Quote from: Omega;1116725One of the reasons they keep going back to FR is the novels. These have been wildly popular and are essentially free advertising for the RPG. Greyhawk bas had very few novels other than a set a friend of mine wrote and a few others by authors. Not including Gary's Gord series.

The other one is they still have Ed on hand, whereas Gary is gone.

Another reason is that FR is a high to very high magic setting which WOTC believes, possibly correctly, appeals to more players. And there is enough space for low fantasy adventuring as well. That and FR is very adventurer friendly where other settings are less ammendable to the adventuring lifestyle.

Eberron only fails on the first of those three (novel count) but it has Baker on-hand and is set up for high-magic, adventurer-friendly gaming. This could be why they made the push with an Eberron book before most other settings. FR got a Green Ronin-writen SCAG, but that book isn't really all that good.

Because WOTC wants an "everything but the kitchen sink" setting, with room for anything they might decide to include.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1116767Eberron only fails on the first of those three (novel count) but it has Baker on-hand and is set up for high-magic, adventurer-friendly gaming. This could be why they made the push with an Eberron book before most other settings. FR got a Green Ronin-writen SCAG, but that book isn't really all that good.

I like Eberron and on the other hand it fails for me because of being constantly stuck in time after the last war, the lack of high level characters and its problematic treatment of alignment.

Its only ever going to be a niche property.

Quote from: Shasarak;1116776I like Eberron and on the other hand it fails for me because of being constantly stuck in time after the last war, the lack of high level characters and its problematic treatment of alignment.

Its only ever going to be a niche property.

How does Eberron treat alignment? I read the setting ages ago but never played in it, I can't recall how that was portrayed differently than in other settings.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1116779How does Eberron treat alignment? I read the setting ages ago but never played in it, I can't recall how that was portrayed differently than in other settings.

It went with the "lightly applied" alignment bit back before 5e made it the norm. Overall, alignment is still what you expect of it, but most creatures are not hard locked into particular alignments. For example, orcs tend towards chaotic alignments, but many orcs are non-chaotic (and some might even be lawful). A little more of a difference, the color of a dragon's scales tell you nothing about it's alignment. Generally, fiends are still evil and most celestials are good (some exceptions do exist, and fallen/evil celestials are still celestials rather than becoming fiends). Undead are largely still evil, but there are some exceptions like the "undying" elven undead of the Undying Court.

I suspect that Shasarak might be conflating Eberron's take on religion with its approach to alignment, as it is a setting where good people worship evil gods (largely to placate them) and evil people might worship (and even draw divine magic from) good gods only to twist it to their own ends. These both work because the gods in Eberron are not "divine people" and do not talk directly to worshipers. There is more faith and mystery to the religions, and that gets tied up in how people view them and serve them.

As for the complaint that Eberron is "constantly stuck in the time after the last war," since when has not advancing the metaplot been a bad thing?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of Eberron, but it's not for the reasons that Shasarak states. I don't think the setting ever did a good job of making its "everyday magical technology" fit with the game. This is even more true in 5e where magic items are far less common than in the 3.5e days when Eberron first appeared.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1116779How does Eberron treat alignment? I read the setting ages ago but never played in it, I can't recall how that was portrayed differently than in other settings.

It pushes the idea that Good is actually bad and Evil Vampires are actually good and otherwise its all shades of grey.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1116782It went with the "lightly applied" alignment bit back before 5e made it the norm. Overall, alignment is still what you expect of it, but most creatures are not hard locked into particular alignments. For example, orcs tend towards chaotic alignments, but many orcs are non-chaotic (and some might even be lawful). A little more of a difference, the color of a dragon's scales tell you nothing about it's alignment. Generally, fiends are still evil and most celestials are good (some exceptions do exist, and fallen/evil celestials are still celestials rather than becoming fiends). Undead are largely still evil, but there are some exceptions like the "undying" elven undead of the Undying Court.

I suspect that Shasarak might be conflating Eberron's take on religion with its approach to alignment, as it is a setting where good people worship evil gods (largely to placate them) and evil people might worship (and even draw divine magic from) good gods only to twist it to their own ends. These both work because the gods in Eberron are not "divine people" and do not talk directly to worshipers. There is more faith and mystery to the religions, and that gets tied up in how people view them and serve them.

As for the complaint that Eberron is "constantly stuck in the time after the last war," since when has not advancing the metaplot been a bad thing?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of Eberron, but it's not for the reasons that Shasarak states. I don't think the setting ever did a good job of making its "everyday magical technology" fit with the game. This is even more true in 5e where magic items are far less common than in the 3.5e days when Eberron first appeared.

Ah right, got it. Thanks for the rundown!

I have to agree that the "everyday magic" elements didn't quite gel, but there were some alright ideas scattered around in there.

Quote from: Shasarak;1116783It pushes the idea that Good is actually bad and Evil Vampires are actually good and otherwise its all shades of grey.

Perhaps that is an intentional design choice to fit with the not-noir elements? Honestly aside from it being "D&D" it seems like an odd choice to include alignment at all in a setting like Eberron, but I'm no game designer.

The only true problematic treatment of alignment is its inclusion in the game to begin with. But going by HappyDaze's post it seems like Eberon's treatment of it is close to "done right".

Quote from: HappyDaze;1116782It went with the "lightly applied" alignment bit back before 5e made it the norm. Overall, alignment is still what you expect of it, but most creatures are not hard locked into particular alignments. For example, orcs tend towards chaotic alignments, but many orcs are non-chaotic (and some might even be lawful). A little more of a difference, the color of a dragon's scales tell you nothing about it's alignment. Generally, fiends are still evil and most celestials are good (some exceptions do exist, and fallen/evil celestials are still celestials rather than becoming fiends). Undead are largely still evil, but there are some exceptions like the "undying" elven undead of the Undying Court.

I suspect that Shasarak might be conflating Eberron's take on religion with its approach to alignment, as it is a setting where good people worship evil gods (largely to placate them) and evil people might worship (and even draw divine magic from) good gods only to twist it to their own ends. These both work because the gods in Eberron are not "divine people" and do not talk directly to worshipers. There is more faith and mystery to the religions, and that gets tied up in how people view them and serve them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of Eberron, but it's not for the reasons that Shasarak states. I don't think the setting ever did a good job of making its "everyday magical technology" fit with the game. This is even more true in 5e where magic items are far less common than in the 3.5e days when Eberron first appeared.

This probably is not the thread to get into the ins and outs of Eberron and exactly why you are wrong but this is relevant:

QuoteAs for the complaint that Eberron is "constantly stuck in the time after the last war," since when has not advancing the metaplot been a bad thing?

It is a bad thing if you want to have a real developing setting rather then a static backdrop of a setting.

Take Star Wars for example.  Originally you just had the one static time of the New Hope era which is fine if you want to play Not-Han Solo.  But now you can play in the Old Republic, in the Empire and the New Republic which is a much richer vibrant setting then forever New Hope era.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1116785Perhaps that is an intentional design choice to fit with the not-noir elements? Honestly aside from it being "D&D" it seems like an odd choice to include alignment at all in a setting like Eberron, but I'm no game designer.

As we say in NZ, at least he gave it a go.

Quote from: Shasarak;1116787It is a bad thing if you want to have a real developing setting rather then a static backdrop of a setting.

Take Star Wars for example.  Originally you just had the one static time of the New Hope era which is fine if you want to play Not-Han Solo.  But now you can play in the Old Republic, in the Empire and the New Republic which is a much richer vibrant setting then forever New Hope era.

Then you should be happy to know that previous Eberron products have given details for setting the game during other periods, such as during the time of Galifar, during the Last War, during the elves' revolt against the giants, during the Inspired's takeover of Sarlona, during the fall of the Dhakaani Empire. The "default" setting is merely the latest period detailed.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1116790Then you should be happy to know that previous Eberron products have given details for setting the game during other periods, such as during the time of Galifar, during the Last War, during the elves' revolt against the giants, during the Inspired's takeover of Sarlona, during the fall of the Dhakaani Empire. The "default" setting is merely the latest period detailed.

As far as I am aware the new 5e Eberron setting is set at the same time as the old 3e Eberron which is the same time as the old 4e Eberron.

Quote from: Shasarak;1116791As far as I am aware the new 5e Eberron setting is set at the same time as the old 3e Eberron which is the same time as the old 4e Eberron.

That's correct. The same older materials and online resources that cover the other periods still apply if you want an alternate time period.

Quote from: Shasarak;1116787It is a bad thing if you want to have a real developing setting rather then a static backdrop of a setting.

Take Star Wars for example.  Originally you just had the one static time of the New Hope era which is fine if you want to play Not-Han Solo.  But now you can play in the Old Republic, in the Empire and the New Republic which is a much richer vibrant setting then forever New Hope era.

As a person who hates how Static Star Wars has become, Il say there is a counterbalance to this.

A setting can be "Just-Right" and developing it can simply make it worse. You can always play in older material but its less likely to receive support.

For instance the Development of Darksun Mostly robbed it of any mystery.