Gheallie Sidhe Units [Archive]

QuestingMage

09-03-2003, 12:16 AM

I just posted a related comment on the "Nature school for Elvens wizards" thread: (should I repost this, or just give a pointer?)

My own personal view of Elves and Dwarves, especially when they are under population pressure, is that both groups are more reluctant to fight, both outsiders and other members of their race, but when they do fight, they fight to kill. Banners and ribbons and shields and trumpets--these matter little to demi-humans.

Among other traits, I think that Elves would be less likely than most races to meet on fixed fields of battle. With stealth and low light vision, Elves would be terrible guerilla fighters. If the Elves decided that you should die, one day you would just never wake up. The combination of slight stature, and the prospect of eternal life, if not killed by other creatures, would lead to a race of snipers. And by this I do not mean +2 on missle combat. I mean, the regent takes off a day to go hunting and never returns.

One interesting possible extention of Geeman's 'Fallen Humanity' concept is "Half-Elves Ascendent". One good strategy for Elves would be to insinuate themselves into the human ruling class, and make Elven blood a mark of status among humans. By allying themselves with major human bloodlines, and offering some of their scions in marriage, they could create a class of Noble Half-Elves with genetic ties to to the Elves, and create some very interesting diplomatic interactions. How would *you* like to live an extra 150 years? Or failing that, have your heir live an extra 150 years?

Among other things, I think that the long lives of Elves, and to a lesser extent, dwarves are vastly underrated in terms of game implications. What if every elf, male and female, had to serve for 50 years in the Elven Militia (call it what you will). Even a very lazy elf would probably attain 3rd level as a ranger or druid, and could go up to 10-12th. Imagine an entire nation of 3-10th level rangers who sing/make pottery/paint/craft furnture/etc because they prefer it. What would happen if you enraged such a people? What would happen to a human province if 1,000 ticked off 5th level Elven rangers invaded, in bands of 6 to 12? Ugly! Ugly! Ugly!

In the quality/quantity fight two very important factors are concentration of force, and replentishment rate. It the quanity side can bring a significant fraction of it's forces to bear at once, and replentish them rapidly, they will win. Conversely, if the quality side can pick their battles, keep the quanity side off balance, and disrupt reinforcements, they will win.

After a full human lifetime of facing 3 HD orogs in constricted caves, the average dwarf would be to the average human as the average special forces Sgt Major is to the average Army private coming out of infantry combat school.

QuestingMage

09-03-2003, 12:21 AM

I like Geeman's idea of "favored enemy: human" as explaining the extra deadliness of these units. I don't see any fair way to implement my "immortal hardcases" concept of elves within the realm of the BR rules.

Hmm, maybe the Elves could force opposing human regents to burn realm actions dealing with "Monsters: Elves" as the Gheallie Sidhe Units commit murder in the dark of night.

destowe

09-19-2003, 09:36 PM

Here is my idea for the Gheallie Sidhe. It is very similar to the specialty holdings.

There can only be one unit for a regent.

It can not be the Renown Unit, but I can see it being the unit from the Leadership Feat.

The unit is powered by a source holding. While the Gheallie Sidhe is in existense the source holding produces no RP or power any spells or Ley Lines. (This is similar to the spell Stronghold.)

The benifits are that the source provides "Virtual GB" as is it was a guild/temple (2/3 GB per source level). These "Virtual GBs" can only be used to pay for the following training options:

Advanced Training:Melee- Unit's weapons become magical
(magic weapon or greater magic weapon)

Advanced Training:Missile- Unit's weapons become magical
(greater magic weapon)

Advanced Training:Defense- Unit's armor become magical
(abjuration type defenses)

Advanced Training:Morale- Hatred is fueled and the increase in fury carries them into battle.

Toughness- There is not an increase in the units strenght, but abjuration/transmutation makes each attack do less damage. (Similar to DR or the endure elements and protection from missiles spells)

irdeggman

09-20-2003, 04:53 PM

An interesting bit of information is that of all the races in Cerilia the elves are the only ones to have been at war with all of the other ones at different times. Well maybe not Orogs, but definitely dwarves, humans and goblins.

Something like that tends towards a view of racial intolerance, just my 2 cp.

I don't count halflings here because they are not native to Cerlilia.

Dwarves have been at war with elves, orogs and I believe goblins but not humans.

Goblins could quite possibly be like the elves in that they have been at war with all of the other races, I'm not certain about any goblin-dwarf war though.

Athos69

09-20-2003, 06:43 PM

The Dwarven/Sidhe war was a short lived affair -- I've always run with it being less than 200 years in length, and was really nothing more than low-level skirmishes.

I am throwing into the B-A section of the Atlas that it initiated when the first Karamhul colonies on the surface appeared, and were cut off from coal to run their forges, so they started cutting the forests. The war eventually petered out when the Sidhe saw that the Karamhul were not expanding on the surface like the just-arrived humans were. There was an agreement reached that the Karamhul would not make any attempt to inhabit the deep forests of the Aelvinwode, and the Sidhe would not press any claim to the high mountains.

kgauck

09-20-2003, 09:13 PM

----- Original Message -----

From: "Athos69" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 1:43 PM

> I am throwing into the B-A section of the Atlas that it initiated

> when the first Karamhul colonies on the surface appeared

Do you have some compelling explanation of how underground societies get

sufficent energy without Avani? Or are we operating on the

floating-city-level of fantasy here?

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

DanMcSorley

09-20-2003, 11:04 PM

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> Do you have some compelling explanation of how underground societies get

> sufficent energy without Avani? Or are we operating on the

> floating-city-level of fantasy here?

The dwarves of cerilia actually have less of a problem here than normal

dwarves- they`re more earthy, and can subsist off of some kinds of rocks

if they have to. Couple that with underground lakes for fish, and maybe

some fungus, and dwarves can bootstrap their way into growth.

--

Daniel McSorley

kgauck

09-21-2003, 01:23 AM

----- Original Message -----

From: "Daniel McSorley" <mcsorley@OKKOD.PAIR.COM>

Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 5:35 PM

> The dwarves of cerilia actually have less of a problem here than normal

> dwarves- they`re more earthy, and can subsist off of some kinds of rocks

> if they have to. Couple that with underground lakes for fish, and maybe

> some fungus, and dwarves can bootstrap their way into growth.

This the floating city level of fantasy. Attempting to add up all of the

sources of food and their probable nutritive and energy product (not to

mention quantifying the sustainable amounts of fish and fungi) could explain

underground living for a zero level province. Maybe. However, 25,000 in

Rivenrock (or 250,000 if we seek medieval population densities) are not

getting along on fungus and fish pools. The humans need to devote 90% of

their populations and will over time occupy all the arable land available.

Given nice arable land (say Coeranys) a random province might have 120,000

persons using medieval demographics and 12,000 using BR numbers. So

Rivenrock has twice as many people as the average nearby human province, in

which nearly everyone uses all the land avaiable to produce enough food for

the province, yet people are getting along on rocks, fungi, and fish-pools.

Given that dwarves are not humans, the quanties of their metabolisms and

their physiological functions may be assumed to be different, but can they

be so different that they can be powered by so mere a fraction of the human

food requirements that it amounts to the propulsion required to lift a city

by comparison?

This clearly amounts to a "don`t look behind the curtain" explanation. If

dwarven metabolism is so slow, how do they heal? If they have higher

metabolisms, they cannot get by one a bit of fungus and a forkfull of fish.

If they consume anything remotely like humans, they must have covered a

substantial expance of Baruk-Azhik in fungus farms and fish pools. The map

of Stone`s Rejoicing makes the food zone maybe, 10% of the city area. If

this were a human area, maybe 20sq km would be settled by people surrounded

by the land they worked which would amount to 2000 sq km. The city itself

would occupy a somewhere between a thenth to a fifth of a square mile and

would be surrounded by zones of production based on the demands of the

market, and Rivenrock`s demands would extend beyond the province itself.

Indeed, I think one of the key reasons we see two human guilds operating in

Baruk-Azhik is the importation of food stuffs. And I reckon this despite

the fact that I assume dwarves live just below the surface of the earth and

work its sub-blessed surface to produce some crops and a lot of animals.

One cannot fudge around with the numbers and arrive at perpetually

underground dwelling dwarves just as one cannot find a mathematical

explanation for how cities fly. One must either ignore the problem or

impose a fiat (dwarves are more like animated rock than they are like

people) to solve this problem.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

DanMcSorley

09-21-2003, 03:55 AM

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> One must either ignore the problem or impose a fiat (dwarves are more

> like animated rock than they are like people) to solve this problem.

That`s not fiat, it`s from the BR source material.

--

Daniel McSorley

kgauck

09-21-2003, 06:24 AM

----- Original Message -----

From: "Daniel McSorley" <mcsorley@OKKOD.PAIR.COM>

Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 9:48 PM

> That`s not fiat, it`s from the BR source material.

Not true. The PS of Baruk-Azhik, which I know pretty well, having run a

campaign in this realm, does not support the fungi-fish-rocks interpretation

of BA. The section on eating rocks is mentioned in a preface to the listing

of actual foods consumed, and its stated as a kind of emergency statement:

during landslides, trapped in caverns, &c. The staples listed do include

mushrooms and fungus, but they also include potatoes, legumes (both human

staple foods) and several vegetables familiar to those of us who do not live

in perpetual subterrarian existence. What I am arguing is that dwarves

probabaly eat a quantity of these staples which would be more or less like

humans. They may eat more, and they may eat less food. But, they cannot

eat so little food that they won`t need vast fields and hence cannot live

perpetual subterrarian without creating a serious of problems which can only

be solved by ignoring them or by DM fiat. That`s where the fiat is. If you

look over the list of staples and other edibles, we see the diet of surface

dwelling people, who probabaly do more gardening than grain farming, who

hunt game, herd goats, and whose diet has elements of which more could be

found under ground, but not so much that the dwarves could abandon the

surface.

And so, to imagine that fungus and fishpools are more than a store of

survival food for withstanding a siege or a hard winter, that they are

primary food sources, one needs to either explain how all of this food is

provided, explain how the dwarves could eat nearly no food, ignore the

problem, or just impose solutions.

There are more reasonable interpretations of those statements that suggest

long duration underground habitation. These include long term storage of

surface foods (note that many dwarven edibles are easily storable such as

nuts or can be salted or packed in brine) secret foraging through hidden

access to the surface as well as underground food sources, and maybe a

little rock and dirt eating as a mineral rich suppliment, almost like

vitamin pills. In such cases, dwarves don`t literally abandon the surface,

they abandon contact with humans and other surface races, and only come out

for short periods of time to bring in their resources. Or even live on the

surface, but withdraw to the underground fortresses at the fist sign of

visitors.

Perpetual subterrarian dwelling can`t be explained by rules we know (such as

that nearly all liife energy comes from the sun) nor has anyone proposed a

credible alternative. And so we are left with a floating cities situation.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

Athos69

09-21-2003, 07:41 AM

OK Ken -- before you rip my head off for trying to make a difference and actually *contributing* to the Atlas, I am working from Source material here.

I never said that the Dwarves live solely underground. I postulated that when surface colonies first appeared some 2000 years ago, there was some conflict with the Sidhe. If you look at low birth rates, it is quite conceivable that it was only 2000 years ago that it became necessary to come to the surface on a permanent basis to feed a growing population.

Source material consistently states that Dwarves reproduce slowly, and that they grow large beds of fungi, have the ability to eat rock (it apparently *is* nutritious, but is bland), and will, in fact eat almost anything save seeds, pork (holy law), eggs and cows's milk (and derived products). Anikmal farming (goats) is done underground, and I would hazard a good guess that teh goats are fed on fungi.

Any fruit, game meats or vegetables that require sunlight (won't grow under phosphorescent fungi) would have to come from the surface.

The 'map' of Stone's Rejoicing is, IMO utter crap, and would need to be reworked to include multiple levels -- when you're living in a medium (stone) that allows for 3-dimensional city planning, you will also find that you can get *many* more fungal farms per acre than you can on a 2D surface. The map isn't large enough as it sits to house 20K....

-Mike

geeman

09-21-2003, 09:01 AM

Underground cities aren`t very realistic given the limits of real world

biology. Of course, neither are dwarves. When it comes to inexplicable

ecologies, however, the existence of underground cities--which are

described as being still pretty close to the surface of the earth--doesn`t

hold a candle to an entire plane of existence in perpetual shadow yet

somehow manages to support mythical beasts, races, and immigrants/refugees

to the world of light.

Gary

geeman

09-21-2003, 09:10 AM

At 09:41 AM 9/21/2003 +0200, Athos69 wrote:

>Anikmal farming (goats) is done underground, and I would hazard a good

>guess that teh goats are fed on fungi.

Unless you`re referring to something else, the section that describes this

in the BA SB just says that the goats are _penned_ underground, and that

that is done for occasions when hunting (a surface activity, presumably) is

not possible or game scarce, not that the farming of such livestock is done

entirely beneath the surface of the earth.

A more plausible explanation for dwarf goat farming is that they are kept

underground, but are either brought fodder from the surface or are allowed

some grazing on a regular basis, rather than fed on fungi grown

underground. Given the secretive nature of dwarves, it`s pretty likely

that they would graze such creatures in isolated valleys and glens of their

mountainous terrain, difficult to reach by foot--if one doesn`t have a

tunnel, that is.

Gary

ConjurerDragon

09-21-2003, 01:10 PM

Kenneth Gauck schrieb:

>----- Original Message -----

>From: "Daniel McSorley" <mcsorley@OKKOD.PAIR.COM>

>Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 5:35 PM

>

>

>...dwarven metabolism is so slow, how do they heal? If they have higher

>metabolisms, they cannot get by one a bit of fungus and a forkfull of fish.

>If they consume anything remotely like humans, they must have covered a

>substantial expance of Baruk-Azhik in fungus farms and fish pools.

>

They don´t. The PS of Baruk-Ahzik tells on p. 10 that "...troops of

dwarves who have been trapped in rockslides or pinned down in caverns as

a result of the orog wars have survived by eating the rock and earth

around them. Furthermore these dwarves have emerged from their ordeals

none the worse for wear. While they ahve shown signs of dehydration,

such victims experienced no weight loss or weakness as a result of the

diet..."

The PS continues that "dirk and rock leave something to be desired..."

and that the dwarves prefer other stuff, but even a delicacy consists

partly of slate and obsidian...

Those stuff listed under preferred staples hints that it has a reason

that most if not all dwarven realms exist near a major lake or source of

water (clams, oysters, snails, freshwater squid...)

...

>One cannot fudge around with the numbers and arrive at perpetually

>underground dwelling dwarves just as one cannot find a mathematical

>explanation for how cities fly. One must either ignore the problem or

>impose a fiat (dwarves are more like animated rock than they are like

>people) to solve this problem.

>Kenneth Gauck

>kgauck@mchsi.com

>

>

If sidhelien become more like fairy being as some here have supposed

there is no reason why Cerilian dwarves can´t become somthing like

little stone golems ;-)

bye

Michael

kgauck

09-21-2003, 01:10 PM

----- Original Message -----

From: "Athos69" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 2:41 AM

> The `map` of Stone`s Rejoicing is, IMO utter crap, and would

> need to be reworked to include multiple levels

My point is the embedded idea of perment subterrarian habitation, such as

proposed for the pre-conflict, is likewise beneath consideration without

some plausible explanation of how its possible. It doesn`t have to be based

on anything that exists in our world (that`s just Gary being obtuse) it just

has to make sense beyond a reasonable level of scrutiny. People provide all

kinds of complex reasons why you can`t heal elves or why this or that undead

could or couldn`t be blooded. Is it really too much to ask that the

explanation of dwarven agriculture not immediatly offend one`s basic sense

of arithmatic?

Since no one seems to really want a totally fantastic explanation of the

dwarves food, we have two choices. Either they do live permenantly

underground, but we can explain it, or they don`t really live permanently

underground, but its commonly supposed that they do by humans.

The Shadow World, by the way, is not a biological sphere served by

ecosystems. It is a spirit world of life energy operating on a different

set of rules. As long as these rules make sense as they are elaborated, all

is well. The most difficult part of elaborating the SW is not its

inhabitants, where they came from or what they do there, its how one senses

the place

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

kgauck

09-21-2003, 01:10 PM

----- Original Message -----

From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>

Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 7:08 AM

> If sidhelien become more like fairy being as some here have

> supposed there is no reason why Cerilian dwarves can´t

> become somthing like little stone golems ;-)

Not at all, but the thing to remember about commonly encountered beings

(especially ones that can be PC`s) is that we need to know how they work.

Golems are magically animated objects. If someone whet to the trouble of,

say imagining a creation where Moradin first animated his little stone

fellows and then he taught them the rituals by which they could animate

themselves in a way that both ensured their continued animation and gave

worship to Moradin, and then elaborated what the limits are, mechanized it

for play, and thought through the implications of such powers as might be

ascribed to such dwarves I would think it well done. And since I have

already gotten the ball rolling, we are well on our way if that is what we

want to do. Let`s just make sure we think through all the implications of

it.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

ConjurerDragon

09-21-2003, 01:34 PM

Kenneth Gauck schrieb:

>----- Original Message -----

>From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>

>Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 7:08 AM

>

>>If sidhelien become more like fairy being as some here have

>>supposed there is no reason why Cerilian dwarves can´t

>>become somthing like little stone golems ;-)

>>

>>

>Not at all, but the thing to remember about commonly encountered beings

>(especially ones that can be PC`s) is that we need to know how they work.

>Golems are magically animated objects. If someone whet to the trouble of,

>say imagining a creation where Moradin first animated his little stone

>fellows and then he taught them the rituals by which they could animate

>themselves in a way that both ensured their continued animation and gave

>worship to Moradin, and then elaborated what the limits are, mechanized it

>for play, and thought through the implications of such powers as might be

>ascribed to such dwarves I would think it well done. And since I have

>already gotten the ball rolling, we are well on our way if that is what we

>want to do. Let`s just make sure we think through all the implications of

>it.

>Kenneth Gauck

>kgauck@mchsi.com

>

>

Mmh, I do not immediately rememember where, but I read in one of the

books that somewhere in Baruk-Ahzik the original skeleton of one of the

first dwarves, created by Moradin from Mordaskorr were found...

Cerialian dwarves ARE animated stone golems with Mordaskorr skeletons -

similar to Wolverine ;-)

bye

Michael

Osprey

09-21-2003, 02:28 PM

If sidhelien become more like fairy being as some here have
supposed there is no reason why Cerilian dwarves can´t
become somthing like little stone golems ;-)

Maybe more like little earth elementals. ;)

Seriously, though, even though BR doesn't use the Elemental Planes as accessible places, there are plenty of elemental creatures in Cerilia. I consider dwarves to be akin to the elemental races (not pure elementals, but more like the Dao, Xorn, etc.), but far more grounded on the Prime and in life. More like an elemental affinity. If humans have the 4 elements balanced within them (by Aristotelian reasoning), dwarves are mainly Earth with lesser amounts of the other elements.

Just some speculation on my part.

Osprey

RaspK_FOG

09-22-2003, 08:50 AM

Say, would that need of us to propose similar compositions for other races as well? Elves, for example, would be more air (-headed; :P )/water (artistic) creatures than anything else.

geeman

09-22-2003, 10:21 AM

Here`s a bit of support for the elven spirit not leaving Aebrynis in the

entry for the Seelie in Blood Spawn. The Sidhe are immortal only in the

"waking world" and mortal in the SW, while the Sie are mortal only if they

remain in the SW. Presumably, Sidhe or Sie who left their respective

planes for "parts unknown" in the cosmology would similarly lose their

immortality, though that text is carefully uninformative about such a

circumstance. That does not, of course, mean that their spirits remain on

the plane where they are immortal if killed somehow, but it would follow.

At 07:26 AM 9/21/2003 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>The Shadow World, by the way, is not a biological sphere served by

>ecosystems. It is a spirit world of life energy operating on a different

>set of rules. As long as these rules make sense as they are elaborated,

>all is well. The most difficult part of elaborating the SW is not its

>inhabitants, where they came from or what they do there, its how one

>senses the place

The SW is much closer to Aebrynis than this would indicate. The two worlds

were once one, and they remain in many ways identical, or at least

operating under the same or very similar basic principles. As for the

differing rules between the two worlds, if one posits that the SW operates

on a set of rules that are different from the real world, then it`s just as

plausible that Aebrynis does as well. At least, any rationale for the SW

that divorces it from real world biology and ecosystems is just as apt for

Aebrynis since they are reflections of one another.

The SW does, however, have a biological sphere. At least, animal life and

populations of intelligent creatures exist there very much like those of

Aebrynis, and there`s nothing I recall reading to indicate they are somehow

exempted from the basic requirements of life. When it comes to things like

biology, ecospheres and the requirements of life, I`d suggest that the SW

is more like Aebrynis than any other plane of existence, and maybe even

other prime material planes. It`s hard to really gauge something like that

because when BR was originally written the thinking was that all D&D

campaign worlds fit into the same cosmological structure in a sort of

"infinite worlds" capacity, but I think the "laws of science" for the two

BR worlds are probably more similar than either would be to, say, the "laws

of science" for Ravenloft or Dark Sun where the basic materials and

energies of the worlds are very different.

>My point is the embedded idea of perment subterrarian habitation, such as

>proposed for the pre-conflict, is likewise beneath consideration without

>some plausible explanation of how its possible. It doesn`t have to be

>based on anything that exists in our world (that`s just Gary being obtuse)

>it just has to make sense beyond a reasonable level of scrutiny.

Actually, it`s me pointing out that any plausible explanation for dwarf

communities need not necessarily be any more plausible than a justification

for an entire mirror world with such a fundamental difference as the

absence of a solar energies, but still somehow supports large predator

species and entire communities of high order animal life--including,

presumably, populations equating to the dwarven communities whose farming

and foodstuffs seem so implausible in the light of real life

agriculture. The existence of analogical dwarf communities on the SW is

something that isn`t addressed anywhere in the BR material, but since

dwarves would appear to have been around longer than humans their existence

in the SW at the time of the split would seem likely. (Maybe a Cerilian

halfling is what happens to dwarves after a few generations in the SW?)

The SW communities of halflings, Sie and the animals that that plane is

supposed to support, however, are much more difficult to

rationalize. Dwarves at least live in a world where solar energies are

prominent and even if they can at least harvest or derive benefits

indirectly from that source. SW communities don`t even have

that. Perpetual shadow means no plant life which means no herbivores,

which means no carnivores, which means no higher life forms (that last

step`s a bit debatable, but if we`re using Earth as our example rather than

some speculative sci-fi, I think I`m on pretty safe ground) and the

fractioning of the biosphere into more and more complex forms supported by

ever broader bases of life can`t exist, or would never reach very far past

a single stage.

>People provide all kinds of complex reasons why you can`t heal elves or

>why this or that undead

>could or couldn`t be blooded. Is it really too much to ask that the

>explanation of dwarven agriculture not immediatly offend one`s basic sense

>of arithmatic?

For the majority of folks, yes, it probably is too much to

ask. Personally, I find this kind of thing interesting, but I`m pretty

confident that`s a minority view. It`s certainly not the kind of thing

that attracts people to a campaign setting, which appears to be a concern

of the folks designing updated BR materials. BR fans are probably a bit

more inclined to tracking such things, and I`m certainly interested in

reading other people`s takes on this information, but I don`t think its

really worthwhile to put this kind of information into a campaign text

since the end results of such information can often harm more than help

actual play because most folks will find it weighty and superfluous.

>Since no one seems to really want a totally fantastic explanation of the

>dwarves food, we have two choices. Either they do live permenantly

>underground, but we can explain it, or they don`t really live permanently

>underground, but its commonly supposed that they do by humans.

Dwarf cities are really better described as being "below the surface" to

me, since describing them as "underground" seems to convey that they are

somehow completely self-contained biospherical habitats, which seems

neither plausible nor what was indicated by the text. The easiest

explanation IMO is that the dwarves reside "below the surface" but derive

the majority of their consumables from the surface or very near it (they

could harvest plants from below--as ridiculous as that might seem it`s not

really any different from many arbor methods of farming) and that the

dwarven capacity to live on minerals sources comprises enough of their

intake that they don`t really need as many consumables as would a similarly

sized human population. In fact, if dwarves can survive entirely on eating

rock and dirt, the consumption of other foods is easily interpreted as

luxury items and status symbols--much the way certain animals were only

eaten by those of wealth/social standing for much of history. If dwarves

could get by on, say, a quarter of the consumables that humans do it would

significantly reduce their reliance upon the surface--at least as far as

food is concerned. Air, of course, is an entirely different problem,

particularly with the need for dwarves to smelt and smith so regularly, but

that`s another issue entirely.

Gary

kgauck

09-22-2003, 09:03 PM

----- Original Message -----

From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 4:48 AM

> For the majority of folks, yes, it probably is too much to

> ask. Personally, I find this kind of thing interesting, but I`m pretty

> confident that`s a minority view.

The setting materials are the place, the precise location to present,

information that is capable of bearing the sophisticated analysis without

having to impose it on anyone. The designers should think this stuff

through, have answers to potential questions, and then write up a nice

little game writing that is consistent with all the complexities but doesn`t

bore the reader with it. Most gamers have one or two areas that they do in

depth. Some of us have more than two. If we take the position that since

most people don`t take any interest in any of them (all of them are minority

interests) then we produce the BR PS, which were universally condemned

because they were so goofy on so many levels. Any since most players have

one or two areas in which they demand some sophistication, nearly everyone

found them goofy. They didn`t find all the reasons the PS are goofy,

because most people don`t take all the possible issues of a society as their

own areas of specialization. But why should there be any areas? Especially

when all you have to do is think things through ahead of time.

You are dangerously close to the "they aren`t as smart as I am, so give em

garbage, they won`t know the difference" theory of supliment production.

Please, back away from the edge. Lets produce quality products.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

RaspK_FOG

09-22-2003, 10:38 PM

Kenneth is right, Gary. If we were taking things down to this level, we should not go on and give out a BRCS, since most of the needed things could easilly be given out as supplementary documents ("Races of Cerillia", "Magic of Cerillia", etc.), which would match the FR so many of you dislike! :(

I agree that depth can be given to an annoying level in the Atlas, but we must have those extra bits of detail to get over the aforementioned "goofiness".

Osprey

09-23-2003, 05:58 AM

I'd settle for a finished product that was well-researched and thought-out without necessarily explaining it all in grueling detail. A way to reference that kind of thing (online here on BR.Net, for example) would be enough for me.
-Osprey

kgauck

09-23-2003, 07:15 AM

----- Original Message -----

From: "Osprey" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 12:58 AM

> I`d settle for a finished product that was well-researched and

> thought-out without necessarily explaining it all in grueling detail.

Its not settling, its to be prefered. Documents that are too long are not

read. Documents that are too dry are not read. Of course being able to

pear down a document requires a clear sense of what is important which in

turn requires reflection.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

geeman

09-24-2003, 04:12 PM

At 03:44 PM 9/22/2003 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > For the majority of folks, yes, it probably is too much to

> > ask. Personally, I find this kind of thing interesting, but I`m pretty

> > confident that`s a minority view.

>

>The setting materials are the place, the precise location to present,

>information that is capable of bearing the sophisticated analysis without

>having to impose it on anyone. The designers should think this stuff

>through, have answers to potential questions, and then write up a nice

>little game writing that is consistent with all the complexities but doesn`t

>bore the reader with it. Most gamers have one or two areas that they do in

>depth. Some of us have more than two.

Let me first reiterate that I personally would like to see this kind of

material, and I can see how it might be used in the development of SBs and

other material. However, I`m still confident that most gamers are content

to leave this stuff anecdotal, and that very little actual "scientific"

basis is required for the development of campaign material.

There is also a problem with the assumption that one has much hope of

satisfying the desires of gamers in this regard. It assumes that people

writing this information are going to have the time, the research skills,

the space in campaign material and the outright prescience to anticipate

the one or two areas that most gamers have a deep interest in and satisfy

that in campaign material. I`d like them to exercise their prognostic

muscles, but I have little anticipation of that being of very little use in

practise for RPGers.

>If we take the position that since

>most people don`t take any interest in any of them (all of them are minority

>interests) then we produce the BR PS, which were universally condemned

>because they were so goofy on so many levels. Any since most players have

>one or two areas in which they demand some sophistication, nearly everyone

>found them goofy. They didn`t find all the reasons the PS are goofy,

>because most people don`t take all the possible issues of a society as their

>own areas of specialization. But why should there be any areas? Especially

>when all you have to do is think things through ahead of time.

The PS texts are not universally condemned, nor were they goofy on many

levels. Some of the goofy things in the PS texts get a lot of attention,

but there`s really a small number of issues in those texts that are

actually contentious, or that have earned the "goofy" descriptor given the

amount of material in them. The majority of the material in those texts is

good, helpful information--or at least it does no harm, even the goofy

bits. There are certainly some things in those texts that have attracted a

lot of ire and often make very little sense, but there are many more goofy

and contentious things in the Rulebook than in all the PS texts

combined. In this case, the issue of BR dwarves eating rock and stone is

something that some people in the past have expressed a strong disklike for

(not me, I kind of like it) but in this thread it seems to be an accepted

fact, so even the "goofy" description itself isn`t so easy to apply.

I`d also suggest that it`s not a logical assumption that any attempts at

rationalizing things like dwarf biology and agriculture will in any way

address the goofy aspects of the PS texts or other supplemental

material. In fact, there`s no connection between the two efforts. If

someone were to list the goofy things in the PS texts, I don`t think any of

them are related to this particular issue, nor any of the issues of basic

"realities" of biology and cultures. Rationales and "scientific"

descriptions of such things are just as likely to lead to strange

interpretations and additions. The dwarf ability to eat rocks is exactly

that kind of rationalization required for an underground city, and such

rationales are exactly the kind of thing that many people find implausible.

In reality, the goofiness of the PS texts and other supplemental materials

are simply some occasional bad writing based on some (strange, out of

character, unusually) bad ideas or some slipshod editing, and none would

have been prevented or even influenced by the kind of thinking on how

campaign material should be developed as has been presented

here. Establishing a basic framework for rationalizing the size and growth

of cities based on a fantastic reality would not influence whether or not a

human is put in charge of Tuarhieval or a dwarf thane turns into a hirsute

rock spirit. It wouldn`t prevent the appearance of a monkey god who

traipses in and out of Kaltharak under the rocky nose of the Gorgon with

Anuirean heirlooms in tow. Such material will not help in dealing with the

vagaries of the PS texts like Holy Avengers for paladins that don`t exist,

or access to metals that can be used to arm entire units with much more

effective weapons. Some more rational and logical thinking in the maps

contained in such materials is certainly welcome, but it`s far from the

panacea that`s being suggested, and something that will in the end have

very little impact on actual play.

That`s not to say no one should bother. I think we should bother. I

_like_ bothering. In the previous post I wrote up substantial points

regarding how this particular issue should be addressed. I`m just not

convinced that it`s the kind of thing that will really make that much of a

difference to any more than a small number of people in the long run.

>You are dangerously close to the "they aren`t as smart as I am, so give em

>garbage, they won`t know the difference" theory of supliment production.

>Please, back away from the edge. Lets produce quality products.

After a brief flirtation with conformity, I`m pleased to report that I

jumped off the "I`m smarter than everyone else" cliff a long, long time

ago. Thanks to the resulting freefall I am thankfully free to write

material that reaches as high as I`m inclined rather than to give anyone

garbage.... However, I would describe the previous post`s text as

recognizing that most people aren`t as interested in the things I`m

interested in, and I realize I shouldn`t try to impose my style and

interests on others not only because it won`t have the results you`re

suggesting, but also because it isn`t what people want in their campaign

material.

There`s a wide gulf between developing this material for the purpose of

designing a campaign world and actually putting such material into the

published materials. I think it`s an admirable effort, but it`s not really

necessary--at least, I`ve never heard of anyone doing so and winding up

with campaign material that was any more successful than any other

material. The impact such things have on the final result is also, at

best, negligible.

Gary

RaspK_FOG

09-24-2003, 11:21 PM

In the end, it is all a matter of scrutiny... In my (non-cerillian) campaign, I made a table that gives the chance lycanthropes have of having lycanthropic offspring based on biological findings concerning inherent afflictions, like hemorofilia (I am not sure if I spelled that right...) and daltonism (colour-blindness in red and green; other colour-blindnesses are a bit more confusing).

geeman

09-25-2003, 12:22 AM

At 01:21 AM 9/25/2003 +0200, RaspK_FOG wrote:

> In the end, it is all a matter of scrutiny... In my (non-cerillian)

> campaign, I made a table that gives the chance lycanthropes have of

> having lycanthropic offspring based on biological findings concerning

> inherent afflictions, like hemorofilia (I am not sure if I spelled that

> right...) and daltonism (colour-blindness in red and green; other

> colour-blindnesses are a bit more confusing).

That`s an interesting idea, and could be useful for determining the

inheritance of blood abilities for BR scions. Were these typical

dominant/recessive gene tables or did you do something more involved?

Gary

RaspK_FOG

09-25-2003, 09:07 AM

The tables were typical for dominant/recessive genes, but for the ones that appear only on the 23rd pair of chromosomes, more particularly the Y chromosome. This means:

Cursed father X Normal mother:
Normal male offspring, Carrier female offspring

Normal father X Carrier mother:
50% Carrier female offspring, 50% Cursed male offspring

Normal father X Cursed mother:
Carrier female offspring, Cursed male offspring

Cursed father X Carrier mother:
50/50 Carrier/Cursed female offspring, 50% Cursed male offspring

Of course, if both parents are Cursed, all offspring are Cursed.
Carriers can only be female, and they are identical to natural lycanthropes (Cursed), but cannot pass the curse on to others, much like infected lycanthropes.

RaspK_FOG

09-25-2003, 09:09 AM

Oops! Make that X, instead of Y, alright?

geeman

09-25-2003, 11:47 AM

At 11:07 AM 9/25/2003 +0200, RaspK_FOG wrote:

>The tables were typical for dominant/recessive genes, but for the ones

>that appear only on the 23rd pair of chromosomes, more particularly the Y

>chromosome.

One of the things that`s never really been adequately addressed in BR is

that there appears to be an inheritance function of blood

abilities. Bloodline derivation, strength and score all have rules for how

they are passed on to progeny, but blood abilities lack any such guidelines

despite the fact that several families are described in the texts as having

blood abilities in common or blood abilities that are otherwise passed on

from parent to child. The closest thing we have is investiture, but even

that doesn`t really account for the passing of blood abilities except where

the bloodline is passed on to an unblooded "host" in its entirety,

otherwise it`s just a bump to bloodline score.

So anyone have ideas on how they might want to reflect passing blood

abilities on to children? Would something like the dominant/recessive gene

table work?

Gary

Athos69

09-25-2003, 01:19 PM

Guys... I know that we all want some level of realism, and a certain consistency of logic in the game, but there is a point that if we go beyond, it becomes anal-retentive minutae.

Let's remember the KISS principle, shall we?

-Mike

kgauck

09-25-2003, 09:36 PM

----- Original Message -----

From: "Athos69" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 8:19 AM

> Let`s remember the KISS principle, shall we?

There is a difference between simplicity and incoherance. Its an important

distiction. The PS`s that were produced were so bad that many people

rejected a significant portion of them. Let`s not produce crap, shall we?

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

Athos69

09-25-2003, 10:20 PM

Ken, noone is proposing that we produce Crap.

Because the writers of the Atlas sections don't have to fill 64 pages, ther is no pressure to include drivel that makes no sense. We need to fill a maximum of 4 pages or so, with maybe a 2-3 paragraph writeup on each province, not a freakin' novella. If we were supposed to produce scads of text, the Atlas would wind up being heavy enough to bust a coffee table under its weight.

The 4 pages include: The stat block of the realm, some basic gazeteer-style facts and figures, an overview of the society, a brief history, the provinces that comprise the nation, with 1 or 2 points of interest and a 1 papragraph writeup on the administrator / preeminent personality there, the political outlook of the nation, important people on the National scale (in a bit deeper detail than the Provincial writeups) and a list of plots and rumours.

All of this in maybe 3-4 pages. I don't think that there is room for crap.

geeman

09-25-2003, 11:24 PM

At 04:11 PM 9/25/2003 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>The PS`s that were produced were so bad that many people rejected a

>significant portion of them. Let`s not produce crap, shall we?

I still think that`s an exaggeration. There were the occasional items in

the PS texts that were bad, but in the corpus of original BR material they

contained no more (and probably a smaller overall percentage given the

relative page and word counts) bad ideas or badly written prose than

existed in the Rulebook and the various other campaign expansion

texts. None of the bad ideas in the PS texts IMO is as bad as the

expansion of the magic system for BR into the numbing horror of

battlespells in the BoM and BoP, nor anything as vague or having the

ramifications as the text in the Rulebook that caps the number of blooded

wizards at 140 that so many folks have glommed onto over the years. Then

there are fundamental problems with the Rulebook like the undervalued GB,

which influences the overall domain system in regards to the cost of

mustering troops, building castles, etc. Several of the domain actions are

tragically ill-thought out too IMO. Several of these have been addressed

by the BRCS design team in ways that are much more satisfying that the

originals.

Also, most of the things that were bad in the PS texts were very

modular. That is, one can easily ignore Grimm Graybeard`s transformation

in the PSoB-A or Savane`s takeover of Tuarhieval in that realm`s PS text

because those things are tied into the backstory for new PCs taking over

those realms. Since a lot of people would prefer to do their own thing

when dealing with the inheritance of those domains they can (and should) be

viewed as suggestions rather than actual campaign cant. In fairness, the

information on Savane in the PSoTuarhieval does take up an inordinate

amount of room in that text for what it is--though it still takes up less

room than all the info on battlespells--but the text does use that

situation to illustrate the attitudes and opinions of the elves in that

realm and to describe their interaction with humans, so it`s not all

bad. Besides, I can understand the desire of the folks who wrote the PS

texts to come up with new ways to transfer a realm. There`s only so many

ways one can write (or read) variations on "the king is dead..." without

one`s eyes glazing over.

The majority of the PS texts contained information on individual provinces,

the holdings, ecological information, population numbers, the history of

the realm, various colour commentary and adventure ideas that is generally

solid and useful for DMs running campaigns in those realms, and they work

as general references in several situations. At least, I`ve found them

solid and useful. I`ve used information in the PSoTuarhieval for

adventures that took place in the Sielwode, and had players refer to

the PSoB-A for information on how their dwarf PCs should behave or to find

their position on dwarf society.

If one were to tally all the things in the PS texts that were bad, I don`t

think you`d get a list of more than ten that were significant, and several

of those are pretty subjective. (I still think that dwarves eating rocks

is a good idea from PSoB-A, which is something a lot of people have

expressed a dislike for.) However, let me pose the following question to

everyone in general: What items in the Player`s Secrets texts do you think

should NOT be included in an update of them or of other BR materials and why?

Here are a few that would be on my list:

1. The very specific new information on heirs to the realms who are assumed

to take over from the existing regents presented in the campaign

sourcebooks for each region. None of this material should be written right

into the text itself. It`s better off as a boxed text explaining how one

might handle the transfer of the domain.

2. Grimm Graybeard`s elevation (or "declination" I suppose) into an

incorporeal rock spirit. It`s just too weird.

3. The PSoMedoere should not indicate that Ruornil has intervened (or will

intervene) to keep that land safe from invasion. The BR gods should

maintain their "hands-off" pact. (Note: This part of that text can simply

be viewed as a jingoistic/mythical telling of the realm`s history rather

than truly factual, in which case that text is actually rather appropriate.)

What else?

Gary

RaspK_FOG

09-25-2003, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by geeman@Sep 25 2003, 11:47 AM
So anyone have ideas on how they might want to reflect passing blood abilities on to children? Would something like the dominant/recessive gene table work?

Gary
I believe that this could be done as a variant... In fact, I think we can suggest it as a variant! Anyway, this should be done (if you really want to, since family trees can give you quite a headache...) with the following things on mind:

More usual occurence should be given to minor abilities; thes should be represented by genes that are known as codominant: both exist, so a father with the gene will have children wich all share the gene and the ability!
Less usual should be treated as dominant/recessive pairs.

irdeggman

09-25-2003, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by geeman@Sep 25 2003, 06:47 AM
At 11:07 AM 9/25/2003 +0200, RaspK_FOG wrote:

>The tables were typical for dominant/recessive genes, but for the ones

>that appear only on the 23rd pair of chromosomes, more particularly the Y

>chromosome.

One of the things that`s never really been adequately addressed in BR is

that there appears to be an inheritance function of blood

abilities. Bloodline derivation, strength and score all have rules for how

they are passed on to progeny, but blood abilities lack any such guidelines

despite the fact that several families are described in the texts as having

blood abilities in common or blood abilities that are otherwise passed on

from parent to child. The closest thing we have is investiture, but even

that doesn`t really account for the passing of blood abilities except where

the bloodline is passed on to an unblooded "host" in its entirety,

otherwise it`s just a bump to bloodline score.

So anyone have ideas on how they might want to reflect passing blood

abilities on to children? Would something like the dominant/recessive gene

table work?

Gary

Pg 39 of the BRCS addresses this under Hereditary Blood Abilities.

"Players should make an effort to include abilities for which their characters' families are known. If the random method is used, frequency should be strongly preference (perhaps as much as 75%)."

IMO, it is a storyline issue that is created with the character's history. If too much emphasis is placed on the mechanics in this case, the story (and player's options) get severely limited. It is important for the DM to work with the players to develop well thought out character histories that include any hereditary blood abilities. In any case, any such hereditary blood abilites shouldn't be introduced without a relevent character history that includes his family.

RaspK_FOG

09-26-2003, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by irdeggman@Sep 25 2003, 11:42 PM
Pg 39 of the BRCS addresses this under Hereditary Blood Abilities.

"Players should make an effort to include abilities for which their characters' families are known. If the random method is used, frequency should be strongly preference (perhaps as much as 75%)."

IMO, it is a storyline issue that is created with the character's history. If too much emphasis is placed on the mechanics in this case, the story (and player's options) get severely limited. It is important for the DM to work with the players to develop well thought out character histories that include any hereditary blood abilities. In any case, any such hereditary blood abilites shouldn't be introduced without a relevent character history that includes his family.
You are right; it's just that the DM should make the effort if feels it's worth it. as for the 75%, well, it seems too good to me... It would mean that both parents shared a dominant gene for each and every ability they have!

Anyway, thinking it over, I have to propose the following:

Codominant:
Equally dominant: both appear at the same time, which means they blend together. Blood types/groups A and B are such, with AB being the obvious result; pink flowers out of red and white parental plants is another such case.
Incompletely dominant: both appear at the same time, in different areas. An example to this is the spots on animal fur (cats and such).

Dominant/Recessive: The dominant appears whenever it exists.

So, higher levels should be dominant when compared to lower levels of the same ability or codominant, codominant when compared to abilities of the same level, and dominant to standard genes.

irdeggman

09-26-2003, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Sep 25 2003, 07:22 PM

You are right; it's just that the DM should make the effort if feels it's worth it. as for the 75%, well, it seems too good to me... It would mean that both parents shared a dominant gene for each and every ability they have!

Anyway, thinking it over, I have to propose the following:

Codominant:
Equally dominant: both appear at the same time, which means they blend together. Blood types/groups A and B are such, with AB being the obvious result; pink flowers out of red and white parental plants is another such case.
Incompletely dominant: both appear at the same time, in different areas. An example to this is the spots on animal fur (cats and such).

Dominant/Recessive: The dominant appears whenever it exists.

So, higher levels should be dominant when compared to lower levels of the same ability or codominant, codominant when compared to abilities of the same level, and dominant to standard genes. [/quote]
Wait, I believe what you are trying to get to is that each blood ability should have a rating in their dominance. What the BRCS was referring to is familial dominance. There is very much a difference, otherwise say an ability like Divine Wrath (which is generally thought to be a Roele bloodline familial blood ability) would show up a heck of a lot more frequently than it does in anyone with an Andurias blood line.

The hereditary blood abilities would follow the bloodline that was passed. If both parents had the same derivation, the one with the higher score would have the dominance and hence control any hereditary blood abilities. So likewise the dominant parent would "control" have the dominant bloodline, though the child's would be diluted.

We must remember that there is a difference between derivation and bloodline. Take for example the aforementioned Roele bloodline.

Since the bloodlines have been so diluted over the centuries there really should be very few hereditary blood abilities.

Bottom line I don't think there would be a way to cross reference blood abilities like eye color. Brown is dominant, Blue recessive. Since every blood ability has a different tendency in each bloodline, so not all Animal Affinities are created equal so to speak.

kgauck

09-26-2003, 01:45 AM

I found half of the text in the PS so bad as to be unusable. Every single

introductory letter, the motivations of nearly every PC, the economics, the

baffling desire to make the realms democratic or to present democratic

sympathies in a game based on aristocratic assumptions (rather than say,

articulating the aristocratic practices which were local), the addition of

unneccesary buffs and goodies, the way politics played out contrary to the

kind of politics which we might be able to make sense of in the real world

if we have some knowledge of political science, history, or anthropology,

and doing so without providing the alternate psychology that we could use to

act in this world. (Rokugan, BTW does a nice job in just a few pages moving

you well towards the psychology needed to fit into the Lot5R world). I

changed so much I had to warn my players that no part of them could be

relied upon for much of anything. Fortunatly they were not spending money

on these things (which is too bad for the life of the line when it was in

the business of selling us such things).

> There`s only so many ways one can write (or read) variations on

> "the king is dead..." without one`s eyes glazing over.

Then instead of giving us so many goofy variations on a theme, why not use

the four words and get on to the real parts that are interesting - the

transition of power - and stop trying to create a set of unique deaths.

Every person has a unique way of leaving the throne? Typically there are

three - death in battle, assassination, and sickness. Players want to know

about their guy, not how the old guy kicked it. Put the text where its

interesting.

> The majority of the PS texts contained information on individual

> provinces, the holdings, ecological information, population numbers,

> the history of the realm, various colour commentary and adventure

> ideas that is generally solid and useful for DMs running campaigns in

> those realms, and they work

They work so badly as to be worse than worthless. They offended the spirit

of the setting so often, contained absurd cartoonishness in the place of

real motivations and politics, and generally made me feel embaresment for

them. And then I can turn to works like a Magical Medieval Society,

Dynasties and Demagogues, and the AEG Rokugan setting and respond by

appreciating their political depth and sophistication, their sensible and

useful handling of the same issues as the PS`s tried to and pulled off so

much better.

> Note: This part of that text can simply be viewed as a jingoistic/

> mythical telling of the realm`s history rather than truly factual, in

> which case that text is actually rather appropriate.)

As I have said dozens of times during discussions of conversion materials,

this is exactly how all of the material should be presented. From one

person`s point of view. That person may be well informed, but any DM can

ignore any bit of text they don`t like because the source (Chancellor Bob)

was mistaken on this point, or was politically motivated. The shorter the

text the more it can carry the mantle of objectivity, but when they reach a

PS length, the need to adopt a clear point of view.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

as general references in several situations.

Athos69

09-26-2003, 02:50 AM

The shorter the text the more it can carry the mantle of objectivity, but when they reach a PS length, the need to adopt a clear point of view.

But we aren't making sections in the Atlas the size of a PS -- somethng that you seem to be forgetting. We're making each section 4 pages in length -- 16 times smaller, so you can stop worrying about us coming up with unusable tripe that you are going to ignore anyways.

I'm starting to get the feeling, Ken, that it doesn't matter what we write, you are going to gainsay us and pull it to shreds. As a consequence. I am no longer going to worry about your opinions on the Atlas, unless you start putting your own vision down on paper and write a damn section that I need to interact with for the sake of internal consistency.

In short Ken, You can talk the talk -- let's see you walk the walk.

kgauck

09-26-2003, 05:14 AM

> But we aren`t making sections in the Atlas the size of a PS --

> somethng that you seem to be forgetting.

No, I`m talking about the PS` because its a frame of reference we call can

use as such. Its mistakes are observable, the future atlas has not been put

out there, so it can`t be discussed except in the hypothetical.

So, don`t take all that I am saying to refer to you. I`m not really paying

attention to these BRCS projects. I didn`t comment at all on the basic CS

document itself. It didn`t wow me, I didn`t throw my monitor out the

window. I read it and decided it was fine, but I wasn`t gonna use it. Once

again, the BRCS people are getting too sensative. So much so in fact, that

we can`t even discuss what was wrong with the PS`.

> unless you start putting your own vision down on paper and write a

> damn section that I need to interact with for the sake of internal

consistency.

Sorry, but I have put so much stuff on this list that my bona fides are

established. I`ve written documents on economics, social structure,

demographics, mythology, the history of several realms, and posted them all

to the list. See my May 11, 2002 history of Cariele. See my website for

character treatments and my approach to classes, including the specialist

cleric. Nearly everything I write down as campaign material gets posted

here. I am on record. I change my magic system, I put it here. I work on

the Shadow World, I put it here. I write a dwarven cosmology, I put it

here. I`ve been walking the walk for over six years on this list.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

Osprey

09-26-2003, 05:35 AM

Concerning Hereditary Blood Abilities:

Bloodmark and Blood History have always been two of my favorite inherited blood abilities. They just intuitively make sense. Of course, they're also really interesting to acquire as the result of bloodtheft...

For instance, in my current campaign the PC's bloodthefted Heirl Diem. The usurper rolled a crit. failure to resist changing derivations - so I interpreted that as not only changing derivations to Brenna, but since he had to switch certain powers (he had a bloodline of Vorynn before), he gained the Diem bloodmark, and is forever branded as a "usurper" of the Diem line. Talk about a mixed blessing (and -1 on a lot of those CHA checks and skills!).

-Osprey

geeman

09-26-2003, 09:57 AM

At 01:42 AM 9/26/2003 +0200, irdeggman wrote:

> Pg 39 of the BRCS addresses this under Hereditary Blood Abilities.

>

> "Players should make an effort to include abilities for which their

> characters` families are known. If the random method is used, frequency

> should be strongly preference (perhaps as much as 75%)."

I was looking for a little more articulation and discussion of how this

kind of thing might work.... Assigning a percentage "as much as 75%" is

one way, but one of the things I think we could entertain is some

discussion of what the heredity of bloodlines might be, and if it would

make sense to have inheritance work in a manner similar to real world

genetics. Of course, there`s no reason why things would have to look like

real world genetics, but I`m curious what kinds of things the netforce

would come up with.

> IMO, it is a storyline issue that is created with the character`s

> history. If too much emphasis is placed on the mechanics in this case,

> the story (and player`s options) get severely limited. It is important

> for the DM to work with the players to develop well thought out character

> histories that include any hereditary blood abilities.

I think this kind of material is "role-play neutral." That is, some rules

are bad because they limit players, but and this could wind up limiting

player`s options, but it could also wind up inspiring role-playing issues

and making for a more interesting campaign. Take, for instance, the

possibility of a son having blood abilities that differed from his

father`s. Is he legitimate? Is he a black sheep? Is he going to follow

in his father`s footsteps? Is he suited to? What if, for instance, the

reason why Raesene was never truly accepted by his family was because his

blood abilities differed from his father`s? (I know, he didn`t have blood

abilities before Deismaar, but the Gorgon is the most prominent and

poignant example, so I made it anyway.) In many ways it could spark

campaign material and provide role-playing opportunities. It`s a slightly

different direction than anything that is in the core texts, but I`d

suggest that there are a few indications of this kind of thing here and

there that could be used to justify coming up with some guidelines for how

it might work.

Generally, I`ve found players very receptive to being limited if they are

compensated in some other way. When I did character generation last time,

for instance, I gave one player a very limited number of blood abilities to

choose from (I don`t like random generation) but gave him an extra point

(using my BP system) and he didn`t complain at all. In fact, he bragged a

bit, so in the end this kind of thing can work out without too much

manipulation or worry.

>In any case, any such hereditary blood abilites shouldn`t be introduced

>without a relevent character history that includes his family.

I think that`s true. It should probably be noted that in BR we have a

slightly more extended version of that perennial issue with long running

D&D campaigns--PCs who have little PCs. I`m sure everyone who has played a

long running campaign has eventually had PCs get married, start families,

etc. In BR, of course, there`s a prerogative to do so since we have all

that stuff with heirs, dynasties, etc. In a very practical way it might

make more sense to have this kind of thing included in a core text (or in a

BoR type expansion since that original BR text is the one that dealt with

dynasties in more depth) since BR players are more likely to engage in

things like political marriages, offspring, inheritance, heirs, etc. than

players might in, say, Ravenloft or Planescape.

If this leads to a whole system of generating family backgrounds and

bloodlines, however, that`d be just fine by me. One of the things I liked

about the old 1e Oriental Adventures text was the section on generating a

family background; the estates/assets of the family, their honor and

historical information. Very cool stuff that, and just a few pages of

text. In many ways it was a pre-BR kind of thinking that went into that

stuff, and I confess that my interest in BR is in no small way influenced

by the general family/clan background material in that and in a few other

gaming material. Most campaigns I played in the past focused on exactly

that kind of emphasis; building up a dynasty and hacking kingdoms out of

the wilderness (or wrestling kingdoms away from the unworthy....) While

it`s not for everybody it would make for a good set of "demographic" or

background information for BR fans even if they don`t use it in its entirety.

Gary

geeman

09-26-2003, 09:57 AM

At 08:30 PM 9/25/2003 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>As I have said dozens of times during discussions of conversion materials,

>this is exactly how all of the material should be presented. From one

>person`s point of view. That person may be well informed, but any DM can

>ignore any bit of text they don`t like because the source (Chancellor Bob)

>was mistaken on this point, or was politically motivated. The shorter the

>text the more it can carry the mantle of objectivity, but when they reach a

>PS length, the need to adopt a clear point of view.

I think the best approach is something very similar to what the BE:AoC text

did. An introductory text that is IC followed by a more objective

description of the character, his domain, NPCs, etc. In a PS text or other

SB these might take the form of an introductory text (a paragraph or a few

paragraphs) at the beginning of each chapter, but putting an entire text an

exercise in perspective can make it a bit hazy in regards to actually

trying to do mundane things like find information in the gaming material,

so the texts become less useful as resource documents--often a primary

function. That aside, perspective can obscure actual guidelines making for

a confused, meandering text. An introductory text followed by objective

prose allows for both in-character, POV stuff for role-playing purposes and

an organized document.

Gary

kgauck

09-26-2003, 01:01 PM

----- Original Message -----

From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 4:25 AM

> That aside, perspective can obscure actual guidelines making for

> a confused, meandering text. An introductory text followed by

> objective prose allows for both in-character, POV stuff for role-

> playing purposes and an organized document.

Meandering is just bad writing. Confusing likewise. Obscuring actual

guidelines is actually kind of the point. When I throw out color text (and

so much really just amounts to color text) I allow the idea to remain as

superstition or a widely believed mistake. The only time I write in 3rd

person omniscient is when I am writing for myself. Anything the players see

is through the voice of an NPC, and is influenced by their world view. I

certainly wouldn`t include a text with adjectives or other modifiers in the

authoratitive voice of the DM.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

RaspK_FOG

09-26-2003, 01:31 PM

About the genetics and blood abilities discussion, I think you may be right... I overdid it with dominant abilities, which would result in too many blooded people.

I could propose another system then; if you really are interested, we could gather all the families, make their relevant trees and work out the diagrams!

And no, I don't know how should we do it, but it could be done in a way that all abilities were assigned a probability, and then give an alternate, saying that the various levels could simply have a uniform chance of appearing based on level (minor: good chance, major: average chance, great: small chance), and work out the table accordingly. It would not take long if I had an organised diagram (family trees), but I don't... Does any of you have one?

geeman

09-26-2003, 04:22 PM

At 07:18 AM 9/26/2003 -0500, Kenneth Gauckwrote:

> > That aside, perspective can obscure actual guidelines making for

> > a confused, meandering text. An introductory text followed by

> > objective prose allows for both in-character, POV stuff for role-

> > playing purposes and an organized document.

>

>Meandering is just bad writing. Confusing likewise. Obscuring actual

>guidelines is actually kind of the point.

That may be true, but in many cases in-character prose lends itself to

meandering and confusion. In fan produced material its often an oxymoronic

method of going about writing gaming material. In character text has a

time and place IMO. "Greatly speaking much rulishness has come upon the

landly! Take heed--and read--that you might find, descriptionwise, the

facts among the fiddle faddle!" I prefer a simple expository text for the

majority of a document unless there`s some point in obscuring things.

I can only tell you that when I`ve come upon campaign material that relied

over-heavily upon a first person perspective I`ve found it a rather

heavy-handed device that grows tiresome pretty quickly. Amongst D&D

products probably Planescape is the most obvious example of in-character

prose, but those texts actually dip in and out of character, using the

vocabulary occasionally to maintain theme. However, those texts drop out

of that voice when it makes sense to do so, and in something as expository

as a PS text I think that`s pretty quick. The "goofy" aspects of the PS

texts are just as likely to come about due to the vagaries of the

in-character text, so as a scheme for writing those documents I think a

little more objectivity is sensible.

Gary

DanMcSorley

09-26-2003, 05:43 PM

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Athos69 wrote:

> I`m starting to get the feeling, Ken, that it doesn`t matter what we

> write, you are going to gainsay us and pull it to shreds. As a

> consequence. I am no longer going to worry about your opinions on the

> Atlas, unless you start putting your own vision down on paper and write

> a damn section that I need to interact with for the sake of internal

> consistency.

>

> In short Ken, You can talk the talk -- let`s see you walk the walk.

That was rude and unnecessary. Apologize.

--

Daniel McSorley

kgauck

09-26-2003, 07:29 PM

----- Original Message -----

From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 11:03 AM

> I can only tell you that when I`ve come upon campaign material that relied

> over-heavily upon a first person perspective I`ve found it a rather

> heavy-handed device that grows tiresome pretty quickly.

The best example I am familiar with (you mentioned Planescape) is the Blood

Enemies supliment. Since this books is supposed to be a compendium of

researchers, its easy to change anything without imposing DM fiat (I changed

it so you don`t know what the Vampire can do) be instead saying, "yes that

was commonly believed to be true, but first hand, things appear otehrwise."

> The "goofy" aspects of the PS texts are just as likely to come

> about due to the vagaries of the in-character text, so as a scheme

> for writing those documents I think a little more objectivity is sensible.

True, but I don`t mind characters having goofy ideas. It makes source

critcism harder. "Who do we trust about Baron Ghoere? The man who thought

the world was flat, or the one who thought he was a bird trapped in human

form?" An exageration, but it presents the kinds of problems I encourage.

The text should appear more or less objective, with the preface, perhaps as

you describe in clear IC text, that this is only researched information, and

may contain flaws, giving everyone an escape hatch. DM`s do it anyway, but

this puts a nice polish on things. Rules lawyers are less of a problem when

you have such a statement.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

irdeggman

09-26-2003, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by geeman@Sep 25 2003, 06:24 PM
of those are pretty subjective. (I still think that dwarves eating rocks

is a good idea from PSoB-A, which is something a lot of people have

expressed a dislike for.) However, let me pose the following question to

everyone in general: What items in the Player`s Secrets texts do you think

should NOT be included in an update of them or of other BR materials and why?

Here are a few that would be on my list:

1. The very specific new information on heirs to the realms who are assumed

to take over from the existing regents presented in the campaign

sourcebooks for each region. None of this material should be written right

into the text itself. It`s better off as a boxed text explaining how one

might handle the transfer of the domain.

2. Grimm Graybeard`s elevation (or "declination" I suppose) into an

incorporeal rock spirit. It`s just too weird.

3. The PSoMedoere should not indicate that Ruornil has intervened (or will

intervene) to keep that land safe from invasion. The BR gods should

maintain their "hands-off" pact. (Note: This part of that text can simply

be viewed as a jingoistic/mythical telling of the realm`s history rather

than truly factual, in which case that text is actually rather appropriate.)

What else?

Gary

Some good points Gary.

One thing that everyone shuld keep in mind is that the Atlas is supposed to be just that, an atlas and not a "new" version of the PS modules. The atlas is supposed to handle the economics, geography, major regents (at the time), known holdings (again at the time), major assets (also at the time), maps, etc.

One of the things this entails is that there should be no built-in text documenting how rulership is being transferred. This, IMO is so game specific that each DM would be redoing it anyway, so this would really add no value and only end up using valuable space space.

Now a section in Chap 8 covering possible ways for a DM to handle a transference of rulership could be useful - provided people have some ideas of the text that should be added. IMO it should be short, sweet and just basically cover ideas that a DM can use to handle the situation.

irdeggman

09-26-2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Sep 26 2003, 08:31 AM
About the genetics and blood abilities discussion, I think you may be right... I overdid it with dominant abilities, which would result in too many blooded people.

I could propose another system then; if you really are interested, we could gather all the families, make their relevant trees and work out the diagrams!

And no, I don't know how should we do it, but it could be done in a way that all abilities were assigned a probability, and then give an alternate, saying that the various levels could simply have a uniform chance of appearing based on level (minor: good chance, major: average chance, great: small chance), and work out the table accordingly. It would not take long if I had an organised diagram (family trees), but I don't... Does any of you have one?
I just don't see this as being doable. Again the hereditary blood abilities are based on bloodlines not on derivation, so every bloodline would have its own distinct weighty. Since not every bloodline is (or will be) documented I just don't see this as very useful.

As an example I will again refer to Divine Wrath of the Roele bloodline and Healing of the Dosiere bloodline - both are of And. derivation. They can't both have the same weight on a generic scale since this would lead to a greater amount of scions with And derivation having these abilities. Divine Wrath is supposed to be a very rare thing.

Any table created would just end up getting re-done by most DMs if they even bothered to use it. The table would have to be done for each bloodline in any event rather than by derivation.

Now in the Atlas any hereditary blood abilities from a bloodline could be listed as such for the major scions listed. Remeber that not all scions will be documented in the atlas and even when documented not all will have the same amount of detail - it will depend on how much of amajor factor the scion is.

ryancaveney

09-26-2003, 08:34 PM

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Gary wrote:

> At 09:41 AM 9/21/2003 +0200, Athos69 wrote:

>

> >Anikmal farming (goats) is done underground, and I would hazard a good

> >guess that teh goats are fed on fungi.

>

> Unless you`re referring to something else, the section that describes

> this in the BA SB just says that the goats are _penned_ underground,

> and that that is done for occasions when hunting (a surface activity,

> presumably) is not possible or game scarce, not that the farming of

> such livestock is done entirely beneath the surface of the earth.

I agree -- the goats, to make sense, would have to live primarily above

ground and get their food there. Livestock is a rather inefficient means

of feeding people -- if the dwarves are going to eat the same fungi the

goats would, they`d be much better off just eating the fungi and never

bringing the goats into it.

> Given the secretive nature of dwarves, it`s pretty likely that they

> would graze such creatures in isolated valleys and glens of their

> mountainous terrain, difficult to reach by foot--if one doesn`t have a

> tunnel, that is.

Now this is a really good idea. This is exactly the kind of herding I can

imagine dwarves doing.

Ryan Caveney

ryancaveney

09-26-2003, 10:11 PM

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Osprey wrote:

> > If sidhelien become more like fairy being as some here have

> > supposed there is no reason why Cerilian dwarves can`t

> > become somthing like little stone golems ;-)

>

> Maybe more like little earth elementals. ;)

That`s perfectly serious, IMO. They have the density of stone and are

cold to the touch! Defintely not normal living creatures.

> Seriously, though, even though BR doesn`t use the Elemental Planes as

> accessible places,

My BR does, in part because the bloodlines themselves have such strong

elemental associations. In fact, I think that`s the primary factor

determining the bloodline derivation of a blooded elf: if you see an elf

with a Basaia bloodline (Rhuandice Tuarlachiem, for example), you can be

fairly sure that elf is going to have fire as the dominant element of her

personality, and so on -- and vice versa, if blooded. At Deismaar, I

think that while the distribution of derivations to most races was based

primarily on the identity of the nearest exploding god, the distribution

of derivations to elves by contrast was determined primarily by their

preexisting elemental composition: the right kind of energy "stuck" much

more effectively than the wrong kind.

> I consider dwarves to be akin to the elemental races (not pure

> elementals, but more like the Dao, Xorn, etc.), but far more grounded

> on the Prime and in life. More like an elemental affinity. If humans

> have the 4 elements balanced within them (by Aristotelian reasoning),

> dwarves are mainly Earth with lesser amounts of the other elements.

I consider the dwarves to be the first of the many "manufactured" races of

Cerilia -- that is, everyone sentient except the elves, giants and

dragons. In my version of the backstory, when the dragons first arrived

and met the native elves and giants, they were fleeing a war and feared

pursuit, so they needed an army. They asked the elves and giants, who are

essentially just embodied elemental spirits themselves, for help. Of all

the elements, earth is the easiest to mold bodies out of, so the race made

this way (the dwarves) is primarily earthen; additionally, earth is

associated with qualities like strength, steadfastness and durability

which are greatly to be desired in soldiers. Thus, IMO, the dwarves have

by far the best regular army in Cerilia in part because they were designed

that way by their creators. After the dwarf experiment, however, the

elves and giants became disenchanted with the dragons` desire to continue

experiments of this kind, and without the elder elemental races the

dragons could not give life directly to any new ones; thus the dragons

turned to manipulating existing life, and Uplifted (in the full David Brin

sense) all the other sentients (humans, gnolls, goblins, orogs, and

whatever weirdness may be found in Aduria, such as yuan-ti and wemics) to

serve as their private armies as they go to fighting each other when the

long-feared pursuers never arrived.

I`ve said all this before, sometimes in greater detail, but the subject

has come up again, so... here`s my favorite crackpot theory again. =)

Ryan Caveney