Newbie

[Brian Stoner]

At 01:10 PM 5/1/97 +1000, you wrote:
>I am soon going to run my first birthright game , and i have never played
>it. Though i have dm'd (gm'd etc.) for several years. Any tips on how i
>should run the game? I have read alot about the game so dont be afraid to
>specify.
>
Don't over extend yourself trying to track all the NPC domains, even the
"few" that are most likely to interact with your players. I did that at
first so that I could get a feel for the way the game would work, but I
started burning myself out. Keep notes on what you woould like them to do
and be resonable about their actions and growth. Also, try to encourage you
players to center themselves in a particular places, preferably a single
realm or two. It has been hard to encourage cooperation amongst regents who
have their own interests. My players also have a hard time developing
backgrounds for their characters (a wonderful source of campaign ideas) and
whine whenever I try to froce them in any direction. None of them are
rulers of realms, so they don't feel too much political pressure (we did
have a Baron of Roesone, but he died). Alas, depending on they way you and
your players want to play, good luck. The way is difficult but the rewards
are glorious :)

Brian

[Bruce J. Taylor]

Paul Lagerlow wrote:
>
> >whine whenever I try to froce them in any direction. None of them are
> >rulers of realms, so they don't feel too much political pressure (we did
> >have a Baron of Roesone, but he died). Alas, depending on they way you and
> >your players want to play, good luck. The way is difficult but the rewards
> >are glorious :)
> >
> >Brian
> >
>
> Thats a really good idea ...thanks brian got it sorted out in my head
> already...make them all subservant to a 'prince' or so....might be easy to
> run for the first couple of games...after all i can always have them
> overthrown him later on. Think it will work? or anyone got a even easier way
> to run your first game?
>

The way my campaign was set up was, I think, a good way to do it.

My campaign is based in Tuornen. To begin the campaign I offered a
regency to any player that wanted it, but only one player took me up
on that offer. That character is the Count of Ghonallison,
a small province in the north of Tuornen that borders on Alamie,
Boeruine and the Five Peaks (offering LOTS of opportunities to
stir up trouble for my PCs). I changed things a little bit from the
sourcebook: Duke Gilgaed Flaertes is still in charge, and his daughter
disappeared about 10 years ago and is presumed dead. Through some
successful adventures and the successful defense of Tuornen from
an invasion from Alamie, Count Ghonnallison has been named the
heir to the Duke.

The rest of the PCs are advisors/servants of the Count: a Khinasi
mage, a Priest running the local temple, a Guildsman, and a Fighter
trying to reestablish a storied Mercenary Company originally run
by her Grandfather.

This has been a good setup to ease both myself and the players into
the world of Birthright. We've been able to ease ourselves into the
domain rules with only 1 province and some small holdings to worry
about. Now that the Count has been named heir to the Duke, his
resonsibilities will increase, eventually to the point of control
of Tuornen. At the same time, the other players are increasing
thier holdings (with some help from the Count), and will eventually
(if they do things right) control much of the holdings in Tuornen.
At that point, the PCs will become major players in Anuirean politics,
with all the problems and prospects that that entails.

As for the thread about whether to run the campaign as a struggle for
the reestablishment of Empire, I am blessed to be part of a very good
group of gamers, and I will leave that up to the players. If the
players
decide that the Throne is thier goal, the campaign will turn in that
direction. If not, it won't.

Bruce Taylor

[Brian Stoner]

>>I have had plenty of success in my own game, and here are a few tips based
>>on that. All your Players should be Regents within the same country if
>>possible. have each control a different Holding. Remember this is a
>>Political/Adventure Role-Playing game and you want to play up every aspect
>>of it. As the Players wheel and deal to further thier own causes keep the
>>other countries alive and have them act on thier own not just react to the
>>Players actions. Lastly while polotics are fun and can consume large amounts
>>of game time don't forget the adventures. Its one of the main reasons we
>>play AD&D and should not be left out. Quests, Hunts, and maurading monsters
>>are good stand bys and keep the Players happy with some dungeon delving, and
>>good old hack-and-slash. Well I hope that helps some. I'm not sure if its
>>what you are looking for, so if I'm off base let me know. It may also be
>>more helpful if you let us know what you already have in mind and we can
>>build from there. Good Gaming.
>>
>>Undertaker, richt@metrolink.net
>>
>
>I actually dont have my own copy of ad&d rule book..i was under the
>impression that the birthright campaign didnt need it. Should i go out and
>buy it? And what the the bare min i can get away with e.g. dm's guide and
>players guide only?
>
>BTW i'm a extremely experienced d&d campaigner that is i've dm'd played etc
>dominions (book 3 of d&D) and the only reason i've upgraded is cause d&d
>gone out of print. So i've got plenty of ideas for conversions from my old
>games. Any other experienced d&d dominon players out there want to warn me
>of anything?

I personally do recommend getting the AD&D rule books. If you stick solely
to domain interactions and don't have many adventures, they play less of
role. But, if you want your characters to go on adventures, the rule books
will help..especially if your experience is with the original game.
Although I have no experience with D&D, I know there are many changes. The
player's Handbook and DM's Guide are important, and the Monstrous Manual is
very helpful. Also, if the AD&D Core Rules CD-ROM is available to purchase
in your area, it makes alot of things easier--especially encounter creation.
Most important, though, is the Player's Handbook, followed by the DM's Guide.

Brian

[Undertaker]

At 12:16 AM 5/3/97 +1000, Paul Lagerlow(lagerlop@brampton.cqu.edu.au)wrote:
>
>I actually dont have my own copy of ad&d rule book..i was under the
>impression that the birthright campaign didnt need it. Should i go out and
>buy it? And what the the bare min i can get away with e.g. dm's guide and
>players guide only?
>

You should pick up the Players Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, the
Monstrous Compendium, and if you can grab up Blood Enemies and Vol.3 of the
MC annuals. But no matter what you get the PHB, DMG, and the primary MC.
Undertaker, richt@metrolink.net

"War is a matter of vital importance to the State;
the province of life or death;
the road to survival or ruin.
It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied."
-Sun Tzu,(The Art of War)-

[Paul Lagerlow]

>
>I personally do recommend getting the AD&D rule books. If you stick solely
>to domain interactions and don't have many adventures, they play less of
>role. But, if you want your characters to go on adventures, the rule books
>will help..especially if your experience is with the original game.
>Although I have no experience with D&D, I know there are many changes. The
>player's Handbook and DM's Guide are important, and the Monstrous Manual is
>very helpful. Also, if the AD&D Core Rules CD-ROM is available to purchase
>in your area, it makes alot of things easier--especially encounter creation.
>Most important, though, is the Player's Handbook, followed by the DM's Guide.
>
>Brian
>

thanks alot brian and thanks to all the other pple who contributed to
helping me get started i'll let you know how i go.

[Caitlanagh@aol.co]

In a message dated 97-05-02 14:39:41 EDT, you write:

>
>
>I actually dont have my own copy of ad&d rule book..i was under the
>impression that the birthright campaign didnt need it. Should i go out and
>buy it? And what the the bare min i can get away with e.g. dm's guide and
>players guide only?
>
>BTW i'm a extremely experienced d&d campaigner that is i've dm'd played etc
>dominions (book 3 of d&D) and the only reason i've upgraded is cause d&d
>gone out of print. So i've got plenty of ideas for conversions from my old
>games. Any other experienced d&d dominon players out there want to warn me
>of anything?

Yes, that's the bare minimums. To play Birthright, you MUST have the Players
Handbook. The DM for your group is going to need the DM Guide.

[Olivier]

Undertaker wrote:
>=20
> At 01:10 PM 5/1/97 +1000, Paul Lagerlow(lagerlop@brampton.cqu.edu.au)wr=
ote:
> >
> >I am soon going to run my first birthright game , and i have never pla=
yed
> >it. Though i have dm'd (gm'd etc.) for several years. Any tips on how =
i
> >should run the game? I have read alot about the game so dont be afraid=
to
> >specify.
> >
>=20
> I have had plenty of success in my own game, and here are a few tips ba=
sed
> on that. All your Players should be Regents within the same country if
> possible. have each control a different Holding. Remember this is a
> Political/Adventure Role-Playing game and you want to play up every as=
pect
> of it. As the Players wheel and deal to further thier own causes keep t=
he
> other countries alive and have them act on thier own not just react to =
the
> Players actions. Lastly while polotics are fun and can consume large am=
ounts
> of game time don't forget the adventures. Its one of the main reasons w=
e
> play AD&D and should not be left out. Quests, Hunts, and maurading mons=
ters
> are good stand bys and keep the Players happy with some dungeon delving=
, and
> good old hack-and-slash. Well I hope that helps some. I'm not sure if i=
ts
> what you are looking for, so if I'm off base let me know. It may also b=
e
> more helpful if you let us know what you already have in mind and we ca=
n
> build from there. Good Gaming.
>=20
> Undertaker, richt@metrolink.net

I'm not sure you're right.
Adventures can be avoided. In my game, i have 20 regents, and i play
only the political game of Birthright.
It's a bit stupid for a king to go adventuring alone, to kill some gob's
and risking his life.
A friend of mine made a good explanation of this.
If you want it, ask me (again, it's in french !!)

(Stephane, =E7a te d=E9range pas que je file =E7a =E0 des gens ? Dis le m=
oi
sinon !)

Here are my players :
Endier (country + Guilds)
Alamie (Country)
Talinie (Country + Temples)
El Haddid (Guilds)
Elamien Lamier (Guilds)
Elinie (Country)
Impregnable Heart of Haelyn (Temples)
Life and Protection of Avanalae (Temples)
Ilien (country and Sources)
Medoere (Country and Temples)
Dhoesone (Country)
Baruk Azhik (country)
Cariele (Country)
Tuornen (Country)
Coeranys (Country)
Eastern Temple of Nesirie (Temples)
Spider River Traders (Guilds)
Daeric Dhoesone (Sources)
Tuarhievel (country + Sources)
Roesone (Country)
Oaken Grove of Aeric (Temples)

See you soon

Olivier

[Undertaker]

At 08:46 PM 5/4/97 +0200, Olivier(olivier.dias@hol.fr)wrote:
>
>I'm not sure you're right.
>Adventures can be avoided. In my game, i have 20 regents, and i play
>only the political game of Birthright.
>It's a bit stupid for a king to go adventuring alone, to kill some gob's
>and risking his life.
>

There are many good reasons for a Regent to go adventuring. While it may
seem foolhardy for a Ruler to risk themselves, remember this is a world
where action speaks, and only the mighty rule. By avoiding challenges it
makes a Regent seem weak, and no one wants to be ruled by a weak King. Its
important for a Ruler to be actively seen taking part in defending his
nation or gaining more power for its people. Besides some things are too
dangerous or too sensitive to send out Lieutnents and champions to handle.
Anyways this subject has been approched from every angle in the past, and in
short you don't need to have any adventuring in a BR game, but its not the
same. I love this setting, but as a straight political Wargame its far from
the best. By mixing in Role-Playing it becomes a unique game that is far
better then most Wargames, or Role-Playing games put together. Still its up
to the DM and Players to decide how they play it. I just couldn't play AD&D
without adventuring, but thats just me.


Undertaker, richt@metrolink.net

"War is a matter of vital importance to the State;
the province of life or death;
the road to survival or ruin.
It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied."
-Sun Tzu,(The Art of War)-

[Cec Stacey]

> >
> >I'm not sure you're right.
> >Adventures can be avoided. In my game, i have 20 regents, and i play
> >only the political game of Birthright.
> >It's a bit stupid for a king to go adventuring alone, to kill some gob's
> >and risking his life.
> >
>
Most classes are fine by themselves without character level, except the
wizard. All realm spells are dependent upon the wizard's level, and realm
spells are the wizard's bread and butter. To get those precious levels,
the wizard has to go adventuring, or stay a level 1 numpty (or level 3 if
he graduated from the Royal College of Sorcery).

[Olivier]

Cec Stacey wrote:
>
> > >
> > >I'm not sure you're right.
> > >Adventures can be avoided. In my game, i have 20 regents, and i play
> > >only the political game of Birthright.
> > >It's a bit stupid for a king to go adventuring alone, to kill some gob's
> > >and risking his life.
> > >
> >
> Most classes are fine by themselves without character level, except the
> wizard. All realm spells are dependent upon the wizard's level, and realm
> spells are the wizard's bread and butter. To get those precious levels,
> the wizard has to go adventuring, or stay a level 1 numpty (or level 3 if
> he graduated from the Royal College of Sorcery).

Yes, it's why i added a possibility to train to change level. In my
rules, you need a number of XP equal to the number of the level you want
to reach. For example, if you are 4th and you want to become 5th, you
need 5 XP. If you are 11th and you want to reach the 12 th level, you
need 12 XP. And my action of training for XP grants you 4XP each time
you do it. It's a new utility for Training. I added also, when you
personaly resolve an Random Event, you earn 1XP.
So the wizards can, and must, train to change level. The others can do
that to have a better initiative, for example.

Olivier

[Cec Stacey]

> > > >
> > >
> > Most classes are fine by themselves without character level, except the
> > wizard. All realm spells are dependent upon the wizard's level, and
realm
> > spells are the wizard's bread and butter. To get those precious
levels,
> > the wizard has to go adventuring, or stay a level 1 numpty (or level 3
if
> > he graduated from the Royal College of Sorcery).
>
> Yes, it's why i added a possibility to train to change level. In my
> rules, you need a number of XP equal to the number of the level you want
> to reach. For example, if you are 4th and you want to become 5th, you
> need 5 XP. If you are 11th and you want to reach the 12 th level, you
> need 12 XP. And my action of training for XP grants you 4XP each time
> you do it. It's a new utility for Training. I added also, when you
> personaly resolve an Random Event, you earn 1XP.
> So the wizards can, and must, train to change level. The others can do
> that to have a better initiative, for example.
>
> Olivier
>
>
I actually found it easier to grant each regent, who didn't partake in an
adventure, 500xp each domain turn. That works out to 2000xp per year,
which will quickly experience most classes (to lvl 2). My reasoning is
that the fighter is out drilling with the troops, and keeping in form, the
wizard is studying musty old scrolls and casting any spells he has (or
using them constructively during mundane applications), the thief is making
money (especially with a guild - thieving is more than picking pockets!
Ask any politician!), and the priest is out preaching to the masses. It's
a fair system whereby your characters get to see progression, but it's not
out of hand. As well, they don't have to waste an action for experience,
and they don't get caught up in the "I need to train as much as possible to
get that next spell level!" syndrome.

Just my 2 cp (Dwarf at heart!)

Just kidding! Give those back!

[Kariu@aol.co]

I never though of it that way for strategy based BR. I like the
concept...but 4 EXp's per train action...I assume then that you can only
advance one level at a time and extra EXP's are discarded...



Kariu

[Olivier]

Kariu@aol.com wrote:
>
> I never though of it that way for strategy based BR. I like the
> concept...but 4 EXp's per train action...I assume then that you can only
> advance one level at a time and extra EXP's are discarded...
>
> Kariu

Yes, you can advance only on level at a time, but the extra XP are not
discarded. 4 XP seems perhaps big when you are low levels, but when you
want to advance to level 9 or more, you need 3 actions ! And you do
nothing else in your domain turn ! Your ennemies can do much during that
time, it's a choice.
But you can reduce the XP gained, you choose.

Olivier