the setting was more "novice friendly" is the only reason I would consider playing in an FR setting (as a player; though not as a DM, for the above stated reasons).

For future settings, I would hope/expect that they be a bit more 'niche' I don't want to see another FR setting released with the names changed - it has to _feel_ different.

Having said all that, I can understand how long-time fans would be annoyed by such sweeping and drastic changes. It's all a matter of how attached someone is to the original.

 

[Wraith Form]

That's all fine for Theoretical Land, but unfortunately for your argument we live in the real world, which has a history and expectations connected to certain branding. WOTC's problem is that they want to have their cake and eat it: the sales of D&D and FR from the name and logo, but without enough of the hallmarks of the brand that make it deserving of that title. Yes it would have been better received if it was Donjons & Dragonborn and the Misbegotten Regions, but without the D&D and FR names, those games would probably sink into the morass of RPG sales mediocrity without much trace. You probably wouldn't even bother to get on the bandwagon with "Poison Ivy Press" if those names weren't involved. And what you're being told here is that the new product doesn't do what it says on the tin.

I'm relatively sure that's not what Jack's saying. I believe he's saying that if the new FR book was released by WotC similar to, say, the way Eberron was touted with none of your emotional ties and campaign investments, a brand-new setting with no prior history, you might like it better.

(Based on most of the reactions around here, probably not.)

 

[rounser]

I'm relatively sure that's not what Jack's saying. I believe he's saying that if the new FR book was released by WotC similar to, say, the way Eberron was touted with none of your emotional ties and campaign investments, a brand-new setting with no prior history, you might like it better.

I understand what he's saying. I'm just saying in response that WOTC can't have their cake and eat it. If there is Forgotten Realms written on the cover (and there is), then what he's saying is irrelevant, because in a theoretical world where there wasn't FR on the cover, many of us would probably ignore it, mostly. I know I've ignored Eberron, and that doesn't seem to be anywhere near as big a brand as FR.

 

[Nymrohd]

I cannot agree that it was a good book even if we ignore the past setting. The writing and the ideas were . . .cheesy.

 

[Spatula]

If they don't advance the timeline, what are they going to write that hasn't yet been covered?

Firstly, people will want mechanical updates of 3e Eberron ideas. Dragonmarks, artificers, kalashtar, etc.

Secondly, there's still a lot of the world (and all of the planes) that haven't been explored: Aerenal, the Demon Wastes, the Shadow Marches, the Eldeen Reaches, Droaam, Zilargo, Darguun, Valenar, Q'barra, the Mror Holds, the Lhazaar Principalities. Although it seems likely that we're still not going to get any kind of in-depth treatment of Eberron's cosmology, now that all of the planes have been mapped to the stock spindle ones. "Kythri, the Churning Chaos: see the Elemental Chaos in Manual of the Planes for more information."

 

[Nymrohd]

We know we will get origins for the PHB races (and that the Hellcow feels they fit well, especially eladrin). We will get a couple new villains (something about another pirate prince, cannot remember).