The Politics Skill.

[geeman]

I`ve been revamping 3e skills for use IMC, but also specifically in BR. So
far those BR related skills include things like Command, Intrigue,
Leadership and Research, most of which have been discussed on this
list. I`ve been mulling over including another skill, Politics, that will
aid regents in performing various domain actions. Right now I`m thinking
this skill should benefit one, maybe two domain actions and I`m leaning
towards Agitate and/or Contest in the same way I`ve got Intrigue
influencing Espionage actions, Research affecting Research actions, etc.

One major concern I have when coming up with a new skill, however, is that
it be useful not only at the realm level, but also at the adventure level,
and there`s where I`m a bit stuck. So the questions I have for you folks
is; what is it that politically skilled people apply their talents
too? What do they succeed at that their opponents do not? If you were up
against a politically savvy NPC what is it you would expect him to do?

I know this is a bit vague, but I`m just looking for some brainstorming
here. Ideas?

Gary

************************************************** **************************
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]

I`ve used the Politics skill, but frankly there is nothing there that you
won`t get by having Gather Information, Knowledge (Nobility), and Diplomacy.
The advantage I saw in the Politics skill, was that in exchange for limiting
its effects to a single realm, Politics (Roesone), and a single sphere,
politics, characters would have access to three skills.

I did the same thing with Stewardship and the skills Administration, Law,
and Knowledge (Nobility).

Of course PC`s generally don`t want to limit themselves in this way,
prefering versatility. So I generally used these skills for NPC`s who had
chosen to invest in local affairs and didn`t adventure. Of course rulers
are often surrounded by experts in local politics and stewardship.

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.

[geeman]

At 01:17 PM 6/30/2002 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>I`ve used the Politics skill, but frankly there is nothing there that you
>won`t get by having Gather Information, Knowledge (Nobility), and Diplomacy.
>The advantage I saw in the Politics skill, was that in exchange for limiting
>its effects to a single realm, Politics (Roesone), and a single sphere,
>politics, characters would have access to three skills.
>
>I did the same thing with Stewardship and the skills Administration, Law,
>and Knowledge (Nobility).

I was thinking of it more in terms of an ability to "spin" a situation,
thus affecting Agitate, and manipulate people`s perception of a situation
in such a way as to undermine the authority of a ruler in favor of oneself,
kind of like Contest.

In any case, those three are a bit different from what I have in
mind. Administration I haven`t really figured out how I want to handle
yet, but I think it`s quite different from the politics skill I`m talking
about. Law is a bit of a toughie, but I`m picturing that having to do with
a couple of other domain actions, mostly interacting with the Law
holding. Knowledge, nobility (or any of the knowledge skills) generally
reserved for information purposes only, though there are a few notable
"hands on" uses for knowledge skills from time to time. The combination of
those could, I guess, replicate a Politics skill, but having a single skill
just seems cleaner and more useable.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Magian]

A politics skill is very general especially if you want to apply it to game
mechanics and not wanting to leave any aspect of it out.

>
>I was thinking of it more in terms of an ability to "spin" a situation,
>thus affecting Agitate, and manipulate people`s perception of a situation
>in such a way as to undermine the authority of a ruler in favor of oneself,
>kind of like Contest.
>

The skill of spin and manipulating peoples perception of a situation really
have little to do with politics unless the knowledge and subject of what you
are trying to spin is political in scope. These skills are communication
skills under persuation, debate, and rhetoric.

The temple aspect of the agitate encompasses the dogma of the church which
is basically church politics. However politics was not really considered a
science the way it is today because of lack of data and studies and perhaps
interest thus politics as a skill in itself is as you said a vague approach.
Even in political science so many skills are drawn upon to make up what it
is that itself alone really isn`t anything but personal opinion and
philosophical conjecture.

Today there are so many things a person could do in politics but in the
setting we have in campaign terms things were much more limited on the
domain scale. I suggest Niccolo Machiavelli as a milestone to politics in
this setting and a good source to base any materials of politics anyone
would like to incorporate to the game.

As for adventuring, well isn`t the party leader already drawing upon his
political skills in every adventure in every D&D game already? Politics
really isn`t a definitive entity but we use it everywhere through
combinations of skills, or non-skills for those who are not politically
motivated.

>In any case, those three are a bit different from what I have in
>mind. Administration I haven`t really figured out how I want to handle
>yet, but I think it`s quite different from the politics skill I`m talking
>about. Law is a bit of a toughie, but I`m picturing that having to do with
>a couple of other domain actions, mostly interacting with the Law
>holding.

Again politics regarding law itself is very philosophical or religious
depending on the form of government.


>Knowledge, nobility (or any of the knowledge skills) generally
>reserved for information purposes only, though there are a few notable
>"hands on" uses for knowledge skills from time to time. The combination of
>those could, I guess, replicate a Politics skill, but having a single skill
>just seems cleaner and more useable.
>
>Gary
>

I understand that politics would be an easy catch all however I (perhaps a
little philosophical myself on this subject) think that politics really
draws upon other skills and is not in itself a skill. A knowledge of, as
has been mentioned, certain political structures could be a politic skill
and the knowledge thereof could be measured with a skill check. The
administrative would fall under administration because not all politically
skilled persons are good at administration. Law would be under law cause
not all politically skilled persons are good lawyers. Spin would fall under
a communications skill and be modified by charisma because not all
politically skilled persons are good at persuading others or even making
much change. Another aspect of politics is ambition but that is not a skill
rather a personality trait thus guiding the type of politician one is.

ciao,

Paul

__________________________________________________ _______________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.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]

It sounds more like what I called the Oratory skill (and a rose by any other
name ...). The Oratory skill is designed for addressing groups, rather than
interacting with individuals. You might use it to address a crowd, a
meeting of the Estates, the Imperial Senate, an assembly of congregants at
the Temple of Haelyn on a feast day, and so forth.

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.

[Trithemius]

Quoting Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>:

> It sounds more like what I called the Oratory skill (and a rose by any
> other name ...). The Oratory skill is designed for addressing groups, rather
> than interacting with individuals. You might use it to address a crowd, a
> meeting of the Estates, the Imperial Senate, an assembly of congregants
> at the Temple of Haelyn on a feast day, and so forth.

I personally would be inclined to see this the Oratory skill as a sub-skill of
the Perform skill. It could be argued that this improves the value of the
Perform skill, but I would say by way of a reply that the Perform skill is not
exactly super-powerful to begin with. I would certainly permit a PC to take (or
construct an NPC with) a Perform style named `Oratory`. I would also permit an
(N)PC to take `Ritual`, "Sermon`, `Card-Dealing`, or any of a number of
disparate `performance` skills. Backed up by appropriate Knowledges (perhaps
these might even grant synergy bonuses to certain performance style checks) I
think that a greater variety of Perfom styles is a good alternative to
expanding the number of skills.

P.S. Sorry for being rather uncommunicative lately folks, I have had yet more
connectivity issues.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
(ICQ: 16537985)
-----------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
-----------------------------------------------------
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

************************************************** **************************
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]

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Machin" <trithemius@PARADISE.NET.NZ>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 1:27 AM


> I personally would be inclined to see this the Oratory skill as a
sub-skill of
> the Perform skill.

I am inconsistant in ascribing it either to its own skill, or as a Perform
skill. If I had to settle on one nomenclature, I`d probabaly call it
Perform (Oratory), and make it a class skill for Clerics and Paladins. At
the same time I`d probabaly take Diplomacy away, and restore it only to
those sects which get it as a bonus or a required proficency in the BoP.

> P.S. Sorry for being rather uncommunicative lately folks, I have had yet
more
> connectivity issues.

Glad to see you back in the ether.

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.

[Trithemius]

Quoting Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>:

> I am inconsistant in ascribing it either to its own skill, or as a
> Perform skill. If I had to settle on one nomenclature, I`d probabaly call it
> Perform (Oratory), and make it a class skill for Clerics and Paladins.
> At the same time I`d probabaly take Diplomacy away, and restore it only to
> those sects which get it as a bonus or a required proficency in the
> BoP.

That works well.
I might be inclined to leave paladins with Diplomacy though. I would imagine
that they need to talk through things at least as often as they need to stir up
crowds.

> Glad to see you back in the ether.

I am just trying to avoid phlogiston at the moment :)

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
(ICQ: 16537985)
-----------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
-----------------------------------------------------
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Trithemius]

Quoting Carl Cramér <carl.cramer@HOME.SE>:

> The problem with this is that the different areas of the Perform skill
> are not separate skills - you get one area of performance for each rank you
> take in the perform skill. Of course, that can be changed, too. Everything
> can be changed.

I do not see how this is a problem.

> And that is the problem with this entire discussion - you are going too
> far away from the Core 3E rules. If we want to make our own d20 rules set
> for Birthright, we isolate ourselves in an ivory tower away from all the
> Dungeons and Dragons players. The Politics debate is just one example
> of this.

Well, I am not sure that we have to remain `generic` to be honest, but I since
no real problem with the Perform skill currently, nor any problem with allowing
all sorts of uses for the Perform skill (from conducting magical ceremonies, to
dancing, to (as one of my co-players puts it) "luuuuurve-making") I am not sure
of the need to radically alter the skill system. My main alteration would be
granting increasing synergy bonuses (which Gary and I discussed on-list a while
ago), and having more of them (particularly for Knowledge skills).

> I`m not going so far as to say that we should merge the Birhtright gods
> with the gods from the PH, but I think we should avoid messing with core
> mechanics, like the skills. It is better to invent new uses of old
> skills. And, in the case of Politics, this is clearly an aspect of the
> Diplomacy skill.

Negotiation makes us of (depending on the moment and the negotiators styles)
Bluff, Sense Motive, Innuendo, Intimidation, AND Diplomacy. I would say that a
Knowledge (Politics) skill would offer a synergy to political negotiations (but
not to negotiations over who takes which watch at night), but I would not make
a single skill and let it preside over such a complex thing as a political
discussion, especially in a game like Birthright where politics is so
important. I would like my master negotiator lieutenant (who has maxed out all
of the mentioned skills, and has lots of appropriate skill-buffing feats) to be
somewhat more capable than the average fellow with maxed out Diplomacy ranks.
The other fellow might be able to talk politely in the normal fashion, but my
master negotiator can lie, threaten, haggle, or charm his way through, as well
as conduct the traditional stately discourse.

Alternatively, the fact that I am a student of politics has made me place too
much importance on my own discipline :)

> So, you say, most classes lack Diplomacy. But skill access can be a
> partr of whatever mechanism you use to separate blooded and unblooded
> characters. It is better to adapt rules in this way, than to write your
> entirely new set of rules - because diverging rules makes your game
> indecipherable to others.

I believe that I would have to redefine the uses of a lot of skills, including
my expanded uses of Perform, Profession, and Knowledge skills and my division
of Spellcraft into Theurgy, Magery, and Sorcery, but I do not think that this
would mean that an regular D&D player would be alienated from my BR campaigns.
He/she would probably have to the read page or so of changes that I have made,
but I think that is no different for any campaign setting. So long as there are
no changes of a Harn d20 magnitude I don`t think there are any problems with
some fiddling around.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
(ICQ: 16537985)
-----------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
-----------------------------------------------------
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

************************************************** **************************
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]

Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM> wrote at 02-07-01 09.17:

> I am inconsistant in ascribing it either to its own skill, or as a Perform
> skill. If I had to settle on one nomenclature, I`d probabaly call it
> Perform (Oratory), and make it a class skill for Clerics and Paladins. At
> the same time I`d probabaly take Diplomacy away, and restore it only to
> those sects which get it as a bonus or a required proficency in the BoP.

The problem with this is that the different areas of the Perform skill are
not separate skills - you get one area of performance for each rank you take
in the perform skill. Of course, that can be changed, too. Everything can be
changed.

And that is the problem with this entire discussion - you are going too far
away from the Core 3E rules. If we want to make our own d20 rules set for
Birthright, we isolate ourselves in an ivory tower away from all the
Dungeons and Dragons players. The Politics debate is just one example of
this.

I`m not going so far as to say that we should merge the Birhtright gods with
the gods from the PH, but I think we should avoid messing with core
mechanics, like the skills. It is better to invent new uses of old skills.
And, in the case of Politics, this is clearly an aspect of the Diplomacy
skill.

So, you say, most classes lack Diplomacy. But skill access can be a partr of
whatever mechanism you use to separate blooded and unblooded characters. It
is better to adapt rules in this way, than to write your entirely new set of
rules - because diverging rules makes your game indecipherable to others.



/Carl

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Trithemius]

Quoting Paul MacArthur <birthrightpbem@HOTMAIL.COM>:

> Today there are so many things a person could do in politics but in the
> setting we have in campaign terms things were much more limited on the
> domain scale. I suggest Niccolo Machiavelli as a milestone to politics
> in this setting and a good source to base any materials of politics anyone
> would like to incorporate to the game.

Machiavelli is good for any setting where there is the opportunity for
autocratic power, be it medieval, modern, of futuristic.

> As for adventuring, well isn`t the party leader already drawing upon
> his political skills in every adventure in every D&D game already? Politics
> really isn`t a definitive entity but we use it everywhere through
> combinations of skills, or non-skills for those who are not politically
> motivated.

If you want to say (as THEY do) that politics is the struggle for power and
that, therefore, all human interaction can be considered to be both (a)
political and (B) a power struggle, then you can. I prefer, for the purposes of
this discussion and for BR in general, to consider politics to be mainly about
government, or rather governance and the interactions between and activities of
those involved with governance, be they noble, guilder, priest, or magus.

> I understand that politics would be an easy catch all however I (perhaps
> a little philosophical myself on this subject) think that politics really
> draws upon other skills and is not in itself a skill. A knowledge of,
> as has been mentioned, certain political structures could be a politic
> skill and the knowledge thereof could be measured with a skill check. The
> administrative would fall under administration because not all
> politically skilled persons are good at administration. Law would be under law
> cause not all politically skilled persons are good lawyers. Spin would fall
> under a communications skill and be modified by charisma because not all
> politically skilled persons are good at persuading others or even
> making much change. Another aspect of politics is ambition but that is not a
> skill rather a personality trait thus guiding the type of politician one is.

I would agree with this. In my games I would include Knowledge (Law), Knowledge
(Politics), Knowledge (Bureaucracy) and perhaps, Profession (Administrator, or
something more medieval). Bluff covers creative lying and Perform (Oratory)
helps get those lies out there for the suckers to hear. I would consider
Knowledge (Politics) to represent either (a) an intimate personal experience
with political concerns or (B) indepth academic and theoretical appreciations
of political theory or &copy; a bit of both. I like to think that studying
politics helps, you see :)

To sidetrack a little: I am not personally in favour of having "administration"
as a skill, especially in Anuire. I am not sure how much Imperial bureaucracy
existed in Anuire to begin, let alone after 500 odd years of chaos. I would
certainly have such skills in a Khinasi city-state-centred game though. In my
experience people have the skill (or had the Proficiency) Administration so
they could avoid large expenditures. In my opinion bveing able to use such a
skill (or proficiency) would require a pretty sophisticated bureaucracy that
also worked very well. I am not sure (and many theorists will agree with me
here) that having a central administrator ever did demonstrably better in terms
of efficiency or expenditure reduction. I`m probably just a bit cynical about
bureaucracy after a few years of political economy though.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
(ICQ: 16537985)
-----------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
-----------------------------------------------------
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

************************************************** **************************
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]

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Machin" <trithemius@PARADISE.NET.NZ>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 3:23 AM


> To sidetrack a little: I am not personally in favour of having
"administration"
> as a skill, especially in Anuire. I am not sure how much Imperial
bureaucracy
> existed in Anuire to begin, let alone after 500 odd years of chaos.

I think the temples of Haelyn would be a source of much administrative
talent, so much so that clerk and cleric might be the same word. ;-)

The Khinasi might consider Administration - or Profession (Administration)
if you prefer - an appropriate aristocratic skill, the Brechts might
consider it a mercantile skill, and the Anuireans a clerical skill. The
Khinasi would probabaly have a lot of it, because administration is often an
attempt to rationalize, or as some put it, bureaucratize the noble household
as state office. The Brecht approach would probabaly be in a more
accounting vein, while the Anuireans would be a more regulatory people.

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]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Cramér" <carl.cramer@HOME.SE>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 2:39 AM


> The problem with this is that the different areas of the Perform skill are
> not separate skills - you get one area of performance for each rank you
take
> in the perform skill.

I reserve that as a bardic class feature. The rest of us take seperate
skills.

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.

[geeman]

At 09:39 AM 7/1/2002 +0200, Carl Cramer wrote:

>And that is the problem with this entire discussion - you are going too
>far away from the Core 3E rules. If we want to make our own d20 rules set
>for Birthright, we isolate ourselves in an ivory tower away from all the
>Dungeons and Dragons players. The Politics debate is just one example of this.

I don`t think it`s really as dire as all that. I`ve found D&D players who
see changes to the skill system (or any other legitimate changes) don`t
really have much of a problem when they are presented with tweaks,
especially when those tweaks are sensible and/or fit into the campaign
well. It would be nice to have a single point of reference to communicate
the differences between BR and "standard" D&D, but if someone is willing to
wade through the volumes of materials D&D represents I find they don`t fuss
about a campaign supplement or three.

>I`m not going so far as to say that we should merge the Birhtright gods
>with the gods from the PH, but I think we should avoid messing with core
>mechanics, like the skills. It is better to invent new uses of old
>skills. And, in the case of Politics, this is clearly an aspect of the
>Diplomacy skill.
>
>So, you say, most classes lack Diplomacy. But skill access can be a partr
>of whatever mechanism you use to separate blooded and unblooded
>characters. It is better to adapt rules in this way, than to write your
>entirely new set of rules - because diverging rules makes your game
>indecipherable to others.

I`m not sure I understand you`re proposed solution here. I think you`re
suggesting blooded PCs should have access to diplomacy as a class skill in
some sort of template kind of thing. Is that it? I guess that or
something like it could work, but I have similar objections to the existing
situation. That is, a bloodline doesn`t necessarily give access to
diplomacy any more than character class should. Does a character with a
tainted bloodline strength really give him access to Diplomacy in the same
way he can access true magic? I don`t think there`s necessarily a
connection there.

As for rewriting the rules: I`ve made many, many changes to the skill
system, far more than I`ve described on this list since it seems to get
people`s dander up so. I`ve added new skills, redefined existing skills,
included whole new categories of skills, and included a whole system of
martial arts based on the skill system rather than character class. All I
can tell you is that for all those changes--many of which have raised huge
howls from various lists, accusations of trolling, and predictions of doom,
isolation, despair and confused players--the transition has been pretty
smooth. Much smoother than I had anticipated given the objections various
listers have raised. In fact, the opposite of what has been predicted has
happened. Most of the people who have read or played the "Taunt" skill I
use have found it as entertaining, useful and playable as the "Tempt:
Seduction" skill, which several posters on dnd-l seemed to think would not
only end my gaming sessions, but life as we know it. Intrigue got chortles
of glee, and has been used by PCs just fine. (I`m still looking forward to
some additional intrigue use in the future.... heh, heh, heh.) Combining
Move Silently and Hide into "Sneak" didn`t throw off the balance of the
game, changing Pick Pockets to "Sleight of Hand" and altering it`s uses
didn`t trouble anybody, and making Diplomacy a subskill of "Influence" has
worked out as well. So far, I haven`t had a much more useable system (and
I`d even suggest more enjoyable) than that presented in 3e or D20.

If it creates any more work for anyone then its me as DM because I have to
translate NPCs from published adventures to use in my system, but that`s
really not all that hard since I have a simple conversion system in mind,
and I almost never use published adventures without altering them
anyway. I always change the significant NPCs in adventures to fit the
party anyway, and as a DM I find myself needing to be very familiar NPCs so
that changing their skills around a bit aids me in that process.

Of course, I`ve never been particularly doctrinaire about 3e or most any
RPG, which may foster a certain relaxed attitude towards "The Rules" in my
sessions, and as always YMMV, but in the long run I don`t think the changes
I`ve suggested are going to be any more of problem than it has been in the
short run. Quite the opposite. I could be wrong, though. The changes
I`ve made to the skill system could be festering, eventually to burst and
destroy my gaming sessions and even (as some folks have gone so far as to
imply) gaming as we know it. Somehow, I doubt it. In any case, I`m going
to suggest that we all adopt a "play and let play" philosophy towards such
matters. Is it 3e, D20 or even D&D? I don`t really think any of that
makes much of a difference. Whatever methods people want to adopt is fine
by me.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
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.

[geeman]

At 10:54 PM 6/30/2002 -0600, Paul MacArthur wrote:

>A politics skill is very general especially if you want to apply it to
>game mechanics and not wanting to leave any aspect of it out.

Well, I`m just calling it "Politics" for now. If anyone comes up with a
better name for that strange ability to turn a situation into political
capital then I`ll go with that. "Spin" is far too modern a term for my
taste, but it is that sort of skill that I`m talking about.

What the skill gets entitled, however, isn`t really what I`m concerned
about. Nor, I`m afraid, do I think current skills really handle this
particular issue. One could certainly expand one or more of the current
skills (Diplomacy or Bluff seem apt) to cover the kind of thing I`m talking
about... but those are pretty much the skills that one could always expand
for a situation and that raises a whole set of objections I have to the
skill system, how it interacts with character class, blah, blah, blah.

>The skill of spin and manipulating peoples perception of a situation
>really have little to do with politics unless the knowledge and subject of
>what you are trying to spin is political in scope. These skills are
>communication skills under persuation, debate, and rhetoric.

Hm. There are plenty of people that are talented at spinning a situation
who don`t have any particular skill at persuasion or debate, which is
usually my signal that I need a separate skill. Rhetoric, though... that
might be more in the direction I`m going for. I`m going for a more "smoke
filled room" kind of thing. The movers and shakers behind the scenes (and
their lackeys) who manipulate the presentation of events. George Orwell`s
turf. Machiavelli has been mentioned in this thread, but I`m thinking more
of a figure like Julius Caesar. Sure, he had oratory skills, leadership
skills, and was a substantially more talented military figure than he is
often credited, but he also had his finger on the pulse of the populace
such a way that I don`t think oratory or leadership really cover.

The real issue, though, isn`t whether or not I see a need for such a
skill. I do. It`s really just a matter of finding some sort of adventure
level effects for it. I`ve included plenty of new skills, and I could list
dozens of other aspects of character that could be expressed as
skills. For me, the test for including a new skill is whether or not there
could be a functional game mechanic at the adventure level for it to
operate at. At the realm level it`s easy to assign a use for a "Politics"
(or whatever you want to call it) skill. It could be used to affect the DC
of several domain actions, or help deal with random events.

Despite what some people would probably describe as an pathological desire
to include new skills in my part :) there really is some rhyme and reason
to it. A new skill must meet several conditions for me to include it, the
first and foremost of which is that it has to have an adventure level
use. Close on the heels of that requirement is that there has to be a game
mechanic to back up that adventure level use that is different enough from
other skill mechanics to warrant a separate description. At the same time
the skill has to be general enough that it`s attractive to PCs, and fit
into most any campaign setting. If it meets those requirements (which are
all, of course, a judgement call at a certain point) then I`ll go with
it. The problem with this Politics skill is that I`m not so sure I can
come up with adventure level effects, so though I think there`s a need for
it, I`m not going with it yet.

Usually, I present a skill later in its development process after I`ve
already come up with adventure level game mechanics for it, so I`m working
backwards on this one, but I thought I`d get some input earlier on this one
just to see what happens.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
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]

I don`t mind if you or anyone changes the system. I think it is fine if we
can discuss such changes here on the list. But if we want to attract new
players to the setting, any netbooks and such that we publish should stay as
close to established 3E mechanics as possible.

Blooded characters need special rules - no question about that. Thus I think
it is better to introduce a set of special rules for blooded characters, and
include access to the Diplomacy skill (and a few other skill sueful to
regents) as a part of this package. This is a minor tweak, much less than
the introduction of new skills.

However, nothing prevents each of us from playing Birthright using any set
of rules - we could use the 1979 edition of Chivalry and Sorcery if we fancy
that. But if we do, we should not bring up rules from our home campaigns as
canon in netbooks and such.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
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.

[geeman]

At 01:29 PM 7/1/2002 +0200, Carl Cramer wrote:

>I don`t mind if you or anyone changes the system. I think it is fine if we
>can discuss such changes here on the list. But if we want to attract new
>players to the setting, any netbooks and such that we publish should stay
>as close to established 3E mechanics as possible.
>
>Blooded characters need special rules - no question about that. Thus I
>think it is better to introduce a set of special rules for blooded
>characters, and include access to the Diplomacy skill (and a few other
>skill sueful to regents) as a part of this package. This is a minor tweak,
>much less than the introduction of new skills.
>
>However, nothing prevents each of us from playing Birthright using any set
>of rules - we could use the 1979 edition of Chivalry and Sorcery if we
>fancy that. But if we do, we should not bring up rules from our home
>campaigns as canon in netbooks and such.

Duly noted. I don`t work on netbooks, really, nor do I have a website in
which I display my campaign materials for all the world, though I might do
either at some point. Aside from presenting such materials to people who
show up at my house, this list is about it. I`ve presented new skills on
other lists, but the amount of time between people being able to actually
comment on them and the point at which the thread inevitably degenerates
into a debate about the merits of including new skills in the first place
could usually be measured in hours, sometimes even minutes--here at least
it is sometimes measured in days--so I despair of every getting much
substantial input anyplace else.

I might suggest, though, that to attract new players to BR it might be as
good a plan to highlight and expand upon its differences from 3e as it
would be to maintain similarities. A book on the order of the Wheel of
Time or Oriental Adventures seems like a good plan, and while many of the
core issues remain the same (combat, equipment, costs, level based
character classes, prestige classes) anything from the character classes to
the magic system is entirely up for grabs, and many of those things are
different in BR. For some reason the skills available seem to be
sacrosanct in a way that most other aspects of 3e specifically is not,
though many issues of Polyhedron have presented as many or more new skills
as I`ve suggested in my tenure on this list.

Should BR be 3e or should it be more independent, D20 sort of thing? I can
see arguments either way. Personally, I`d prefer changes to 3e that would
make 3e more playable and along with it D20, but that opinion is definitely
swimming against the tide for some odd reason.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Trithemius]

Gary says:

> Should BR be 3e or should it be more independent, D20 sort of
> thing? I can see arguments either way. Personally, I`d
> prefer changes to 3e that would make 3e more playable and
> along with it D20, but that opinion is definitely swimming
> against the tide for some odd reason.

I think you can chalk me up as with you on this one Gary.
I may not agree with you on exactly how the rules should be tweaked, but
I am highly in favour of the tweaking itself :) I am just more inclined
to fit things in under existing skills than make new ones I think.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Trithemius]

Carl says:

> However, nothing prevents each of us from playing Birthright
> using any set of rules - we could use the 1979 edition of
> Chivalry and Sorcery if we fancy that. But if we do, we
> should not bring up rules from our home campaigns as canon in
> netbooks and such.

Oh dear, don`t even joke about that.
Brrrrrr

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
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]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 6:13 AM


> Despite what some people would probably describe as an pathological desire
> to include new skills in my part :)

Its an affliction I like to call polyskillmania. You can never have too
many skills.

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.

[geeman]

At 11:12 AM 7/1/2002 -0500, you wrote:

> > Despite what some people would probably describe as an pathological desire
> > to include new skills in my part :)
>
>Its an affliction I like to call polyskillmania. You can never have too
>many skills.

I`d generally agree so long as those skills are useful, playable and most
importantly fun, I don`t see any problem with having a lot of them. The
system I use has about 60 skills, compared to the 42 skills presented in
the PHB. That`s a little deceptive, though, because 3e has a few skills
that have a particular category (knowledge, religion or profession, sailor)
which really makes for an infinite number of possible skills, limited only
by the dictates of the DM. I probably have fifteen or twenty skills with a
"category" requirement after them in addition to a system of subskills and
specialties that really make it much easier to reach "an infinite number"
of possible skills.

The big problem with changes to the skill system, of course, is with the
number of skill points available to various character classes. I
personally think that most 3e character classes are lacking in skill points
even for it`s limited number of skills, so I want to increase the skill
points available anyway, but I`m trying to balance such things with class
abilities, hit dice, and the rest of the class features, and that`s not as
easy as it sounds. Character classes seem to be written up without much
concern towards balancing them out, really. At least, the effort to
balance them has been pretty much done at a "best guess" manner from what I
can tell.

The website you posted a while back (http://hiddenway.tripod.com/freeform/)
is the germ of a good idea, but gets it kind of backassward, assigning
point values to various class features under the assumption that they are
presently balanced rather than with an eye towards developing balanced
character classes, so I`ve been fiddling around with an alternate
point-based system for designing/balancing character classes in which hit
die are valued at 3-7 points for d4-d12, BAB costs 2-6 points for the slow
to fast progression rate, etc. It`s not meant to be a point based
character class system, but the plan is that it will help develop character
classes with some sort of logic to them. Eventually there has to be some
sort of judgement call in assigning point values to various class features,
but having some clue as to balance would be nice.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
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]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 1:52 PM


> I`d generally agree so long as those skills are useful, playable and most
> importantly fun, I don`t see any problem with having a lot of them.

Useless skills are self-correcting because no one takes them. Players tend
to find uses for the skills their characters do have, and avoid novel skills
until they experience the absence of that skill: "You mean none of use know
how to ski?" Playable is always nice, but as you mentioned earlier, often
the DM does the heavy lifting for their own skill system. Fun is the thing
that impacts the players he most.

> The big problem with changes to the skill system, of course, is with the
> number of skill points available to various character classes. I
> personally think that most 3e character classes are lacking in skill
points
> even for it`s limited number of skills

I rather like the limited number of skills and have been content to leave
things as they are. The why`s and wherefore`s should become apparent in a
moment.

> The website you posted a while back
(http://hiddenway.tripod.com/freeform/)
> is the germ of a good idea, but gets it kind of backassward, assigning
> point values to various class features under the assumption that they are
> presently balanced rather than with an eye towards developing balanced
> character classes

I think that the D&D mechanic is really about going down below castle
Greyhawk and fighting monsters, evading traps, and otherwise dungeoneering,
hence I find the classes balanced. Connecting this with what I mentioned
about skills, if I were to focus all my character build points in a pure
character concept, all fighter, all combat, what would I get? I`d get the
D&D fighter, with the mere 2 skill points. The same with the cleric and
wizard. So, when someone wants more skills, I think their progression of
other abilities (combat or spell prowess) should slow down. So, I would
look to the Aristocrat as the high skills fighter, at expert for a general
skills infusion for any character, and rogue as the all-skills character.

So, since many characters are rulers in BR, most characters are not pure
fighters, clerics, or wizards. Most fighters are actually 70% aristocrats.
Clerics and wizards often have as many as three levels of expert, including
their acolyte/apprentice beginings.

That`s my approach, YMMV.

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]

Don`t take this personally. I have moved beyond criticizing any mods to your
particular rules and now adress general 3E issues.

Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM> wrote at 02-07-02 02.52:

> Useless skills are self-correcting because no one takes them. Players tend
> to find uses for the skills their characters do have, and avoid novel skills
> until they experience the absence of that skill: "You mean none of use know
> how to ski?" Playable is always nice, but as you mentioned earlier, often
> the DM does the heavy lifting for their own skill system. Fun is the thing
> that impacts the players he most.
>

The problem with this approach is that the characters will inevitably end up
in situations where they look foolish/inadequate because they lack a certain
skill that the DM introduced. "What, no one of you bought this new Skiing
skill I told you about". This lets the DM look smug, but is no fun for the
players. Especially since many of these skills will only be used very
rarely.

> So, when someone wants more skills, I think their progression of
> other abilities (combat or spell prowess) should slow down. So, I would
> look to the Aristocrat as the high skills fighter, at expert for a general
> skills infusion for any character, and rogue as the all-skills character.
>

The problem is that the Aristcrat and particularily the Expert are not
PC-worthy classes. Compare the Expert and the Rogue - the Rogue has more
class skills, more skill points, fights as well, and has a LOAD of special
abilities on top.

The NPC classes are one of the worst aspects of 3E in my opinion. With the
regular classes, you know that one third-level character is about as good as
another. Why introduce a set of substandard classes where this does not
apply?

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
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.

[geeman]

At 09:57 AM 7/2/2002 +0200, Carl Cramer wrote:

> > Useless skills are self-correcting because no one takes them. Players tend
> > to find uses for the skills their characters do have, and avoid novel
> skills
> > until they experience the absence of that skill: "You mean none of use know
> > how to ski?" Playable is always nice, but as you mentioned earlier, often
> > the DM does the heavy lifting for their own skill system. Fun is the thing
> > that impacts the players he most.
>
>The problem with this approach is that the characters will inevitably end
>up in situations where they look foolish/inadequate because they lack a
>certain skill that the DM introduced. "What, no one of you bought this new
>Skiing skill I told you about". This lets the DM look smug, but is no fun
>for the
>players. Especially since many of these skills will only be used very rarely.

I think the above condition is basically true, but it`s really not limited
to new skills only is it? Introducing new prestige classes, new feats,
even the items in a character`s inventory can all result in a situation in
which the players create PCs that wind up ill-prepared. Adding some new
skills can certainly result in the kind of situation you describe, but I`ve
run into the same problem given the current skill set. Is this made
substantially worse by adding new skills? Yes, if that`s all one
does. When making changes to the skill system one also needs to consider
how that will affect character classes, and having skills that overlap a
bit can also soften the blow considerably.

One of the things that would help the situation is if skill checks were
presented with multiple options in most situations. From time to time one
sees an adventure that has a DC 15 Knowledge, Nature or Wilderness Lore
check. That`s well and good, but one of the things I`d like to see more
often done in 3e/D20 is DCs presented for "related" skill checks. That is,
finding a particular flower might be a DC15 Knowledge, Nature or Wilderness
Lore check, a DC 20 Knowledge, Herbalist check, a DC 25 Alchemy check and a
DC 5 Find Particular Flower check.

This is particularly important for those occasional skill checks that are
at the crux of an adventure. Generally, crux skill checks should be
avoided, but I still see adventures in which getting to Act 2 requires
successfully accomplishing a particular check at the end of Act 1. There
should definitely be several possible skills and or methods of
accomplishing such an action.

Now, it would be really, really nice if there was a more intelligent and
articulated method of presenting skill checks that would interact with the
skill system. One could just describe a particular skill check as a "DC 20
Natural Environment check" and descriptions of various skills would note
that they can be used to make such a check and/or the bonus/penalty they
might get on performing them. Alchemy might get a -10 penalty on Natural
Environment checks. To me if you`re going to go with a skill system that`s
one of the ways to approach it. Ah, well. Maybe 4e.

> > So, when someone wants more skills, I think their progression of
> > other abilities (combat or spell prowess) should slow down. So, I would
> > look to the Aristocrat as the high skills fighter, at expert for a general
> > skills infusion for any character, and rogue as the all-skills character.
>
>The problem is that the Aristcrat and particularily the Expert are not
>PC-worthy classes. Compare the Expert and the Rogue - the Rogue has more
>class skills, more skill points, fights as well, and has a LOAD of special
>abilities on top.

It`s relatively easy to bump up the NPC classes to make them functional as
PC classes. I use a Noble PC class that I`ve posted before, and I`ve seen
PC versions of the Expert on dnd-l from time to time, though I admit I`ve
never really been all that happy with them.

>The NPC classes are one of the worst aspects of 3E in my opinion. With the
>regular classes, you know that one third-level character is about as good
>as another. Why introduce a set of substandard classes where this does not
>apply?

I don`t really mind NPC classes myself. Well, I`m not wild about the title
"NPC class" since I think any class should be an option for any character,
but there is something to be said for replacing the 0-level "commoner"
system with a set of classes "beneath" the PC level. I`ve been futzing
around with ECL and the ability score point buy method lately. How many
points to spend on ability scores is worth +1 ECL? How much for +2
ECL? Etc. I`m doing this for a couple of reasons aside from the obvious
benefits during character generation. The first is because I want players
to use the same points to buy their bloodline strength score, so having a
system of balanced points to spend on ability scores should answer
automatically what the ECL of a bloodline might be. The ECL is paid to get
the points to buy the bloodline. The second reason is because I want to
see how ability scores can effect CR, EL and how that interacts with
class. Which is a greater challenge the 10th level warrior with the
standard array of ability scores or a 7th level fighter with no score
greater than 14? I think I can determine this a bit more accurately using
a point system.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Trithemius]

Carl says:

> The problem is that the Aristcrat and particularily the
> Expert are not PC-worthy classes. Compare the Expert and the
> Rogue - the Rogue has more class skills, more skill points,
> fights as well, and has a LOAD of special abilities on top.
>
> The NPC classes are one of the worst aspects of 3E in my
> opinion. With the regular classes, you know that one
> third-level character is about as good as another. Why
> introduce a set of substandard classes where this does not apply?

I agree with you on this Carl, however my solution would be to improve
the NPC classes, not ignore them.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
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]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Cramér" <carl.cramer@HOME.SE>
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 2:57 AM


> The problem with this approach is that the characters will inevitably end
> up in situations where they look foolish/inadequate because they lack a
> certain skill that the DM introduced. "What, no one of you bought this
> new Skiing skill I told you about". This lets the DM look smug, but is no
> fun for the players. Especially since many of these skills will only be
used
> very rarely.

Actually I think its kind of mean to punish players for not indulging a DM`s
new toys. Sometimes players do insist on going into a region for which they
are unprepared. My experience tells me when players buy skills its because
of what the felt like they needed in the last adventure, not often what they
might need in the next adventure. My preference is to allow for multiple
ways to solve the same problem, Gary covered this well.

> The problem is that the Aristcrat and particularily the Expert are not
> PC-worthy classes. Compare the Expert and the Rogue - the Rogue has more
> class skills, more skill points, fights as well, and has a LOAD of special
> abilities on top.
>
> The NPC classes are one of the worst aspects of 3E in my opinion.

As both Gary and John mentioned, the solution is to beef up the NPC classes
to make them PC worthy. IMO, an NPC class should be viable non-adventuring
class. Commoner and Warrior are sensible alternatives for NPC`s whose names
we aren`t intended to really get to know. They appear in the credits as
peasant #5 and guard #2.

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.

[Magian]

>From: John Machin <trithemius@PARADISE.NET.NZ>
>If you want to say (as THEY do) that politics is the struggle for power and
>that, therefore, all human interaction can be considered to be both (a)
>political and (B) a power struggle, then you can. I prefer, for the
>purposes of
>this discussion and for BR in general, to consider politics to be mainly
>about
>government, or rather governance and the interactions between and
>activities of
>those involved with governance, be they noble, guilder, priest, or magus.

That all depends on what level of analysis you take towards politics whether
it be system, state, or individual. They all play a part in politics as we
well know. However as a skill itself I think we could measure it at the
individual level since after all it is the individual using the skill.
Regardless of what level the skill is being used at the individual must
still rely upon his skill in order to "spin" things his way. The audience
are individuals also regardless of the level of state they are privilage to
they have minds subject to ideas. Thus on the drive of this topic for the
spin skill I would say that it should be placed on the individual level
since that is what makes up governments.

As for the definition of politics being the struggle for power I would like
to take a different approach, please bare with me. Like Marx once said,
Religion is the opiate of the masses. I happen to agree with this in the
sense that the masses tend to use religion as an opiate instead of a way to
evolve themselves. Therefore politics like religion is defined by how the
individual(s) use it. (again more of my philosophical banter)

Back on track, I do think that a skill used for dimplomatic, persuation, and
such things as performance (as has been mentioned) take away from
opportunities to roleplay things out even if it gets repetitous. I find on
the domain(state) level of roleplaying things like that are the lifeblood of
the roleplaying between factions and a persons own imagination and devotion
to the game should be what measure the success not a rating system on paper
and a roll of the die. Then again rules are always fun to make up in hopes
they imitate reality.

ciao,

Paul

__________________________________________________ _______________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.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.

[Magian]

>From: Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>
>It sounds more like what I called the Oratory skill (and a rose by any
>other
>name ...). The Oratory skill is designed for addressing groups, rather
>than
>interacting with individuals. You might use it to address a crowd, a
>meeting of the Estates, the Imperial Senate, an assembly of congregants at
>the Temple of Haelyn on a feast day, and so forth.


I agree. I think that oration is the common word used for the ancients when
they attempted to persuade an audience or simply address them. I like that
term.

ciao,

Paul

__________________________________________________ _______________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.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.

[Magian]

Ok Gary I think I get what you mean.


>From: Gary <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
>Hm. There are plenty of people that are talented at spinning a situation
>who don`t have any particular skill at persuasion or debate, which is
>usually my signal that I need a separate skill. Rhetoric, though... that
>might be more in the direction I`m going for. I`m going for a more "smoke
>filled room" kind of thing. The movers and shakers behind the scenes (and
>their lackeys) who manipulate the presentation of events.

First off I am not up on the 3E skill stuff yet but from what I have heard I
can get an idea. (poor me trying to figure NWN)

That perform skill sounds generalized enough to use as my base. Perhaps we
could use a generic name like that.

Rhetoric seems agreeable at the moment. Now how about different levels of
this? Diplomatic rhetoric is between factions regardless of political level
(system, state, individual) it simply means foreign relations between
domains or oranizations. Religious rhetoric(dogma) specifically for the
clerical. Military rhetoric for military operations and commands.
Political rhetoric for a factions appearance to the outsiders. Haggling
rhetoric for markets. et cetera.

Of course all this diasecting may not be what you are looking for. But the
base rhetoric is a generalized version for the adventurer to take. Say
perhaps a leader type character who is interested in negotiating with
others, either party members or factions like lords of the land seeking
adventurer aid or villans about to foolishly destroy the party without
thinking first. Or perhaps it could be used for evil characters to conceal
their true motives allowing them to operate with good characters in a party.
Underground rhetoric (street talk) could be used to get places in the
shadow world of a city. And so on and so forth unless of course there is a
3E skill that covers what my rantings above are about.

Maybe this is what you are looking for?

ciao,

Paul

__________________________________________________ _______________
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.

[Magian]

I don`t like the idea of cannons in Birthright, even netbooks.

;-)


>From: Carl Cramér <carl.cramer@HOME.SE>
>Reply-To: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion
><BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
>To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
>Subject: Re: The Politics Skill.
>Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:29:17 +0200
>
>I don`t mind if you or anyone changes the system. I think it is fine if we
>can discuss such changes here on the list. But if we want to attract new
>players to the setting, any netbooks and such that we publish should stay
>as
>close to established 3E mechanics as possible.
>
>Blooded characters need special rules - no question about that. Thus I
>think
>it is better to introduce a set of special rules for blooded characters,
>and
>include access to the Diplomacy skill (and a few other skill sueful to
>regents) as a part of this package. This is a minor tweak, much less than
>the introduction of new skills.
>
>However, nothing prevents each of us from playing Birthright using any set
>of rules - we could use the 1979 edition of Chivalry and Sorcery if we
>fancy
>that. But if we do, we should not bring up rules from our home campaigns as
>canon in netbooks and such.
>
>/Carl
>
>************************************************** **************************
>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.




__________________________________________________ _______________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.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.

[Magian]

>From: Carl Cramér <carl.cramer@HOME.SE>

>
>The problem with this approach is that the characters will inevitably end
>up
>in situations where they look foolish/inadequate because they lack a
>certain
>skill that the DM introduced. "What, no one of you bought this new Skiing
>skill I told you about". This lets the DM look smug, but is no fun for the
>players. Especially since many of these skills will only be used very
>rarely.

I personally would take the stance of Kenneth on this example and say it
would prove to be an evolutionary process that either the DM grows up and
becomes a better DM or the players will get a new DM that makes better
skills and learns from his mistakes.

ciao,

Paul

__________________________________________________ _______________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.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]

On Wed, 2002-07-03 at 00:11, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>
> The NPC classes are one of the worst aspects of 3E in my opinion.

As both Gary and John mentioned, the solution is to beef up the NPC classes
to make them PC worthy. IMO, an NPC class should be viable non-adventuring
class. Commoner and Warrior are sensible alternatives for NPC`s whose names
we aren`t intended to really get to know. They appear in the credits as
peasant #5 and guard #2.

Just so that it`s not the squeaky wheels getting all the oil:
NPC classes are, and have always been, a complete waste of space IMO.
(if you role-play) The focus on "character class" for "detail",
"background", and "development" is only useful in automation not
role-playing.

There have always been those players (who many call munchkins) who want
to play (i) a monster, (ii) a NPC class, (iii) a god, (iv) etc --- and
who play with "rules" that make such viable PCs. It`s all a big *****.
As the creator said, "such persons should play another game".

************************************************** **************************
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]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 5:59 PM


> There have always been those players (who many call munchkins) who want
> to play (i) a monster, (ii) a NPC class, (iii) a god, (iv) etc --- and
> who play with "rules" that make such viable PCs. It`s all a big *****.
> As the creator said, "such persons should play another game".

This is all well and good, except that the NPC classes were each inferior to
PC classes, so this must be anti-munckinism.

> (if you role-play) The focus on "character class" for "detail",
> "background", and "development" is only useful in automation not
> role-playing.

That depends on how you think of class. If you expect that because you
write "fighter" on your character sheet you know him like a brother, then I
agree, class will prove disappointing. If you view class as a set of skills
possed as a cluster, its actually pretty useful. When you build an NPC and
ask yourself what order classes were taken in and why, its actually a good
springboard for thinking about the character.

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.

[Trithemius]

Kenneth says:

> That depends on how you think of class. If you expect that
> because you write "fighter" on your character sheet you know
> him like a brother, then I agree, class will prove
> disappointing. If you view class as a set of skills possed
> as a cluster, its actually pretty useful. When you build an
> NPC and ask yourself what order classes were taken in and
> why, its actually a good springboard for thinking about the character.

I like to do this by thinking of `class` as `profession`. I find it
helps if you think of it as something your PC does not something that
they are. As Tyler Durden says: "You are not your job" ;)

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Trithemius]

Peter says:

> Just so that it`s not the squeaky wheels getting all the oil:
> NPC classes are, and have always been, a complete waste of
> space IMO. (if you role-play) The focus on "character class"
> for "detail", "background", and "development" is only useful
> in automation not role-playing.
>
> There have always been those players (who many call
> munchkins) who want to play (i) a monster, (ii) a NPC class,
> (iii) a god, (iv) etc --- and who play with "rules" that make
> such viable PCs. It`s all a big *****. As the creator said,
> "such persons should play another game".

Are you saying that NPC classes are over-powered?

Are we even looking at the same game?

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Trithemius]

Paul says:

> Rhetoric seems agreeable at the moment. Now how about
> different levels of this? Diplomatic rhetoric is between
> factions regardless of political level (system, state,
> individual) it simply means foreign relations between domains
> or oranizations. Religious rhetoric(dogma) specifically for
> the clerical. Military rhetoric for military operations and
> commands. Political rhetoric for a factions appearance to the
> outsiders. Haggling rhetoric for markets. et cetera.

I would happily create a Knowledge (Rhetoric) skill in my campaign.
Learned speakers would possess it to augment (via a synergy bonus) their
natural talent with theory and knowledge of the classic orators.

I am also of the opinion (or rather, Kenneth persuaded me to be of
it...) that knowledge of a community or locality or profession is of
assistance in persuading people of that community, locality, or
profession. If you have a lot of Knowledge (Arcana) you might be able to
speak more clearly to wizards and so forth, Knowledge (Religion) means
you can incorporate religious themes and homilies that appeal to the
clergy, Profession (Soldier) or Knowledge (Warfare) might make you sound
more appealing when orating to military types, Innuendo or Knowledge
(Streets) might be of use when talking to the lower classes or trying to
sway the members of a thieves guild, Knowledge (Local) can make you
sound like a local yourself and that always helps in addressing the
masses. Any of these skills could contribute synergy modifiers to a
Perform (Oratory) check in the right circumstances.

If a person actually wanted to deceive a crowd then an additional Bluff
check might be required to convince them, after the initial Perform
(Oratory) check. If a person merely wanted to spice up the speech with
some half-truths and `creativity` then Bluff might contribute a synergy
bonus as well.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Trithemius]

Paul says:

> I don`t like the idea of cannons in Birthright, even netbooks.
>
> ;-)

*unleashes a broadside*

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Trithemius]

Paul says:

> That all depends on what level of analysis you take towards
> politics whether it be system, state, or individual. They
> all play a part in politics as we well know. However as a
> skill itself I think we could measure it at the individual
> level since after all it is the individual using the skill.
> Regardless of what level the skill is being used at the
> individual must still rely upon his skill in order to "spin"
> things his way. The audience are individuals also regardless
> of the level of state they are privilage to they have minds
> subject to ideas. Thus on the drive of this topic for the
> spin skill I would say that it should be placed on the
> individual level since that is what makes up governments.

I am not sure what you mean by "individual level" here. I assume that by
"spin" you are all meaning, basically, lies. In my opinion the Bluff
skill does an excellent job at representing an ability to lie
convincingly to both individuals and crowds.

I must say that I am a bit disturbed that people seem to agree that
politics is all "spin", that is to say, lies. I would think that having
Knowledge (Politics) would help an unscrupulous person know which lies
to tell, but at the same time tell a more ethical person which issues a
population considered to be of primary importance. I don`t think that
politics is an inherently deceptive discipline.

> As for the definition of politics being the struggle for
> power I would like to take a different approach, please bare
> with me. Like Marx once said, Religion is the opiate of the
> masses. I happen to agree with this in the sense that the
> masses tend to use religion as an opiate instead of a way to
> evolve themselves. Therefore politics like religion is
> defined by how the
> individual(s) use it. (again more of my philosophical banter)

I am rather lost on this point. Not confused by the references, but by
their applicabilityn perhaps.

> Back on track, I do think that a skill used for dimplomatic,
> persuation, and such things as performance (as has been
> mentioned) take away from opportunities to roleplay things
> out even if it gets repetitous. I find on the domain(state)
> level of roleplaying things like that are the lifeblood of
> the roleplaying between factions and a persons own
> imagination and devotion to the game should be what measure
> the success not a rating system on paper and a roll of the
> die. Then again rules are always fun to make up in hopes
> they imitate reality.

I agree. I did not suggest that PCs would now simply roll the die
instead of roleplaying a speech. I would use such a skill to provided
bonuses to the Action Checks on actions like Agitate and so forth. Good
roleplaying would augment the die roll, or even wholly supercede it if
it was impressive enough. Having a skill is a good saftey net since it
aids in envisioning the character and it means that people who might not
be excellent rhetoricists themselves can still roleplay them.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[geeman]

At 08:28 PM 7/3/2002 +1200, John Machin wrote:

>>That all depends on what level of analysis you take towards politics
>>whether it be system, state, or individual. They all play a part in
>>politics as we well know. However as a skill itself I think we could
>>measure it at the individual level since after all it is the individual
>>using the skill. Regardless of what level the skill is being used at the
>>individual must still rely upon his skill in order to "spin" things his
>>way. The audience are individuals also regardless of the level of state
>>they are privilage to they have minds subject to ideas. Thus on the
>>drive of this topic for the spin skill I would say that it should be
>>placed on the individual level since that is what makes up governments.
>
>I am not sure what you mean by "individual level" here. I assume that by
>"spin" you are all meaning, basically, lies. In my opinion the Bluff skill
>does an excellent job at representing an ability to lie convincingly to
>both individuals and crowds.
>
>I must say that I am a bit disturbed that people seem to agree that
>politics is all "spin", that is to say, lies. I would think that having
>Knowledge (Politics) would help an unscrupulous person know which lies to
>tell, but at the same time tell a more ethical person which issues a
>population considered to be of primary importance. I don`t think that
>politics is an inherently deceptive discipline.

For the purposes of this discussion I would draw a distinction between
politics--as in the interaction of human beings at the national
administrative level--and government--as in the methods/process
of national administration. I`m really just interested in a new 3e skill
for D&D here, not a philosophical discussion about the nature of political
life. It`s debatable whether one can really separate those two things, but
for the purpose of developing a skill, I think we can.

> > Back on track, I do think that a skill used for dimplomatic,
> > persuation, and such things as performance (as has been
> > mentioned) take away from opportunities to roleplay things
> > out even if it gets repetitous. I find on the domain(state)
> > level of roleplaying things like that are the lifeblood of
> > the roleplaying between factions and a persons own
> > imagination and devotion to the game should be what measure
> > the success not a rating system on paper and a roll of the
> > die. Then again rules are always fun to make up in hopes
> > they imitate reality.
>
>I agree. I did not suggest that PCs would now simply roll the die instead
>of roleplaying a speech. I would use such a skill to provided bonuses to
>the Action Checks on actions like Agitate and so forth. Good roleplaying
>would augment the die roll, or even wholly supercede it if it was
>impressive enough. Having a skill is a good saftey net since it aids in
>envisioning the character and it means that people who might not be
>excellent rhetoricists themselves can still roleplay them.

When it comes to interaction skills, I always go with good role-playing
over a die roll. If players role-play out an interaction in a way that
convinces me in my role as the NPC then they get their way. I use die
rolls on those occasions where I (as the NPC) am not really sure which way
I would go, or on occasions in which the PC really should have superior
powers of interaction than the player and I want to cut `em a break. It`s
always a bit of a judgement call. Oh, and recently a had a player roll
when attempting what is categorized as a Tempt: Seduction check among my
changes to the skill system. I was perfectly happy to go ahead and roll
play that one....

In any case, when it comes to this Politics/Rhetoric skill I`m thinking now
that I`ll just have to make it a subskill of Bluff or Influence (the skill
I use for Diplomacy) rather than its own skill. I just can`t come up with
an adventure level effect for it, let alone a game mechanic with which to
handle that effect, so I`m going to leave it at that unless lightning
strikes or something....

Gary

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Trithemius]

Gary says:

> For the purposes of this discussion I would draw a
> distinction between politics--as in the interaction of human
> beings at the national administrative level--and
> government--as in the methods/process of national
> administration. I`m really just interested in a new 3e skill
> for D&D here, not a philosophical discussion about the nature
> of political life. It`s debatable whether one can really
> separate those two things, but for the purpose of developing
> a skill, I think we can.

I can`t say that philosophy was foremost in my mind either, but if it
aids in getting a skill "right" I don`t see a problem myself.

I am curious as to whhich of the two concepts you mentioned above you
are seeking to represent with your new skill. If it is politics (which
you have defined as "...the interaction of human beings at the national
administrative level...") then surely we have pre-existing skills to
govern interpersonal actions, such as Bluff, Diplomacy, Innuendo,
Intimidate, and Sense Motive. In my opinion the concept that you have
described as government ("...the methods/process of national
administration.") and the theory of the former would be a more fitting
basis for a "political" skill. It is not, I assume, by accident that
certain universities call their Political Science/Studies departments
`Government` instead.

In my opinion it is not so much a case of having to separate them, as it
is that they have already been seperated for us.

> When it comes to interaction skills, I always go with good
> role-playing over a die roll. If players role-play out an
> interaction in a way that convinces me in my role as the NPC
> then they get their way. I use die rolls on those occasions
> where I (as the NPC) am not really sure which way I would go,
> or on occasions in which the PC really should have superior
> powers of interaction than the player and I want to cut `em a
> break. It`s always a bit of a judgement call. Oh, and
> recently a had a player roll when attempting what is
> categorized as a Tempt: Seduction check among my changes to
> the skill system. I was perfectly happy to go ahead and roll
> play that one....

I agree entirely. However, I expect that some people on this list prefer
to roll. I`d like my suggestions to cater to these people as well as
those with whom I seem to frequently agree :)

> In any case, when it comes to this Politics/Rhetoric skill
> I`m thinking now that I`ll just have to make it a subskill of
> Bluff or Influence (the skill I use for Diplomacy) rather
> than its own skill. I just can`t come up with an adventure
> level effect for it, let alone a game mechanic with which to
> handle that effect, so I`m going to leave it at that unless
> lightning strikes or something....

Mine will remain a knowledge I think, or rather, two Knowledges
(Politics, and Rhetoric).

I hope you`ll let us know if you do have any inspiration though :)

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
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]

On Wed, 2002-07-03 at 18:28, John Machin wrote:

Peter says:

> Just so that it`s not the squeaky wheels getting all the oil:
> NPC classes are, and have always been, a complete waste of
> space IMO. (if you role-play) The focus on "character class"
> for "detail", "background", and "development" is only useful
> in automation not role-playing.
>
> There have always been those players (who many call
> munchkins) who want to play (i) a monster, (ii) a NPC class,
> (iii) a god, (iv) etc --- and who play with "rules" that make
> such viable PCs. It`s all a big *****. As the creator said,
> "such persons should play another game".

Are you saying that NPC classes are over-powered?

nope - I`m saying that some persons begin to look at NPC classes and try
to up-power them.


Are we even looking at the same game?

probably not, 3e D&D has lost its way so completely, it no longer
functions as even a remnant of the original role-playing fantasy game.
Ah, the joy of a computerized world.


--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Peter Lubke]

On Wed, 2002-07-03 at 18:28, John Machin wrote:

Paul says:

> That all depends on what level of analysis you take towards
> politics whether it be system, state, or individual. They
> all play a part in politics as we well know. However as a
> skill itself I think we could measure it at the individual
> level since after all it is the individual using the skill.
> Regardless of what level the skill is being used at the
> individual must still rely upon his skill in order to "spin"
> things his way. The audience are individuals also regardless
> of the level of state they are privilage to they have minds
> subject to ideas. Thus on the drive of this topic for the
> spin skill I would say that it should be placed on the
> individual level since that is what makes up governments.

I am not sure what you mean by "individual level" here. I assume that by
"spin" you are all meaning, basically, lies. In my opinion the Bluff
skill does an excellent job at representing an ability to lie
convincingly to both individuals and crowds.

I must say that I am a bit disturbed that people seem to agree that
politics is all "spin", that is to say, lies. I would think that having
Knowledge (Politics) would help an unscrupulous person know which lies
to tell, but at the same time tell a more ethical person which issues a
population considered to be of primary importance. I don`t think that
politics is an inherently deceptive discipline.

I *really* didn`t want to wade into this debate. I hate (and I do mean
hate) *skills* *feats* etc. I am 1,000% opposed to something like a
"politics skill".

But as a comment on the real world, while in the fantasy world that John
DMs politicians may act nobly - well some of them at least, as I said in
the real world, I totally agree -- it`s all "spin", not so much because
of the individuals - some of them start out okay - but can you honestly
name a single political party that hasn`t been involved in something
dishonest, underhand, or just plain corrupt ? The party system isn`t
about serving the people, it`s about serving the party. Self-interest is
paramount. The struggle for political power.


.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]

Lets end the real-life and pilosopophical parts of this thread while we are
still being polite to one another.

As for the fact that some of us want to revise the skill system, that`s a
fact of life. Those of us who don`t agree have stated that by now, but I
don`t think we should interfere with further development of divergent skill
systems. After all, each of us can play our own game.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
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.

[geeman]

At 10:00 PM 7/3/2002 +1200, John Machin wrote:

> > For the purposes of this discussion I would draw a
> > distinction between politics--as in the interaction of human
> > beings at the national administrative level--and
> > government--as in the methods/process of national
> > administration. I`m really just interested in a new 3e skill
> > for D&D here, not a philosophical discussion about the nature
> > of political life. It`s debatable whether one can really
> > separate those two things, but for the purpose of developing
> > a skill, I think we can.
>
>I am curious as to whhich of the two concepts you mentioned above you are
>seeking to represent with your new skill. If it is politics (which you
>have defined as "...the interaction of human beings at the national
>administrative level...") then surely we have pre-existing skills to
>govern interpersonal actions, such as Bluff, Diplomacy, Innuendo,
>Intimidate, and Sense Motive. In my opinion the concept that you have
>described as government ("...the methods/process of national
>administration.") and the theory of the former would be a more fitting
>basis for a "political" skill. It is not, I assume, by accident that
>certain universities call their Political Science/Studies departments
>`Government` instead.

I want to express more the manipulative, "spin" aspect of politics, rather
than government since I see that as being bigger than a single
character. As a skill what most universities might call Poly Sci or
Government I would probably describe as Knowledge, Government or Knowledge,
Political Science.

As for Bluff, Diplomacy, Innuendo, etc. handling that skill, I think one
could use those skills, but I`ve made changes IMC that not only make adding
a skill not a big deal, but also having very specialized, particular skills
perfectly plausible, so creating a "Politics" or "Rhetoric" skill is works
out just fine.

My question in response would be which of those skills do you think the
ability to manipulate the presentation of events in a light favorable would
most likely fall under? Is it Bluff? Is it Diplomacy? Innuendo, etc.? I
ask because I`m thinking now I should just go ahead and make it a subskill
of an existing skill (which has a slightly different gaming mechanic) but I
still need to decide which skill it falls under.

>In my opinion it is not so much a case of having to separate them, as it
>is that they have already been seperated for us.

If I had the bandwidth on this list to show you how well and easily it can
be fit into the other changes I`ve made to the skill system then this
really wouldn`t be a problem, but the document that describes those changes
is over 26,000 words. That`s not really huge. It`s smaller than the
chapter on skills in the PHB, I believe, but I can`t really post
it. Thanks to everyone for the comments nonetheless.

> > In any case, when it comes to this Politics/Rhetoric skill
> > I`m thinking now that I`ll just have to make it a subskill of
> > Bluff or Influence (the skill I use for Diplomacy) rather
> > than its own skill. I just can`t come up with an adventure
> > level effect for it, let alone a game mechanic with which to
> > handle that effect, so I`m going to leave it at that unless
> > lightning strikes or something....
>
>Mine will remain a knowledge I think, or rather, two Knowledges
>(Politics, and Rhetoric).

I`ve come up with slightly more delineated skill descriptions for use
IMC. Knowledge skills I reserve for information purposes only. That is,
they represent only what a character might have in his head that other
characters without that skill would lack. Right now I`m leaning towards
the equivalent of Diplomacy for Politics/Rhetoric.

>I hope you`ll let us know if you do have any inspiration though :)

Of course! This list is where all my inspiration goes.... <rhetoric>

Oratory is another very good idea for a skill, particularly for BRers. I
would probably lump that in with Perform, handling it a bit differently
than a subskill, since it seems to cover a similar role.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Trithemius]

Peter says:

> I *really* didn`t want to wade into this debate. I hate (and I do mean
> hate) *skills* *feats* etc. I am 1,000% opposed to something
> like a "politics skill".

How about if someone called it the `Statecraft Proficiency` (General, 2
slots, INT-2)?

> But as a comment on the real world, while in the fantasy
> world that John DMs politicians may act nobly - well some of
> them at least, as I said in the real world, I totally agree
> -- it`s all "spin", not so much because of the individuals -
> some of them start out okay - but can you honestly name a
> single political party that hasn`t been involved in something
> dishonest, underhand, or just plain corrupt ? The party
> system isn`t about serving the people, it`s about serving the
> party. Self-interest is paramount. The struggle for political power.

Cynicism ho!

I`m not going to go on about this here since Gary (and I suspect most
people here) want to talk D&D.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Trithemius]

Peter says:

> nope - I`m saying that some persons begin to look at NPC
> classes and try to up-power them.

So making them the EQUAL of a PC class is power-gaming?
To quote the Tallest: "Interesting... But I don`t see..."

> probably not, 3e D&D has lost its way so completely, it no
> longer functions as even a remnant of the original
> role-playing fantasy game. Ah, the joy of a computerized world.

Sure it does!
Surely it was the players that made D&D not a THAC0, or even a chart in
the DMs section of the book?

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Trithemius]

Gary says:

> I want to express more the manipulative, "spin" aspect of
> politics, rather than government since I see that as being
> bigger than a single character. As a skill what most
> universities might call Poly Sci or Government I would
> probably describe as Knowledge, Government or Knowledge,
> Political Science.

I`ll agree with that :)

> As for Bluff, Diplomacy, Innuendo, etc. handling that skill,
> I think one could use those skills, but I`ve made changes IMC
> that not only make adding a skill not a big deal, but also
> having very specialized, particular skills perfectly
> plausible, so creating a "Politics" or "Rhetoric" skill is
> works out just fine.

You and Kenneth and your polyskillmania ;)

> My question in response would be which of those skills do you
> think the ability to manipulate the presentation of events in
> a light favorable would most likely fall under? Is it Bluff?
> Is it Diplomacy? Innuendo, etc.? I ask because I`m
> thinking now I should just go ahead and make it a subskill of
> an existing skill (which has a slightly different gaming
> mechanic) but I still need to decide which skill it falls under.

I think manipulation (with the air of deceit that it seems to have about
it) probably means that this is a Bluff subskill. However, if you (like
me) wish to have an option for noble politicians (fantastic though that
may be... BR is a fantasy :)) then it might do better as a Diplomacy or
Influence subskill.

> I`ve come up with slightly more delineated skill descriptions
> for use IMC. Knowledge skills I reserve for information
> purposes only. That is, they represent only what a character
> might have in his head that other characters without that
> skill would lack. Right now I`m leaning towards the
> equivalent of Diplomacy for Politics/Rhetoric.

I`d go that way I think (see above).

> Of course! This list is where all my inspiration goes.... <rhetoric>

Ho ho ho :)

> Oratory is another very good idea for a skill, particularly
> for BRers. I would probably lump that in with Perform,
> handling it a bit differently than a subskill, since it seems
> to cover a similar role.

This is pretty much exactly how I would do it too.

I was wondering, with AEGs `Rokugan` book there was a precedent for the
same skill having different abilities linked to it (the Gaming skill
with each of its specialties having a separate attribute). Do you think
that this sort of thing is useful (in general, I can`t think of any
specifics)?

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Trithemius]

Carl says:

> Lets end the real-life and pilosopophical parts of this
> thread while we are still being polite to one another.

We are polite to one another ;)

But really, it`s a good point.

> As for the fact that some of us want to revise the skill
> system, that`s a fact of life. Those of us who don`t agree
> have stated that by now, but I don`t think we should
> interfere with further development of divergent skill
> systems. After all, each of us can play our own game.


Even if they do use evil feats and skills...


--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
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]

On Wed, 2002-07-03 at 20:00, John Machin wrote:

Having weighed in at all.
This last I will agree with in almost complete totality (both persons).

Gary says:

> For the purposes of this discussion I would draw a
> distinction between politics--as in the interaction of human
> beings at the national administrative level--and
> government--as in the methods/process of national
> administration. I`m really just interested in a new 3e skill
> for D&D here, not a philosophical discussion about the nature
> of political life. It`s debatable whether one can really
> separate those two things, but for the purpose of developing
> a skill, I think we can.

I can`t say that philosophy was foremost in my mind either, but if it
aids in getting a skill "right" I don`t see a problem myself.

I am curious as to whhich of the two concepts you mentioned above you
are seeking to represent with your new skill. If it is politics (which
you have defined as "...the interaction of human beings at the national
administrative level...") then surely we have pre-existing skills to
govern interpersonal actions, such as Bluff, Diplomacy, Innuendo,
Intimidate, and Sense Motive. In my opinion the concept that you have
described as government ("...the methods/process of national
administration.") and the theory of the former would be a more fitting
basis for a "political" skill. It is not, I assume, by accident that
certain universities call their Political Science/Studies departments
`Government` instead.

In my opinion it is not so much a case of having to separate them, as it
is that they have already been seperated for us.

> When it comes to interaction skills, I always go with good
> role-playing over a die roll. If players role-play out an
> interaction in a way that convinces me in my role as the NPC
> then they get their way. I use die rolls on those occasions
> where I (as the NPC) am not really sure which way I would go,
> or on occasions in which the PC really should have superior
> powers of interaction than the player and I want to cut `em a
> break. It`s always a bit of a judgement call. Oh, and
> recently a had a player roll when attempting what is
> categorized as a Tempt: Seduction check among my changes to
> the skill system. I was perfectly happy to go ahead and roll
> play that one....

I agree entirely. However, I expect that some people on this list prefer
to roll. I`d like my suggestions to cater to these people as well as
those with whom I seem to frequently agree :)

> In any case, when it comes to this Politics/Rhetoric skill
> I`m thinking now that I`ll just have to make it a subskill of
> Bluff or Influence (the skill I use for Diplomacy) rather
> than its own skill. I just can`t come up with an adventure
> level effect for it, let alone a game mechanic with which to
> handle that effect, so I`m going to leave it at that unless
> lightning strikes or something....

Mine will remain a knowledge I think, or rather, two Knowledges
(Politics, and Rhetoric).

I hope you`ll let us know if you do have any inspiration though :)

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Peter Lubke]

On Wed, 2002-07-03 at 20:52, John Machin wrote:


> dishonest, underhand, or just plain corrupt ? The party
> system isn`t about serving the people, it`s about serving the
> party. Self-interest is paramount. The struggle for political power.

Cynicism ho!

I`m not going to go on about this here since Gary (and I suspect most
people here) want to talk D&D.


Yeah, hmmm ... maybe I`m being too oblique. I`ll try and relate this
particular skill to D&D.

Politics (even as a skill) is about the exercise of knowledge or
influence in an attempt to change or influence the course of events.
Usually this means some compromise (not necessarily on the same issue)
with other persons to gain sufficient support to attain your immediate
goals. If the leader of the "motion" of a particular issue then your own
personal credibility hangs in the balance - can you deliver or not ?
Such considerations hold far more ramifications than a simple yes/no
result would indicate. Even a "win" can be a damaging "loss" in the long
term.

As an individual in a group struggling for political power - as we
should find most individuals within the BR world - a player will be
forced to make similar choices. His supporters will constrain him as
much (if not more) than his detractors. [now I`m not arguing you should
or should not do anything here. I`m trying to point out the limitations
inherent in such a skill to reflect the complexity of such a situation.]

The success of any political move is related to what "favors" you are
prepared to offer, what "threats" you can successfully make(without
having to deliver), in fact it is all "spin"! Because, if there was
agreement in the result/action, there would be no need for political
maneuvering at all - (although according to Hawke the use of consensus
in achieving a politically acceptable result is also a form of politics
- such an act in D&D terms could not be attempted except by the DM as
the result will never be what the instigator is attempting, but some
compromise achieved by consensus/negotiation and is thus inappropriate
to be assigned as a skill).

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[geeman]

At 09:28 PM 7/3/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

>This last I will agree with in almost complete totality (both persons).

And, lo, the seventh seal was broken and a great roar went up throughout
the land....

Gary

************************************************** **************************
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.

[geeman]

At 10:58 PM 7/3/2002 +1200, John Machin wrote:

>You and Kenneth and your polyskillmania ;)

I`m merely a polyskillphiliac, but I would describe most folks as being
polyskillphobic....

>I think manipulation (with the air of deceit that it seems to have about
>it) probably means that this is a Bluff subskill. However, if you (like
>me) wish to have an option for noble politicians (fantastic though that
>may be... BR is a fantasy :)) then it might do better as a Diplomacy or
>Influence subskill.

Yeah, see, that`s kind of the problem. I`m not finding a particular skill
that it fits under neatly, which is why I wanted to express it as its own
skill. The kind of manipulation I`m talking about need not necessarily be
a negative thing. Rhetoric can be employed for positive reasons that
support good endeavors, or it can be used to cover up reality. I`m not so
concerned with the moral implications of the talent as I am with the game
mechanics of trying to situate it in the game.

>I was wondering, with AEGs `Rokugan` book there was a precedent for the
>same skill having different abilities linked to it (the Gaming skill
>with each of its specialties having a separate attribute). Do you think
>that this sort of thing is useful (in general, I can`t think of any
>specifics)?

Yes, I think it`s useful. The martial arts skill I use is based on an
ability score depending on what the base form of the martial art
is. Sometimes, though, I think wanting to use different ability scores for
a particular skill when it isn`t under specific circumstances is a sign
that there should really be two or more skills. For instance, I use a
Tempt skill based on charisma, an Influence skill based on wisdom. I
separated the Craft skill into Craft (wis) and Artisan (cha) to delineate
the difference between manufacturing goods and art.

Other skills I break up just because I want to control what character
classes have them as a class skill and because I want to use them to
determine extraneous skill-based material. I split Profession up into
profession (wis) and vocation (wis) because I don`t want classes like the
Commoner NPC class to have the same access to things like siege engineer,
apothecary or bookkeeper as easily as they can become woodcutters, farmers
or teamsters. I also want to come up with some sort of guideline for what
those different professions might earn as a salary for PCs who employ NPCs,
or just in general for a future campaign I have in mind in which everyone
will be in the military. Separating those skills allows me to set a value
(say 1sp/rank per day) for characters with profession skill, and another
value (1cp/rank per day) for those with the vocation skill.

Those changes are definitely not cant, but I think they`re useful
nonetheless and if nothing else they help my sense of verisimilitude in the
game.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
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]

On Wed, 2002-07-03 at 22:19, Gary wrote:

At 09:28 PM 7/3/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

>This last I will agree with in almost complete totality (both persons).

And, lo, the seventh seal was broken and a great roar went up throughout
the land....

A higher power "requested" that I play nice with the other kiddies.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Trithemius]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion
> [mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of Gary
> Sent: Thursday, 4 July 2002 12:19 a.m.
> To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] The Politics Skill.
>
>
> At 09:28 PM 7/3/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:
>
> >This last I will agree with in almost complete totality
> (both persons).
>
> And, lo, the seventh seal was broken and a great roar went up
> throughout the land....
>
> Gary
>
> ************************************************** ************
> **************
> 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.

[Trithemius]

Gary says:

> I`m merely a polyskillphiliac, but I would describe most
> folks as being polyskillphobic....

I like skills as much as the next guy. Just not THAT much :)

<snip!snip!>

> Those changes are definitely not cant, but I think they`re
> useful nonetheless and if nothing else they help my sense of
> verisimilitude in the game.

I`m glad that someone else thinks its sensible. Certain of my local
comrades disagree and I wanted a `second opinion` as it were.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
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.