posts related to announcements [Archive]

ConjurerDragon

05-31-2002, 04:44 AM

Hello!
Is this something completely new or just a further development of the
Birthright 3E Rulebook Version 3.0 Draft 8
that already is available?
bye
Michael Romes
**************

brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG wrote:

>doom wrote:
> > Is this going to be an "official" product with
>
>>Hasbro/WOTC/TSR`s blessing, or is it strictly a
>>"fan based" revision? Who still has the
>>publishing rights to the setting? Are
>>you still looking for contributors?
>>
>
>WotC has discontinued Birthright and no one has
>published the rights to the setting (to the best of
>my knowledge). As the "official" Birthright.net
>fan site, we (as a group) have the power to sanction
>any new material as "official" should we wish to do
>so. It is our intent to run the BRCS by Richard Baker
>and to incorporate his comments or suggestions.
>
>After the complete first draft is ready for review, the
>d20 BR team will post the draft for comments,
>error-checking, and playtesting for the entire Birthright.net
>community. After incorporating the results of those comments, all of us (the entire birthright.net community)
>can decide if we want to consider the BRCS "official" or not.
>
>It would certainly be of great advantage to all of us if we had an "official" d20 Birthright as a basis for common discusion. Just as with the 2e rules, every game master will clearly have several things that they would prefer to have house rules for, but hopefully the core of the BRCS will have broad appeal.
>
>- Doom
>
>************************************************** **************************
>The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
>To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
>with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Raesene Andu

05-31-2002, 06:33 AM

Orginally posted by ConjurerDragon

Hello!
Is this something completely new or just a further development of the
Birthright 3E Rulebook Version 3.0 Draft 8
that already is available?

The BRCS is a complete revision of the Birthright rules, rather than just a conversion. It incorporates both new material and old. Certainly part of Travis Doom's 3E conversion are being used, but a large amount of new material is being added. The final product should be similar to the Forgotten Realms campaign setting book.

Birthright-L

05-31-2002, 06:54 AM

hey, who do i have to contact to be in on this? any forum i can sign up for?

brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG wrote:
> Raesene Andu wrote:
>
Orginally posted by ConjurerDragon
>
> Hello!
> Is this something completely new or just a further development of the
> Birthright 3E Rulebook Version 3.0 Draft 8
> that already is available?
>
>
> The BRCS is a complete revision of the Birthright rules, rather than just a conversion. It incorporates both new material and old. Certainly part of Travis Doom`s 3E conversion are being used, but a large amount of new material is being added. The final product should be similar to the Forgotten Realms campaign setting book.
>
> ************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>

--
/ Adam Theo, Age 22, Tallahassee FL USA
// Email & Jabber: theo@theoretic.com
// (Boycotting AOL, therefore no AIM or ICQ)
=//===== Theoretic Solutions: http://www.theoretic.com
// || "Bringing Ideas Together"
|| Jabber Protocol: http://www.jabber.org
|| "The Coolest IM on the Planet"
|| "A Free-Market Socialist Patriotic American
|| Buddhist Political Philosopher."

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

doom

05-31-2002, 06:42 PM

> hey, who do i have to contact to be in on this? any forum
> i can sign up for?

When we started getting organized for this project a few months ago one of our major concerns was how many (and which) of the many excellent BR fans to include as part of the drafting process. Clearly, too many developers leads to communication and project management problems as well as difficulty keeping consistency and common vision. This is particularly problematic for issues in which there is no "best way" to proceed, and what is necessary is just to agree on one approach which is sufficient. Too few deveopers, on the other hand, leads to a LONG deveopment time and a lack of divergent viewpoints.

We decided that about 6 developers would be ideal for the BRCS project. Lacking any other good mechanism for choosing developers, we decided to initally invite fans that had previously contributed to the d20 material on the downloads section of birthright.net. The general feeling is that the folk who had gone out of their way, in the past, to create complete and consistent documents and share that work birthright.net fans would be the mostly likely to be able to be able and willing to make substanstive contributions to the d20 BRCS project.

I have been involved in two other attempts by various groups of fans to create a conversion manual, and in both cases the attempts flopped due to quibbling, in-fighting, or people failing to deliver in a timely manner the work which they volunteered to contribute (usually due to very good real work issues - like school. ;). This is not the case with the current group. There is some good working going on here folks. This is so much better than my v3.08 rulebook that I can't believe I ever put the 3.08 rulebook out there for other people to look at. I think that everyone will find some things in there that make them say "YES! _THAT_ is how it should be done!". I know that I do, every week.

All that being said, we are not currently looking for additional BRCS developers. We feel that we currently have the right balance. The BEST thing that everyone can do to help with the development process of the BRCS is to give a very through review and playtest to the first BRCS draft when we release it (hopefully in a few months).

Also: Once the BRCS is complete, there are a whole slew of additional projects that will provide opportunties for fans interested in doing (volunteer) d20 development. On the "developers drawing board" is a d20 "Book of Scions", "Book of Guildcraft", an "Atlas of Cerilia", and so on. New groups of developers will need to be created for each one of these projects.

Once we have a common d20 ruleset to use as a basis, there should be enormous opportunity for everyone interested in the volunteering their time and imaginations to share their work with the entire community. After the BRCS project is complete, look for announcements on the announcements boards for opportunites to work on these additional projects.

- Doom

Chaos Lord Arioch

05-31-2002, 07:09 PM

It appears that 2002 is going to be a very good year.
What is the size of the new revision? How many pages are we talking about? (or should I say bytes).

Birthright-L

05-31-2002, 07:10 PM

On Thu, 30 May 2002 brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG wrote:
> It would certainly be of great advantage to all of us if we had an
> "official" d20 Birthright as a basis for common discusion. Just as
> with the 2e rules, every game master will clearly have several things
> that they would prefer to have house rules for, but hopefully the core
> of the BRCS will have broad appeal.

Why will it be of great advantage? The current BR rules are pretty much
outside the 2eAD&D system as they stand. They were a complete tack-on, so
in turn they could be completely tacked-on to 3e just as easily. The only
think I can think of that would absolutely NEED to be converted would be
the new proficiencies from the BR box into skills (several of them would
be knowledge or craft skills, or diplomacy specializations), and the game
effects of some blood abilities (those that give you a bonus to a save
that doesn`t really exist in 3e, for example).

So other than fulfilling a desire to tinker, which I respect, what good
will come out of an "ALL-NEW! APPROVED!! OFFICIAL!!!" BR rules
publication?

Is this a straight, true-to-the-original conversion, or is it a rewrite in
the way the current self-selected team thinks the rules should have been
to begin with?
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

irdeggman

05-31-2002, 08:42 PM

Why will it be of great advantage? The current BR rules are pretty much
outside the 2eAD&D system as they stand. They were a complete tack-on, so
in turn they could be completely tacked-on to 3e just as easily. The only
think I can think of that would absolutely NEED to be converted would be
the new proficiencies from the BR box into skills (several of them would
be knowledge or craft skills, or diplomacy specializations), and the game
effects of some blood abilities (those that give you a bonus to a save
that doesn`t really exist in 3e, for example).

So other than fulfilling a desire to tinker, which I respect, what good
will come out of an "ALL-NEW! APPROVED!! OFFICIAL!!!" BR rules
publication?

Is this a straight, true-to-the-original conversion, or is it a rewrite in
the way the current self-selected team thinks the rules should have been
to begin with?
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

Actually there is a lot more than proficiencies that "needs" to be converted. The classes in Birthright were not "outside of 2nd ed" and needs to be converted.

Anyone is is familiar with my old posts on the "old" birthright.net 3rd ed discussions knows that I have always been an advocate of maintaining the proper feel and flavor of the birthright setting and campaign.

I concur with Doom, IMO this will be "the" revised setting. There will be enough that satisfies most everyone in it. Heck, if you still want to play 2nd ed you can - just ignore the 3rd ed stuff and keep on playing to your own house rules. Nothing prevents anyone from doing that.

doom

05-31-2002, 08:46 PM

On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 03:03:10PM -0400, daniel mcsorley wrote:
> So other than fulfilling a desire to tinker, which I respect, what good
> will come out of an "ALL-NEW! APPROVED!! OFFICIAL!!!" BR rules
> publication?

The major advantage, IMHO, is that it allows the development of new
fan-based products that all use the same underlying d20 system rules
for character creation, blood powers, and the like. Everything that
people post now is (by necessity) based on house-rulisms that may not
be easy to apply to someone else`s d20 game. Hopefully the product as
a whole, however, will also allow game masters to spend less time
worrying about conversion issues and more time developing cool house
rules or new stuff to share with the list.

> Is this a straight, true-to-the-original conversion, or is it a rewrite in
> the way the current self-selected team thinks the rules should have been
> to begin with?

Wow! That question is loaded. I think that I`ll first address the
"load" (speaking only for myself, not the development team, in
general). The "self-selected" team was selected by nominations from
folks who had volunteered the time/effort necessary to put together
complete d20 material in the downloads section of birthright.net.
Certainly there are many fans who have excellent ideas and would make
excellent developers (certainly many better than I), but it seemed that
a good way to get a first draft together was to use people that had
already shown that they had the ability and desire to put something
"semi-professional" together. That certainly doesn`t mean that the
team is the absolute "best" team in existance. Clearly it would be
great if we could get Richard Baker to work for free. ;) The team
selection was simply a pragmatic decision to put together a team that
could get work done. Work IS getting done - the decision seems to
have been a good one.

That being said, ideally, the project will be true-to-the-original, but
there will certainly be some changes based upon the new 3e
assumptions/mechanics.

To provide an example: BR bards were limited to illusions, divination,
and enchantments. 3e Bards have a spell list that is VERY similar to
that "idea", but can also cast summoning spells. Should d20 BR Bards be
able to cast summoning spells? One decision (to limit the current 3e
bard spell list) detracts from the 3e bard class without providing
anything in return. The other (to allow d20 BR bards to cast summoning
spells) involves making a change to the game work to incorporate the 3e
way of thinking. There are scores of such points (some obvious, some
difficult), and a decision simply has to be made, one way or the
other. Often times neither way is entirely better than the other, and
both viewpoints are valid.

Hopefully the decisions that the developers come up with will be a good
standard from which all of us rule tinkerers can develop our own house
rules, but use as a standard for discussion (in much the same way that
the 2e rulebook has always been used).

________
/. Doom@cs.wright.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Mark_Aurel

06-01-2002, 12:57 AM

To add my 2 cents, or whatever the value of my thoughts would be - staying true to the setting of Birthright is essential in creating a good set of 3e rules, otherwise, it simply wouldn't be Birthright. However, the rules must also stay true to the rules set from which they are derived - thus, a direct conversion of some things that existed in 2e that does not exist in 3e is simply impossible; i.e. the proficiency system. Other parts of the 3e system is entirely new - feats and prestige classes, to name two central examples.

The domain system of Birthright was a tacked-on system, so much is true - however, many elements of it also foreshadows some ideas found in the d20 system, and bringing the domain system into line with d20 doesn't make for an earth-shattering difference.

Finally, a concept that is crucial and central to 3e is balance - that characters should be roughly equal in terms of overall power or "playability" - this simply means that there is a need to implement certain things from the Birthright setting in a different fashion than simply a straight porting of 2e rules into 3e rules.

kgauck

06-01-2002, 04:14 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "daniel mcsorley" <mcsorley@CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 2:03 PM

> So other than fulfilling a desire to tinker, which I respect, what good
> will come out of an "ALL-NEW! APPROVED!! OFFICIAL!!!" BR rules
> publication?

It just may be possible (though only time will tell) that this project may
win over a large majority of BR fans. If a sufficient number of fans use
enough of the material presented, this new project can become the standard
for play and discussion. Of course we will all tinker at our own gaming
tables, but people tinker with the Monopoly rules. The question is, will
this project attract enough players who want to use the official 3E
conversion to make it a standard. The only way to find out is to put it out
there.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

morgramen

06-01-2002, 04:49 AM

Well said once again! I must concur with my collegues. This is not a simple conversion manual, but a revised setting for the new 3E system.

I've been on the list serv for several years now (and so have others of the Developer Team), and I can honestly say that (at least from my point of view), many of the 'changes' seem to be to the frequently argued and often debated concepts that fill the shelves of the List serv archive. Ideas and comments that have been posted over the years from the "masses" have been recalled and tossed about, and the sheer level of "cautious triple checking' never ceases to amaze me. These guys are hard to sneak anything "fishy" past! No worries about Drow Dragon Rider Warlocks showing up or anything like that. (No matter how hard I try... they always catch me!) ;)

This is definitely NOT a self centered "my way or the highway" deal. The sheer creativity of the group, coupled with dedication (both to the BR setting and the desire to get a product out) is amazing to me. I've been involved in a few "Online Community Projects" over the years, and this is the first one that has actually produced a consistent product and not fizzled after a month.

I am certain you will all be impressed with the final product, and I have little doubt that it will become the new "standard". Almost certainly there will be snippets and concepts that some people just won't be able to swallow, but that comes with the territory.

The real question (in my mind at least) is not "will it conform to MY idea of Birthright", but rather "Will it conform to the POPULAR concept of Birthright."

In a nutshell, I'd say that the answer is "Yes, definitely".

Peter Lubke

06-01-2002, 09:58 AM

On Sat, 2002-06-01 at 06:36, Dr. Travis Doom wrote:

On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 03:03:10PM -0400, daniel mcsorley wrote:
> So other than fulfilling a desire to tinker, which I respect, what good
> will come out of an "ALL-NEW! APPROVED!! OFFICIAL!!!" BR rules
> publication?

The major advantage, IMHO, is that it allows the development of new
fan-based products that all use the same underlying d20 system rules
for character creation, blood powers, and the like. Everything that
people post now is (by necessity) based on house-rulisms that may not
be easy to apply to someone else`s d20 game. Hopefully the product as
a whole, however, will also allow game masters to spend less time
worrying about conversion issues and more time developing cool house
rules or new stuff to share with the list.

Does anyone else think it amusing that there`s a conflict between the
low-magic world of BR and the power-crazed munchkinism of D20 ?

> Is this a straight, true-to-the-original conversion, or is it a rewrite in
> the way the current self-selected team thinks the rules should have been
> to begin with?

Wow! That question is loaded. I think that I`ll first address the
"load" (speaking only for myself, not the development team, in
general). The "self-selected" team was selected by nominations from
folks who had volunteered the time/effort necessary to put together
complete d20 material in the downloads section of birthright.net.
Certainly there are many fans who have excellent ideas and would make
excellent developers (certainly many better than I), but it seemed that
a good way to get a first draft together was to use people that had
already shown that they had the ability and desire to put something
"semi-professional" together. That certainly doesn`t mean that the
team is the absolute "best" team in existance. Clearly it would be
great if we could get Richard Baker to work for free. ;) The team
selection was simply a pragmatic decision to put together a team that
could get work done. Work IS getting done - the decision seems to
have been a good one.

That being said, ideally, the project will be true-to-the-original, but
there will certainly be some changes based upon the new 3e
assumptions/mechanics.

To provide an example: BR bards were limited to illusions, divination,
and enchantments. 3e Bards have a spell list that is VERY similar to
that "idea", but can also cast summoning spells. Should d20 BR Bards be
able to cast summoning spells? One decision (to limit the current 3e
bard spell list) detracts from the 3e bard class without providing
anything in return. The other (to allow d20 BR bards to cast summoning
spells) involves making a change to the game work to incorporate the 3e
way of thinking. There are scores of such points (some obvious, some
difficult), and a decision simply has to be made, one way or the
other. Often times neither way is entirely better than the other, and
both viewpoints are valid.

Hopefully the decisions that the developers come up with will be a good
standard from which all of us rule tinkerers can develop our own house
rules, but use as a standard for discussion (in much the same way that
the 2e rulebook has always been used).

________
/. Doom@cs.wright.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

06-01-2002, 07:18 PM

Quoth Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
>
>Does anyone else think it amusing that there`s a conflict between the
>low-magic world of BR and the power-crazed munchkinism of D20 ?

What is intrinsic about d20 that effects the distrubution of magik?

Hieronymus Agricola
wizard, alchemist, bibliophile

__________________________________________________ _______________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

06-02-2002, 04:01 AM

On Sun, 2002-06-02 at 05:10, Hieronymus Agricola wrote:

Quoth Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
>
>Does anyone else think it amusing that there`s a conflict between the
>low-magic world of BR and the power-crazed munchkinism of D20 ?

What is intrinsic about d20 that effects the distrubution of magik?

You know I wonder about that. Why ? Perhaps it`s the name - the
fascination with roll-playing and the focus on the dice brought about
more rules for combat than ever before - thus a focus on power gaming -
which of course must be matched with an appropriate equivalent of magic.

Intrinsically it shouldn`t have mattered of course - but it did. Even
with the alleged official trend away from FR I feel 3e has been a great
loss to the role-playing genre (but a successful marketing exercise).
Don`t get me all wrong, 2e failed to impress too.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

06-02-2002, 05:27 AM

RPG`s are fueled by imagination, not the mechanics. This is why I argue for
story`s primacy over rules. Blaming the system for poor gaming,
unsatisfying experiences, or roll play over role play is like blaming the
car you took on vacation for having not taken you to more interesting
attractions. D20 is a rules set. Rules are for answering concrete
questions about interactions between my character and the game world. I
want to ride a horse, how it that done? I want to craft my own sword, how
is that done? I want to jump a 30 foot chasm, how is that done? I want to
attack that orog with my pike, how is that done? This is what rules do, it
is what d20 was designed to so. Rules do not provide story, or motivations
for riding horses, crafting weapons, jumping chasms, or attacking orogs.
Story does these things.

If story is king, any rules set will do. Some will need more tinkering.
When story determines how much magic there is, the rules just tell how it
works, not how much there is. The DM places magic items as treasure, or
allows or disallows their creation. He can do this for reasons of story or
according to the underlying principles of his world. Or, he can do it
without any guiding principles other than what the rules allow. The rules
set, in order to support the largest number of settings support a great
variety of things. You may notice that there are many undead that drain
levels and abilities. There are many ways to recover abilities and levels,
and there are rules that govern all this. Does that mean that the game
demands that level and ability loss is common? No, it doesn`t, but it will
support that style of play. The rules will support Ravenloft play, with its
vampires and other undead, just as it will support a campaign with no
undead. The rules will support high level play and high powered characters.
Does this mean the rules require play to go in that direction? No, it just
supports it, if DM`s and players want to go that way. Playing FR? D20 will
support that.

When story governs play, the DM looks at which rules to mediate play with.
Some are just out there for circumstances that are infrequent (using a
lethal weapon to subdue an opponant) some a given DM might simply chose
never to employ (traveling the planes). When rules serve the story, the
story happens with the tone, flavor, and exitement that the DM`s imagination
and abilities allow. The rules just tell us how to mediate interactions.
When we ask them to do more, its like asking our car to plan our next
vacation. Its only the vehicle to fun, its not the producer of the fun. We
are.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

06-02-2002, 05:47 AM

> If story is king, any rules set will do.

I`ll have to disagree, too many games especially D20 have dice decide story
events.

In a story the protagonist will succeeded as needed for the story, not /at
random/ which a die roll enforces. Good GM`s mitigate this, and mayhaps even
eliminate it somewhat, but why are they using a poor tool? If they have to
/ignore the tool/ to get the game to perform in a way they want (and "tell a
story") then I say the tools are flawed, lets get better ones. For me Saga
is a better tool, BESM is a better tool, and several games I`ve written are
better tools. I know lots and lots of people like D&D, and there is nothing
at all wrong with that., but to me I want different more apt tools for my
style of gaming (Just like I`m sure people who like Hack and Slash probably
don`t want games that support "drama" and storytelling, and emotional rp, as
much as one which gives combat mechanics, tactical options, and lots of ways
to kill stuff)

These days I won`t touch D&D (excepting of course Basic D&D) simply because
it isn`t the proper tool for me and my gaming style--I still respect that it
gave leave top have some really good published worlds, but I feel bad that
those worlds don`t have mechanics more supportive of their "flavor"

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Raesene Andu

06-02-2002, 06:02 AM

Personally I think a mix of both rules and story is needed, as almost everyone has a different style of play and a game runs best if you cater to all tastes, rather than just lay down the law and say this is how things are, do it my way or not at all. Some players prefer structured rules to the game, others a free-flowing storytelling style.

The aim of the BRCS setting it not to say which way is best, but rather to provide a standard set of rules for running games set in Cerilia. I imagine almost everyone will change certain sections to suit their own games and styles of play. One of the main aims of the BR developers when designing material for the BRCS is to create material that will be acceptable to the majority of BR fans, not just to one or two.

Also, once complete, the BRCS will be the basis for futher campaign material and before anything else can be written, it is necessary to have a standard set of rules to work from.

Peter Lubke

06-02-2002, 06:21 AM

On Sun, 2002-06-02 at 15:17, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

RPG`s are fueled by imagination, not the mechanics.

Ideally yes. In practice not always - or more accurately the mechanics
can obscure the use of imagination. (ever tried to play Space Opera ?)

This is why I argue for
story`s primacy over rules.

I agree 200%.

Blaming the system for poor gaming,
unsatisfying experiences, or roll play over role play is like blaming the
car you took on vacation for having not taken you to more interesting
attractions. D20 is a rules set. Rules are for answering concrete
questions about interactions between my character and the game world. I
want to ride a horse, how it that done? I want to craft my own sword, how
is that done? I want to jump a 30 foot chasm, how is that done? I want to
attack that orog with my pike, how is that done?

When the minute details have to worked over with many rolls - you`ve
lost the imagination flavor. You want to ride a horse ? -- take riding
lessons instead of a "skill". You don`t need a rule or a "stat" to do
this. A player whose character wants to craft a sword (probably needs to
reevaluate their priorities but hell.. okay) go ahead give it a try --
from a DM POV does the character NEED a sword or does he WANT a sword --
I don`t see the need for a rule for this.

When a two-minute (game time) battle with Orogs takes 10 minutes (or
more) to play in real time because you`re playing out combat in detail
(and about 50 rolls of dice) -- you`re not fooling me.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Green Knight

06-02-2002, 06:21 AM

>RPG`s are fueled by imagination, not the mechanics.

Applause

>If story is king, any rules set will do.

More applause

>When story governs play, the DM looks at which rules to mediate play
with.

Yet more applause

A good DM/GM and some good players can use almost any system to have a
good game. You only allow the mechanics to govern the game to a certain
degree - to the degree the DM and players are most comfortable with.
Indeed, many players (and DMs) like a certain amount (which varies
greatly) of "roll - playing". There is satisfaction in allowing fate
(dice) to dictate the outcome of events, rather than leaving it all to
the imagination of players and DMs. If rolling dice is going to be part
of the game, having a good, believable system will work wonders for this
part of the game experience.

There are certainly many systems out there that are "better" than 3E in
many respects, depending on the preferences of the gaming group of
course. My favorite is the "EON" fantasy RPG (a Swedish game). Still, I
enjoy 3E very much, and find that it is both flexible and even sort of
believable (or at least consistent) when handled right. For my BR games,
3E serves just fine.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

06-02-2002, 11:34 AM

On Sun, 2002-06-02 at 16:15, Bjørn Eian Sørgjerd wrote:

>RPG`s are fueled by imagination, not the mechanics.

Applause

>If story is king, any rules set will do.

More applause

>When story governs play, the DM looks at which rules to mediate play
with.

Yet more applause

A good DM/GM and some good players can use almost any system to have a
good game.

A good DM and good players don`t need ANY system. So of course they can
work with anything - but some systems promote role-playing better than
others - I think that`s not only fair comment but reasonably obvious as
well. I don`t hear anyone really disagreeing.

You only allow the mechanics to govern the game to a certain
degree - to the degree the DM and players are most comfortable with.
Indeed, many players (and DMs) like a certain amount (which varies
greatly) of "roll - playing". There is satisfaction in allowing fate
(dice) to dictate the outcome of events, rather than leaving it all to
the imagination of players and DMs. If rolling dice is going to be part
of the game, having a good, believable system will work wonders for this
part of the game experience.

There are certainly many systems out there that are "better" than 3E in
many respects, depending on the preferences of the gaming group of
course. My favorite is the "EON" fantasy RPG (a Swedish game). Still, I
enjoy 3E very much, and find that it is both flexible and even sort of
believable (or at least consistent) when handled right. For my BR games,
3E serves just fine.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

06-02-2002, 10:46 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 1:22 AM

> When the minute details have to worked over with many rolls - you`ve
> lost the imagination flavor. You want to ride a horse ? -- take riding
> lessons instead of a "skill". You don`t need a rule or a "stat" to do
> this.

If by riding a horse you mean following a skilled horseman in front of you,
unskilled riders can ride horses. You`ll notice no DC is even assigned to
that basic task. There is a problem when two skilled horsemen try to out
ride one another. They may try to dismount one another. One may try to
escape from another. How do you decide if one is successful or the other?
Deus ex machina?

> A player whose character wants to craft a sword (probably needs to
> reevaluate their priorities but hell.. okay) go ahead give it a try --
> from a DM POV does the character NEED a sword or does he WANT
> a sword -- I don`t see the need for a rule for this.

Priests of Moradin are typically required to craft their own weapons.
Sometimes there are other story based reasons for crafting weapons. A fair
number of sagas involve heros crafting their own weapons.

> When a two-minute (game time) battle with Orogs takes 10 minutes (or
> more) to play in real time because you`re playing out combat in detail
> (and about 50 rolls of dice) -- you`re not fooling me.

Dramatic situations, whether combats, dialogues, or puzzles normally take
longer than they do in real time. In the movies sometimes they just show
every character`s reaction shots to prolong the drama, sometimes they use
slow motion. Spending more time on the exciting or risky bits seems much
more reasonable to me than spending a lot of time on the stuff in between
the interesting dialogues, combats, and puzzles.

> A good DM and good players don`t need ANY system. So of course they
> can work with anything - but some systems promote role-playing better
> than others - I think that`s not only fair comment but reasonably obvious
as
> well. I don`t hear anyone really disagreeing.

You have a long pattern of arguing fine points of rules. So you appear to
mouthing platitudes. You`ll have to excuse those of us who have some
trouble associating your name with the total abandonment of a game system
for pure story. As for your comments, I do disagree. Rules don`t promote
role playing, so one set can`t do it better than another set. If you really
believed that player`s don`t need any system, you wouldn`t follow that
statement up with a plea for a good rules set. I`ll refer again to my
metaphor of the car not determining how much fun you have on vacation.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

06-02-2002, 10:46 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sidhain" <sidhain@EARTHLINK.NET>
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 12:42 AM

> > If story is king, any rules set will do.
>
> I`ll have to disagree, too many games especially D20 have dice decide
story
> events.
>
> In a story the protagonist will succeeded as needed for the story, not
/at
> random/ which a die roll enforces.

This works much better with players who are seeking pure story. An almost
theatrical group who is more interesting in the dramatic for its own sake,
rather than in excitement we normally associate with drama. We all know the
story of Hamlet, we go to see it because we want to see the drama for its
own sake. Sometime, perhaps a lot of the times for players, not knowing how
the story turns out, whether the hero will triumph or have to fall back,
will provide a much greater sense of fun (fun through excitement) than just
a well executed dramatic trope.

> Good GM`s mitigate this, and mayhaps even eliminate it somewhat, but
> why are they using a poor tool?

Let`s be careful not to associate good GM`s with a certain style of GM`ing.
There is a reason the big blockbuster is full of explosions and action.
GM`s and players may want action-adventure, they may want character studies
(My Dinner With Andre the Role Playing Game!), or they may want story driven
gaming. Others exist as well (theme driven, genre driven setting driven),
so the purposes of the players and GM will determine what good play looks
like. I would reject rules driven gaming as role playing, that is the true
meaning of roll play.

So, while story can be central, do we expect the story to provide
opportunities to show off our authorial and acting talents or to entertain
us with opportunities to overcome the unknown, challenge the odds, and
confront risks? Certain styles of gaming (call it the genre of story - no
dice for Hamlet, at least until the fencing, and lots of dice for The Mummy)
will make different demands on our need for dice to establish success. Some
players will get into games where "a story [in which] the protagonist will
succeeded as needed for the story". Others will call that "deus ex machina"
and walk away yawning.

> If they have to /ignore the tool/ to get the game to perform in a way
> they want (and "tell a story") then I say the tools are flawed, lets get
> better ones. For me Saga is a better tool, BESM is a better tool,
> and several games I`ve written are better tools.

You don`t have to ignore the mechanic of the game, you just don`t create
rules for every possible occurance, or use every rule just because its been
provided.

> I know lots and lots of people like D&D, and there is nothing
> at all wrong with that., but to me I want different more apt tools for my
> style of gaming (Just like I`m sure people who like Hack and Slash
probably
> don`t want games that support "drama" and storytelling, and emotional rp,
as
> much as one which gives combat mechanics, tactical options, and lots of
ways
> to kill stuff)

You don`t need a system to support drama, storytelling, and emotional role
play, all you need is to be well read, and you can do that while playing
board games.

> These days I won`t touch D&D (excepting of course Basic D&D) simply
> because it isn`t the proper tool for me and my gaming style--I still
respect
> that it gave leave top have some really good published worlds, but I feel
> bad that those worlds don`t have mechanics more supportive of their
"flavor"

I`d rather have a "players guide to role play" than mechanics that support
role play. Mechanics that support setting flavor work best when GM`s first
understand what they are intending to model, rather than trying to model a
world backwards from the existing rules.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

06-03-2002, 01:33 AM

On Mon, 2002-06-03 at 07:48, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 1:22 AM

> When the minute details have to worked over with many rolls - you`ve
> lost the imagination flavor. You want to ride a horse ? -- take riding
> lessons instead of a "skill". You don`t need a rule or a "stat" to do
> this.

If by riding a horse you mean following a skilled horseman in front of you,
unskilled riders can ride horses. You`ll notice no DC is even assigned to
that basic task. There is a problem when two skilled horsemen try to out
ride one another. They may try to dismount one another. One may try to
escape from another. How do you decide if one is successful or the other?
Deus ex machina?

Gee I think not. Stick anyone up behind a placid pony and they`ll "ride"
it. You don`t need a riding lesson to do that. Suggest that your
character is going to get up on the back of the untamed stallion leader
of the pack - and I`ll (while giggling insanely) suggest that your pony
club experiences may not have quite given you the confidence to try
that. But I`ll let you try. ("But I took riding lessons!")

Players should always get a chance to succeed at whatever they attempt -
unless I as the DM don`t want them to - in which case I make it seem as
if they had a chance but failed. I don`t need a rule to decide that a
player won`t often win a horse race against the most noted cavalry
officer in the land - unless the player has in fact (a) gotten hold of
a very fine piece of horseflesh, and (B) had considerable experience or
training in riding horses -- even then (unless it`s important from the
plot line) he`s probably only 50-50.

> A player whose character wants to craft a sword (probably needs to
> reevaluate their priorities but hell.. okay) go ahead give it a try --
> from a DM POV does the character NEED a sword or does he WANT
> a sword -- I don`t see the need for a rule for this.

Priests of Moradin are typically required to craft their own weapons.
Sometimes there are other story based reasons for crafting weapons. A fair
number of sagas involve heros crafting their own weapons.

Priests of Moradin don`t need a rule - if they learn to craft weapons as
part of their priestly duties, then I guess they can craft weapons don`t
you think ? (also if a player wants to role-play a weaponsmith - then
guess what ? - yep, he can make weapons too !) Those sagas usually
involved a "great need", or (in layman DM terms) a "plot line necessity"
to do so, their success at such an effort is mandatory - only the choice
to do so was optional.

The arguments is one of "I want a rule for crafting weapons", versus "I
need a rule for crafting weapons". To be quite frank, that`s the epitome
of munchkinism. I want I want I want ... It`s not just DMs that give in
to munchkins, it`s Game Companies as well. (most particularly when they
design a new game by asking what people want)

> When a two-minute (game time) battle with Orogs takes 10 minutes (or
> more) to play in real time because you`re playing out combat in detail
> (and about 50 rolls of dice) -- you`re not fooling me.

Dramatic situations, whether combats, dialogues, or puzzles normally take
longer than they do in real time. In the movies sometimes they just show
every character`s reaction shots to prolong the drama, sometimes they use
slow motion. Spending more time on the exciting or risky bits seems much
more reasonable to me than spending a lot of time on the stuff in between
the interesting dialogues, combats, and puzzles.

I`ve got no problem with taking the time - as long as it`s not dice
rolling time. When you have 6 players sitting around a table all trying
to get their "turn" in - no-one really wants to hear a blow by blow,
feint by feint, breath by breath, (every 6 seconds) description of each
others melee plans.

DM: "With a concerted effort Grog the barbarian and Happy the elf
shoulder the door again. The lock still holds but the hinges give way
and both tumble into the room. Quickly regaining your feet you realize
you are not alone. There`s a rather large ogre standing there hefting a
nasty big spiky bludgeoning thingy and five kobolds. Two of the kobolds
have covered the doorway."

Grog (Phil): "Right, well Happy - you leave the big guy to me and try to
hold those kobolds off my back"
Happy (Mark): "Duh, OK Grog - it`s lucky you sure are smart."

DM: "Phil - you don`t have a weapon out - is Grog going to wrestle or
punch the ogre ?"
Grog: "Drawing my trusty claymore, I attack the ogre."
Happy: "I use my `whirling steel circle of death` to keep the kobolds
back."

<< combat round 1 >>
DM: (rolling a d20 twice behind the screen of fear and ignorance) "Grog
manages to easily evade the clumsy ogres hurried blow, and swings his
broadsword (rolling a lousy one for damage) neatly through the air to
draw blood with a nick on the ogres left thigh." [Yes, players don`t get
to roll their own dice - how can you fudge what you don`t control ?]

[roll 3xd20, 1d6 for damage, 1xd20]
"Happy, your circle of death was effective - but only just - one of the
kobolds managed to penetrate your defense before you beat him back. You
won`t be able to keep them out for long." [There is no such thing as a
`circle of death` - Happy is just using his combat skills defensively
(and his twin scimitars) - one kobold managed a hit (6 pts) but Happys
combat skill and luck (high HP total) allowed him to avoid any real
damage.]

[perhaps for some that`s not enough detail, all in all it probably took
one minute of real time - almost the same amount of game time. After all
the players aren`t here to defeat ogres and kobolds, these are but
obstacles - sure they`re still meant to be fun obstacles, but
role-playing isn`t (IMO) about detailed combat.]

> A good DM and good players don`t need ANY system. So of course they
> can work with anything - but some systems promote role-playing better
> than others - I think that`s not only fair comment but reasonably obvious
as
> well. I don`t hear anyone really disagreeing.

You have a long pattern of arguing fine points of rules. So you appear to
mouthing platitudes. You`ll have to excuse those of us who have some
trouble associating your name with the total abandonment of a game system
for pure story. As for your comments, I do disagree. Rules don`t promote
role playing, so one set can`t do it better than another set. If you really
believed that player`s don`t need any system, you wouldn`t follow that
statement up with a plea for a good rules set.

I didn`t say *any* player and *any* DM, I said if you had GOOD DM and
GOOD players. If you don`t then you`re in trouble learning to role-play
with a poor set of rules. A good set of rules would aid *any* player and
*any* DM, regardless of their level of experience and/or competence.

I`ll refer again to my
metaphor of the car not determining how much fun you have on vacation.

I don`t think that your metaphor really works.
A car that breaks down constantly causing you to push it five miles a
day, without reaching your intended destinations. A cramped car that has
no air conditioning on a long hot journey in stop start traffic with
four bored children. Compared to a modern spacious air conditioned
minivan that never breaks down. I`ve been on all those vacations. I also
think that I`d have a better vacation driving a ferrari.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

06-03-2002, 05:16 AM

Peter Lubke, on Sunday, June 02, 2002 at 1:22 and again at 8:24 PM

> > When the minute details have to worked over with many rolls - you`ve
> > lost the imagination flavor. You want to ride a horse ? -- take riding
> > lessons instead of a "skill". You don`t need a rule or a "stat" to do
this.
>
> Gee I think not. Stick anyone up behind a placid pony and they`ll "ride"
> it. You don`t need a riding lesson to do that. Suggest that your
> character is going to get up on the back of the untamed stallion leader
> of the pack - and I`ll (while giggling insanely) suggest that your pony
> club experiences may not have quite given you the confidence to try
> that. But I`ll let you try. ("But I took riding lessons!")

Look, he argues with himself! He doesn`t need a skill, be we do need to
determine his degree of experience. No skills or stats needed (at least at
1:22), but later in the day we can distinguish between pony club levels of
experience and breaking a horse (which some might call Animal Handling, but
go with it).

> I don`t need a rule to decide that a player won`t often win a horse
> race against the most noted cavalry officer in the land - unless the
> player has in fact (a) gotten hold of a very fine piece of horseflesh,
> and (B) had considerable experience or training in riding horses --
> even then (unless it`s important from the plot line) he`s probably
> only 50-50.

I`m pretty sure we all agree that DM`s can fiat their way through entire
campaigns. The real question is not "what can we do" but "what do we do".
My guess, based on your many rule citations and close readings of parsed
rules text is that you use some form of Ride skill based on the system you
play. Even LUG`s Star Trek RPG had a horseback riding skill. Its not a
particularly obscure skill. Because of its routine qualities, many players
woulf prefer a routine way of settling horseback riding questions, rather
than submitting to yet another fiat.

> > A player whose character wants to craft a sword (probably needs to
> > reevaluate their priorities but hell.. okay) go ahead give it a try --
> > from a DM POV does the character NEED a sword or does he WANT
> > a sword -- I don`t see the need for a rule for this.
>
> Priests of Moradin don`t need a rule - if they learn to craft weapons as
> part of their priestly duties, then I guess they can craft weapons don`t
> you think ?

I take it from this that you don`t use the craft skill. Characters opperate
according to the entity theory of ability, not an experience theory,
according to your statements here. Characters either can or cannot do a
thing. There is no degree, no differing quality, no variable time for
performance. Characters do not increase in ability by progressive
experience becomming capable of ever more complex tasks.

> The arguments is one of "I want a rule for crafting weapons", versus "I
> need a rule for crafting weapons". To be quite frank, that`s the epitome
> of munchkinism. I want I want I want ... It`s not just DMs that give in
> to munchkins, it`s Game Companies as well. (most particularly when they
> design a new game by asking what people want)

You apparently don`t know what "munchkin" means. Munchkins want more
powerful weapons, they spend their character development points on skills
that overcome enemies. Spending development points on backround skills -
look ma, I`m a smith- and crafting your own weapons rather than just
regarding every sword the same as every other sword (all that matters are
their stat blocks) is the mark of a real roleplayer.

> > When a two-minute (game time) battle with Orogs takes 10 minutes (or
> > more) to play in real time because you`re playing out combat in detail
> > (and about 50 rolls of dice) -- you`re not fooling me.
>
> Dramatic situations, whether combats, dialogues, or puzzles normally
take
> longer than they do in real time. In the movies sometimes they just
show
> every character`s reaction shots to prolong the drama, sometimes they
use
> slow motion. Spending more time on the exciting or risky bits seems
much
> more reasonable to me than spending a lot of time on the stuff in
between
> the interesting dialogues, combats, and puzzles.
>
> I`ve got no problem with taking the time - as long as it`s not dice
> rolling time. When you have 6 players sitting around a table all trying
> to get their "turn" in - no-one really wants to hear a blow by blow,
> feint by feint, breath by breath, (every 6 seconds) description of each
> others melee plans.

Then why complain about the time. Are time spend and the use of dice
confusingly similar concepts? Again I have to ask, how do you actually run
combats?

> DM: (rolling a d20 twice behind the screen of fear and ignorance)

You seem to have issues. Perhaps the the DM should just e-mail his notes
over to his players, make sure the planned adventure meets their
expectations?

> I didn`t say *any* player and *any* DM, I said if you had GOOD DM and
> GOOD players. [...]
>
> I don`t think that your metaphor really works.
> A car that breaks down constantly [...]

Its too bad that you bother with such jalopies. Don`t do that. Select a
car that has the basic qualities of "car-ness". You know, moves you from
here to there reliably. I`ve gone to vacations in a ford escort and a new
saturn. In terms of just the car, very different vehicles. Price alone
reveals how the market demands both vehicles. The vacations were not
effected by the car. Of course we had the foresight to select a car capable
of making the trip. I`ll also point out, since the glaringly obvious is not
always so obvious, D&D is a gigantic success. Its not the jalopy you claim
it to be. It may be a ford escort, rather than a saturn or lexus, but as I
said, the vacation shouldn`t take place in the car. The fun is on the
beach, in the resturant, at the sights and attractions.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

06-03-2002, 06:35 AM

> You don`t have to ignore the mechanic of the game, you just don`t create
> rules for every possible occurance, or use every rule just because its
been
> provided.

Actually /you/ do--I know lots of GM`s of D&D who ignore die rolls--if the
die roll isn`t important why make it? It doesn`t really add all that much
"excitement" as some RPG`s suggest to hear the clatter of dice, except in
the most pavlovian trained players.

>
> You don`t need a system to support drama, storytelling, and emotional role
> play, all you need is to be well read, and you can do that while playing
> board games.
>

Yes you do---just as much as you need a system to support /any/ game
element.

I`ve seen to many GM`s who have no idea how to pace an adventure, I`ve seen
too many who don`t know how to describe things for the players, these things
/are not innate/ in humanity, but learned traits---if the game can help
teach them for better RPG`s then they /should do so/

If such skills were universal then of course it woulrn`t be needed, but they
aren`t.

I for example don`t need rules for magic items--because all the ones I use
are always unique--does that mean D&D should have nor rules to suppoort a
DM/player making them?

Of course not---just because I don`t need them, doesn`t mean they won`t be
useful to someone else.

You may not need rules for drama, storytelling and the like--but I know
/many/ who do--so lets get them better tools in the /game/.

>
> I`d rather have a "players guide to role play" than mechanics that support
> role play.

I`d rather have rules which support players creating epic adventures than
rules which support completely random unconnected results by die roll
bounce.

Mechanics that support setting flavor work best when GM`s first
> understand what they are intending to model, rather than trying to model a
> world backwards from the existing rules.
>

I don`t agree--either one is possible, Feng Shui is a "world" meant to
emulate an existing "world" that of Wuxia films--the source material existed
before the game, and was necessary to exist before one could create rules to
emulate it.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

06-03-2002, 08:08 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sidhain" <sidhain@EARTHLINK.NET>
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 1:29 AM

> > You don`t have to ignore the mechanic of the game, you just don`t create
> > rules for every possible occurance, or use every rule just because its
> > been provided.
>
> Actually /you/ do--I know lots of GM`s of D&D who ignore die rolls--if the
> die roll isn`t important why make it? It doesn`t really add all that much
> "excitement" as some RPG`s suggest to hear the clatter of dice, except in
> the most pavlovian trained players.

I read this to mean that "if a check has no consequence it should not be
made, a ruling should just be issued" and I agree with that. Dice don`t
need to be rolled just because dice can be rolled. If the consequence for
failing a jump check is wet boots, never mind, if the consequence is 1d6
points of subdual damage prior to a possible encounter, then I make the
check.

> [...] you need a system to support /any/ game element.
> I`ve seen to many GM`s who have no idea how to pace an adventure, I`ve
seen
> too many who don`t know how to describe things for the players, these
things
> /are not innate/ in humanity, but learned traits---if the game can help
> teach them for better RPG`s then they /should do so/

I`d like to point out a distinction which I find very important - between
rules and guidelines. Rules involve mechanics. This often involves dice
rolling. Guidelines involve descriptions, sound open-ended, and don`t have
fixed results. For example, just going with the printed materials,
determining your bloodline strength and powers is a mechanic. Its
constrained by rules. (For which see more below.) The BoM also advises
that Magicians select a character concept (pg 49) and provides some guidance
in that direction. These are not rules. In part because they can`t be
broken. They clearly are useful support for building a better magician.
Your use of the word "support" is telling, and I think, well chosen. D&D
does not support players and DM`s with very much in the way of role playing
and character concept. If that is anyone`s complaint, I give them a hearty,
"Me Too!"

But in terms of strict mechanics - the interaction between characters and
the concrete world- jumping, running, hiting, building things - D&D is a
very sound system for play. In its later incarnations, I think the game was
being played in so many ways, it became bery difficult to offer constructive
advice about how to do these things. In D20, which claims to be a universal
system, they seem to push this job off onto the settings. The settings seem
to be doing an OK job of it, I`d like to see them double to trebble the
space they devote to it, and some settings seem to leave these things far
too little space.

> I for example don`t need rules for magic items--because all the ones I use
> are always unique--does that mean D&D should have nor rules to suppoort a
> DM/player making them?
>
> Of course not---just because I don`t need them, doesn`t mean they won`t be
> useful to someone else.

Magic Items generally need at least some rules for a game -though you or I
may chose to tinker or discard them as needed. This is because Magic Items
effect the game world in concrete ways. What is the effect, how often can I
get it, how do I make a new one?

> You may not need rules for drama, storytelling and the like--but I know
> /many/ who do--so lets get them better tools in the /game/.
>
> > I`d rather have a "players guide to role play" than mechanics that
support
> > role play.
>
> I`d rather have rules which support players creating epic adventures than
> rules which support completely random unconnected results by die roll
> bounce.

I don`t see how rules can do that. Perhaps I have a limited view of things,
but to my mind, first I need to have some concept of what I am trying to
create, then I make rules to support that vision. I would say that
"completely random unconnected results" is produced by starting with rules
and mechanics and trying to extrapolate a world based on these.

> I don`t agree--either one is possible, Feng Shui is a "world" meant to
> emulate an existing "world" that of Wuxia films--the source material
existed
> before the game, and was necessary to exist before one could create rules
to
> emulate it.

Feng Shui is cool. A set of rules designed to reflect a set of movies.
But, can you provide an example of the "other hand"? You said either one is
possible. Can you provide an example where the rules came before the
setting concept? I would say this is the problem people often have with
D&D.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

06-03-2002, 08:22 AM

>
> I read this to mean that "if a check has no consequence it should not be
> made, a ruling should just be issued" and I agree with that. Dice don`t
> need to be rolled just because dice can be rolled. If the consequence for
> failing a jump check is wet boots, never mind, if the consequence is 1d6
> points of subdual damage prior to a possible encounter, then I make the
> check.

For heroic fantasy that`s pretty silly--how many peices of heroic fiction do
you know that worries all that much about tiny irritations?

> I`d like to point out a distinction which I find very important - between
> rules and guidelines. Rules involve mechanics. This often involves dice
> rolling. Guidelines involve descriptions, sound open-ended, and don`t
have
> fixed results.

Main Entry: 1rule
Pronunciation: `rül
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English reule, from Old French, from Latin regula
straightedge, rule, from regere to direct -- more at RIGHT
Date: 13th century
1 a : a prescribed guide for conduct or action b : the laws or regulations
prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members
c : an accepted procedure, custom, or habit

Main Entry: guide·line
Pronunciation: `gId-"lIn
Function: noun
Date: 1785

b : an indication or outline of policy or conduct

Hrms looks pretty much the same to me--except one is "prescribed" that is
"pre written" typically.

> But in terms of strict mechanics - the interaction between characters and
> the concrete world- jumping, running, hiting, building things - D&D is a
> very sound system for play. In its later incarnations, I think the game
was
> being played in so many ways, it became bery difficult to offer
constructive
> advice about how to do these things. In D20, which claims to be a
universal
> system, they seem to push this job off onto the settings. The settings
seem
> to be doing an OK job of it, I`d like to see them double to trebble the
> space they devote to it, and some settings seem to leave these things far
> too little space.
>

Interacting: What about talking? Love affairs? Dancing? Drinking?

D&D is a very sound system for play? If all you play is physical
interactions that it covers--why doesn`t it support emotional or
psychological ones? These are parts of a character, why not providing more
support for personality beyond alignment--it went /that far/?

> >
> > Of course not---just because I don`t need them, doesn`t mean they won`t
be
> > useful to someone else.
>
> Magic Items generally need at least some rules for a game -though you or I
> may chose to tinker or discard them as needed. This is because Magic
Items
> effect the game world in concrete ways. What is the effect, how often can
I
> get it, how do I make a new one?

So do social skill: Can I have a lover? Will she betray me? Do I face a
political/arranged marriage? (I`m trying to stay Birthright specific here).

>
> > I`d rather have rules which support players creating epic adventures
than
> > rules which support completely random unconnected results by die roll
> > bounce.
>
> I don`t see how rules can do that. Perhaps I have a limited view of
things,
> but to my mind, first I need to have some concept of what I am trying to
> create, then I make rules to support that vision. I would say that
> "completely random unconnected results" is produced by starting with rules
> and mechanics and trying to extrapolate a world based on these.

No, they come from using rules which support one style of play--rolling the
dice to determine results. Unconnected--in combat for example what I
rolled, how well I did last time, has /almost no effects/ on how well I do
this time--but real swordsmanship isn`t that random, or clumsy.

>
> > I don`t agree--either one is possible, Feng Shui is a "world" meant to
> > emulate an existing "world" that of Wuxia films--the source material
> existed
> > before the game, and was necessary to exist before one could create
rules
> to
> > emulate it.
>
> Feng Shui is cool. A set of rules designed to reflect a set of movies.
> But, can you provide an example of the "other hand"? You said either one
is
> possible. Can you provide an example where the rules came before the
> setting concept? I would say this is the problem people often have with
> D&D.

Rules before setting--FUDGE.

.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

06-03-2002, 02:34 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sidhain" <sidhain@EARTHLINK.NET>
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 3:05 AM

> For heroic fantasy that`s pretty silly--how many peices of heroic fiction
do
> you know that worries all that much about tiny irritations?

Tiny irritations do no damage. Once there are consequences, I keep track of
it. Players like a long catalogue of obstacles, and the severity always
grows in the recollection of it - ideally players like to remember that they
should have died three times over.

> [Dictionary quoted]
> Hrms looks pretty much the same to me--except one is "prescribed" that is
> "pre written" typically.

Frankly I don`t care what the dictionary says. I took great lengths to
express the precision of what I was meaning - my subjective understanding -
and if you want to muddy that in your own mind by conflating my definitions
with someone else`s its hardly a wonder these discussions wander around for
as long as they do. Are we really trying to understand what the other guy
is saying?

> Interacting: What about talking? Love affairs? Dancing? Drinking?

These are not concrete interactions with the physical world. They are all
social interactions best left without rules until you try to produce some
game effect. Where is the role play in attempting to regulate the above
list in game mechanics
>
> D&D is a very sound system for play? If all you play is physical
> interactions that it covers--why doesn`t it support emotional or
> psychological ones? These are parts of a character, why not providing more
> support for personality beyond alignment--it went /that far/?

This was the very point of my argument. Rules are for physical interactions
with the game world. The rest is best handled through imagination, not
tables, charts, a point system, or other mechanical impliments. For the
rest of this, frankly, I prefer to use acting excercises to help players
elicit characters. I get my support out of the game books, and there is no
way any game, even the most supportive game materials, will match the
ability of well chosen literary and theatrical guides to character.

> So do social skill: Can I have a lover? Will she betray me? Do I face a
> political/arranged marriage? (I`m trying to stay Birthright specific
here).

You want to handle this through a skill system? How is it mediated? Dice?
Tokens? Points? As far as I am concerned, if a player wants a lover, they
can either describe the salient details to me, or I can describe them
myself. I`d never want this handled mechanically. Beytral? That will
depend on motivations, not mechanics. Political marraige? Who isn`t? And
again, what rules do you invision for mediate this mechanically?

> No, they come from using rules which support one style of play--rolling
the
> dice to determine results. Unconnected--in combat for example what I
> rolled, how well I did last time, has /almost no effects/ on how well I do
> this time--but real swordsmanship isn`t that random, or clumsy.

Only unmodified dice produce random results. Modified dice produce
systematically shifted results. D&D combat is not realistic (reflecting
reality) for a reason. But, not liking the style of combat is not the same
as one style of combat being bad. Frankly, I find realistic combat too
random and clumsy. PC`s end up dead to often in inconsequential combats.
Of course a Feng Shui allows you to discriminate between real opponents and
the crowd of spear carriers, but that is just prefering one form of stylized
combat over another form of stylized combat - simply a matter of taste, not
game quality.

> Rules before setting--FUDGE.

FUDGE is a unversal system. I read the 95 pages of rules waiting to find
out if my character had a lover, an arranged marriage, or a regular drinking
buddy. Unless I am intended to take these as part of a list of advantages
(countered by disadvantages like "heart of gold`). This is 95 pages of
mechanics. Too much of the character is regulated by a points system, and
there is very little advice about how to envision my character, and
neccesarily (given its universal claims) no information about the world I am
playing in. There simply is no setting. How is this helpful? Its not,
because it cannot be. The mechanics don`t create setting. Description
does. Its because my GM decided we were playing a space opera that I was
allowed to get lasers. Apparently, according my GM, because the rules were
unclear on this point, had we played in the style of a Viking saga, I would
not have been able to get lasers. Its as though there were an unspoken set
of assumptions as at work here. Space opera has lasers, viking saga has
axes.

As far as a set of rules to mediate my interactions with the physical world,
FUDGE did no better than D&D. Differently, not better. It offered me no
more advice about what weapons to take, what I look like, my motivations for
being involved in whatever the GM had planned, or whether I had an arranged
marriage or a lover than D&D does. This kind of stuff, call it flavor,
color, or setting, is provided by descriptive material mostly developed by
the DM on a spare framework provided by a publisher, or created from whole
cloth.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

06-03-2002, 03:51 PM

This thread has degenerated into another shade of the Rules Bad,
Role-Playing Good debate; a long-standing (not to mention long-winded
argument) on this list that is, I`m afraid, as nearly as pointless as it is
off-topic. Let`s try to take this off the list or at least relate it in
some way to Birthright, shall we?

Thanks,
Gary
Birthright-l Moderator

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

06-03-2002, 10:37 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Gauck" <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>
To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] [33#679] D20 System and distribution of magic

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sidhain" <sidhain@EARTHLINK.NET>
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 3:05 AM
>
> > For heroic fantasy that`s pretty silly--how many peices of heroic
fiction
> do
> > you know that worries all that much about tiny irritations?
>
> Tiny irritations do no damage. Once there are consequences, I keep track
of
> it. Players like a long catalogue of obstacles, and the severity always
> grows in the recollection of it - ideally players like to remember that
they
> should have died three times over.
>
> > [Dictionary quoted]
> > Hrms looks pretty much the same to me--except one is "prescribed" that
is
> > "pre written" typically.
>
> Frankly I don`t care what the dictionary says. I took great lengths to
> express the precision of what I was meaning - my subjective
understanding -
> and if you want to muddy that in your own mind by conflating my
definitions
> with someone else`s its hardly a wonder these discussions wander around
for
> as long as they do. Are we really trying to understand what the other guy
> is saying?
>

Well if your using english, and english defines a word one way in general
that`s what the word means. I can`t read your mind for it`s "world according
to you meaning" now can I?

> > Interacting: What about talking? Love affairs? Dancing? Drinking?
>
> These are not concrete interactions with the physical world. They are all
> social interactions best left without rules until you try to produce some
> game effect. Where is the role play in attempting to regulate the above
> list in game mechanics
> >

Where is the role play in having combat determined by dice results?
Why can`t it /also/ fall to role-play?

> > D&D is a very sound system for play? If all you play is physical
> > interactions that it covers--why doesn`t it support emotional or
> > psychological ones? These are parts of a character, why not providing
more
> > support for personality beyond alignment--it went /that far/?
>
> This was the very point of my argument. Rules are for physical
interactions
> with the game world. The rest is best handled through imagination, not
> tables, charts, a point system, or other mechanical impliments. For the
> rest of this, frankly, I prefer to use acting excercises to help players
> elicit characters. I get my support out of the game books, and there is
no
> way any game, even the most supportive game materials, will match the
> ability of well chosen literary and theatrical guides to character.
>

Again why are rules necessary for one thing but not another? Support in a
game should be equal, weren`t you the one saying one can ignore rules one
doesn`t feel like they need? Better to support it /all/ equitably and let
people decide which parts work, than to leave people /who`ve never done this
before/ completely in the lurch.

> > So do social skill: Can I have a lover? Will she betray me? Do I face a
> > political/arranged marriage? (I`m trying to stay Birthright specific
> here).
>
> You want to handle this through a skill system? How is it mediated?
Dice?
> Tokens? Points? As far as I am concerned, if a player wants a lover,
they
> can either describe the salient details to me, or I can describe them
> myself. I`d never want this handled mechanically. Beytral? That will
> depend on motivations, not mechanics. Political marraige? Who isn`t?
And
> again, what rules do you invision for mediate this mechanically?
>

I want it handled as concretely as anything else that`s handled concretly--I
want /all/ interactions to hav ethe same amount of support--whether it`s
rules or guidelines by your definition.

> Only unmodified dice produce random results. Modified dice produce
> systematically shifted results.

Er not really--you just shift the randomness up instead of 1-20 you get 5-25
stille the /same/ amount of randomness..(now it does change the chance of
succuss, but it still allows for a 24 this round and a 6 next)

Frankly, I find realistic combat too
> random and clumsy. PC`s end up dead to often in inconsequential combats.

Which is my point of D&D--I don`t want rea world results, I want /story/
style results.
> > Rules before setting--FUDGE.
>
> FUDGE is a unversal system. I read the 95 pages of rules waiting to find
> out if my character had a lover, an arranged marriage, or a regular
drinking
> buddy. Unless I am intended to take these as part of a list of advantages
> (countered by disadvantages like "heart of gold`). This is 95 pages of
> mechanics.

Yes but your contention was rules before setting---which is exactly what
those are.

> As far as a set of rules to mediate my interactions with the physical
world,
> FUDGE did no better than D&D. Differently, not better

I didn`t say Fudge was "better", or even "good" in fact I don`t like it all,
but just that it was rules which preceded setting.

. It offered me no
> more advice about what weapons to take, what I look like, my motivations
for
> being involved in whatever the GM had planned, or whether I had an
arranged
> marriage or a lover than D&D does. This kind of stuff, call it flavor,
> color, or setting, is provided by descriptive material mostly developed by
> the DM on a spare framework provided by a publisher, or created from whole
> cloth.
>

Which of course makes both games bad. Although suggestions of what weapons
to take seems to me to be completely unimportant in Role-playing, the
marriage, lover, relationship stuff should be supported equally to
combat--now admittedly not all games care about that, Rune for example
doesn`t, but Pendragon for that matter /does/

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.