Results 11 to 20 of 42
Thread: Ruler levels
-
01-30-2003, 07:48 AM #11
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- USA.
- Posts
- 626
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 12:07:47AM -0500, daniel mcsorley wrote:
> > > 1st level kings should be as effective (if not more effective) than
> > > 20th level kings.
> > Interesting opinion. Care to explains your reason as to why?
>
> Because D&D levels are directly tied to adventuring prowess, and
> adventuring has nothing to do with leadership/rulership ability. There`s
> been some effort in 3e to make classes (expert, commoner, aristocrat)
> which gain levels but have nothing to do with adventuring, but it`s still
> a rather bad tack-on to the D&D level system (what`s a 20th level commoner
> exactly? And how does he gain all that experience without adventuring,
> and if he did adventure, wouldn`t he be picking up some adventurer class
> levels?).
You have legitimate concerns about the rationale and flaws inherent in
the current D&D skill system, but that seems to be a seperate
question. Given that D&D _is_ a class-based system, and that maximum
skill ranks in any skills (not just adventuring skills) are tied to
class level, I don`t think that I can avoid the conclusion that in D&D,
a 20th level king certainly has the POTENTIAL to be a far better ruler
than a 1st-level king.
I actually like it this way, as I disagree with your concern at a
conceptual level. I don`t buy the arguement that XP requires
adventuring. Gaining XP requires overcomeing challenge. For a
commoner, that might be working hard enough to pay the taxman, getting
the best deal out of the miller, or arranging a good marriage for one`s
daughter. After a few years of toughing it out, the commoner may rise a
few levels; his experience makes it that much easier for him to
overcome similar challenges in the future, and might make it possible
for him to consider challenges that were COMPLETELY beyond his ken a
few years before. The same is true for a king. The King might
adventure, or might meet a challenge to personal combat, but he may
also face challenges in foiling a rival`s plot, using blackmail to
force the support of a local guilds to his rule, or ANYTHING else that
is a suitable challenge to the character`s skills, be they combat or
not.
But that`s just my opinon. I`ve played may gains in level-free
systems and have as many pros as cons IMHO. Neither system is perfect,
neither is inherently flawed. In a level-based system, however,
high-level is usually a plus (often literally ;) )
________
/. Doom@cs.wright.edu
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
01-30-2003, 07:48 AM #12
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 474
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 16:07, daniel mcsorley wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Raesene Andu wrote:
> Originally posted by Peter Lubke
> > 1st level kings should be as effective (if not more effective) than
> > 20th level kings.
>
> Interesting opinion. Care to explains your reason as to why?
Because D&D levels are directly tied to adventuring prowess, and
adventuring has nothing to do with leadership/rulership ability. There`s
been some effort in 3e to make classes (expert, commoner, aristocrat)
which gain levels but have nothing to do with adventuring, but it`s still
a rather bad tack-on to the D&D level system (what`s a 20th level commoner
exactly? And how does he gain all that experience without adventuring,
and if he did adventure, wouldn`t he be picking up some adventurer class
levels?).
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu
Yes pretty much.
AD&D (1e) had pretty much the same attempt with specialist NPC classes
-- characters with levels that didn`t gain them through adventuring. NPC
classes being denied to players. Quite apart from the inconsistency of
the approach, it suffered from the same questionable logic.
The difficulty is that the problem is not stated correctly. When player
character reach high enough levels - ordinary people seem rather, ...
insignificant ...
The solution that has been taken is to try to power-up the NPCs - which
has (and always will) fail.
A better way to look at things is in relative terms - rather than in
absolutes.
One reason that it was perceived this way was that character level was
equated with social level, or social/organizational rank. This came to
happen over time - during the development of fantasy role-playing.
e.g. In AD&D - a character reaching 9th level gained the class level
title of "Lord", and, IF (big IF), they cleared a previously
inhospitable area of monsters/enemies, built a castle, and people came
to live there --- THEN they gained an income and social rank. By 2e,
there was no longer an IF.
^^ this whole concept (of life beyond 9th level whether as adventuring
or as lord) is IMO flawed. But the idea of ruling a realm is a good one
-- hence, I love the BR approach.
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
01-30-2003, 12:58 PM #13
Personally, I disagree that character level should have no effect on the
ability of a regent to perform domain actions. From time to time I`ll post
some sort of rules tweak or point-based analysis of some system and someone
will respond that what I`m _really_ doing is tossing out the entire
character class system--which always surprises me because that`s the
furthest thing from what I have in mind. I suppose if one dissects a
system down to its components far enough it begins to look like those
components are no longer part of a conclusive whole, despite the fact that
I still see them as interlocked. My point in bringing this up here is that
a system of rules at the domain level in which character level had no
influence really would be tossing out the character class system and most
of the rest of the basis of D&D. D&D is a level-based system and those
levels are based on character classes. While there are a few folks in the
BR community who use other RPG systems, BR is still based on D&D even now
that we`re an edition (and a half) away from the original rules set. While
I haven`t done a poll, I feel confidant saying that the majority of gamers
in the BR community still use D&D as the basis of their BR
campaigns. Coming up with a system of domain rules that ignored character
level _would_ be doing away with the character class system, at least as
far as the domain rules go. There needs to be certain differences at the
domain level of play, but totally ignoring the adventure level of play
seems like a bad idea.
Another thing people sometimes mention is that a proposed house rule will
somehow interfere with role-playing. Usually that objection gets little
merit in my book because it doesn`t apply to the particular house rule, and
generally isn`t true in the first place. Actual role-playing can take
place around just about any set of rules, and it isn`t the rules themselves
that oppose role-playing. I`ve role-played over a game of checkers played
at a coffee house. Seriously:
Gary: Huzzah! I have reached the summit of achievement and claim my
crown. Henceforth I am King Black, Lord of the Checkered Tiles!
Opponent: What?
Gary: Oh, just king me. Sheesh....
My point here is that a system of domain rules that ignores character level
might just do exactly what people seem to evince such anxiety over when it
comes to a few house rules; it could interfere with role-playing. A system
of domain rules that ignores character level would probably also need to
ignore character class (one could, at least, apply the same logic) and
would represent a shift in the emphasis of stats, abilities and basic game
mechanics. I play a highly adventure oriented BR campaign. As often as
not the PCs aren`t regents. They may be regents, their subordinates or
just hired agents, but much of the time the adventures they participate in
are performed in lieu of a die roll for the domain level action or
event. Success in the adventure means success or a bonus on the success
roll for the equivalent domain action or random event. I find this a more
satisfying way of resolving events at the domain level, and I`m honestly
surprised that I don`t hear more people espousing it--especially those
folks who seem to idolize role-playing over rules. It seems like the same
people who have argued that certain house rules at the domain level will
interfere with role-playing would adventure out their domain level events
because it would involve more actual role-playing... but I digress.
A system of domain rules that ignores character level (and/or character
class) could make the transition from the adventure level to the domain
level less subtle and, therefore, interfere with role-playing. If one
adventures out, for example, a Diplomacy action a PC with a higher
diplomacy skill would have more success performing the individual,
adventure level diplomacy skill checks than would another character with a
lower skill. If the domain level of play does not reflect that skill in
any way then the transition between adventuring out the domain action and
performing that domain action without an adventure is
disconnected. Depending on the chances of success on particular domain
actions a player could rightly assess his chances of success are better by
performing the domain action with a simple die roll--not adventuring out
the action. Thus, less actual role-playing would take place. One could
certainly role-play that die roll, but a single die roll represents less of
an opportunity for role-playing than does an entire, month-long adventure.
As for the system of XP and regents not earning experience for domain
actions, I again disagree. The CR/XP award system of 3e (and previous
editions) is simply one set of guidelines for how experience is
determined. There`s no reason to assume that the only way one can earn XP
is by defeating monsters. There are guidelines for XP awards that have
nothing to do with combat, and that`s the kind of thing that occurs at the
domain level. Successfully performing domain level effects should earn a
character XP, increasing his character level and making him a more
effective ruler. Aside from that being the basis of a level-based system,
it will support the transition from adventure level to domain level by not
disembodying the two levels of play. Actual awards should IMO be less for
resolving domain actions rather than resolving them through play or,
rather, the XP award for successfully completing a domain action should be
in addition to the XP awards for various adventure level CR
encounters. The domain action awards would, therefore, represent a kind of
story award system and could be determined whether or not the PCs were
regents. It could, in fact, be part of the XP award system with or without
the domain rules as a way of rewarding PCs for successfully completing
adventures that have a broader impact than their treasure
hoard. Hm. Interesting. A system of story awards based on the
adventure`s relation to accomplishing domain level effects.... I kind of
like that. I`ll have to give it some thought....
Gary
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
01-30-2003, 07:00 PM #14Originally posted by Birthright-L
Prestige Class: Monarch??? Sounds good to me. The more a person learns about being a Monarch, the better they would be at it. There are already Warlord and such prestige classes, I think this one would be a good one. Others could be: Guilder, High Priest, Realm Mage, etc.
Fun to the side: What you you think are the prequisites for those PrC's? A bloodline, a level? If nearly everyone can take this PrC, it will be useless, I fear. Further for "monarch" you can take "aristocrat" instead...
Otherwise it is right, being a monarch shouldn't be related to the level, but maybe you can say: Higher level = more experience and that's why a wiser regent. And naturally a 20th level regent needn't to hide himself from anyone...May Khirdai always bless your sword and his lightning struck your enemies!
-
01-30-2003, 09:28 PM #15
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- BR mailing list
- Posts
- 1,538
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Nitpicking is my least favorite thing.....but I`ll go along and do some of
my own if ya insist ;-)
A person can take any prestige class they want as long as they meet the
prerequisites right? Since I didn`t include any, don`t assume just anyone
can take it. A prerequisite for the High Priest (which I was just
blathering about and making no attempt to seriously describe) may be
required to have a great and holy experience with the Avatar of the Deity
eh?
NOTHING is useless here since there was no description at all. As for one
of the prerequisites for any of these prestige classes, you could say a
character must: Monarch=rule a province, Guilder=rule a guild holding,
etc...
These were just ideas...just ideas. I wasn`t trying to make anything Canon
eh? JUST IDEAS...nothing to be critical over. Now I`ll bow down to
superior thinkers.......wouldn`t want to challenge anyones brain.
Tony
----Original Message Follows----
From: Ariadne <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Ariadne wrote:
Originally posted by Birthright-L
Prestige Class: Monarch??? Sounds good to me. The more a person learns about
being a Monarch, the better they would be at it. There are already Warlord
and such prestige classes, I think this one would be a good one. Others
could be: Guilder, High Priest, Realm Mage, etc.
high-priest is given by a god, not a PrC. Naturally the same you can say for
monarch etc. ...
Fun to the side: What you you think are the prequisites for those PrC`s? A
bloodline, a level? If nearly everyone can take this PrC, it will be
useless, I fear. Further for "monarch" you can take "aristocrat"
instead...
Otherwise it is right, being a monarch shouldn`t be related to the level,
but maybe you can say: Higher level = more experience and that`s why a
wiser regent. And naturally a 20th level regent needn`t to hide himself
from anyone...
__________________________________________________ _______________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.
-
01-30-2003, 10:03 PM #16
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Posts
- 7
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Raesene Andu wrote:
> > As a related question let me ask you this. If certain skills/feats
> > were required to be a more effective ruler (e.g. administration and
> > strategy) would you spend the points to gain levels in these skills or
> > would you continue to focus on combat, magic, or stealth related
> > skills and feats?
> >
> > In other words, which would be more important, a powerful, harder to
> > kill character, or a character that could rule his realm more
> > effectivly?
>
> Well, the point of BR was to play an adventuring king, so you`d want to be
> able to have some of both (probably wouldn`t be optimal at either, which
> is fine). The "adventuring->XP->levelling->more skillful" model doesn`t
> really work for a non-adventuring king, though, does it? And he should
> probably be a more skillful king than the adventuring king, since it`s his
> only focus. But he never gets XP, so he`ll never improve his skills, and
> the adventuring king will blow by him. Adding XP rewards for kingly
> duties is kind of a hack and doesn`t exactly solve the problem either.
I don`t see why being a good monarch shouldn`t give you XP. The mentality
that adventuring is the only XP source is just the kind of thinking that
makes D&D a joke to other gamers, who feel that a D&D game is all about
saddling up, sacking a monster and his lair, dividing up the treasure and
moving on.
Now me, personally, I think that gets old very fast.
Tommy
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
01-30-2003, 10:46 PM #17
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- BR mailing list
- Posts
- 1,538
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Tommy Brownell wrote:
> > Well, the point of BR was to play an adventuring king, so you`d want to be
> > able to have some of both (probably wouldn`t be optimal at either, which
> > is fine). The "adventuring->XP->levelling->more skillful" model doesn`t
> > really work for a non-adventuring king, though, does it? And he should
> > probably be a more skillful king than the adventuring king, since it`s his
> > only focus. But he never gets XP, so he`ll never improve his skills, and
> > the adventuring king will blow by him. Adding XP rewards for kingly
> > duties is kind of a hack and doesn`t exactly solve the problem either.
>
> I don`t see why being a good monarch shouldn`t give you XP.
It could at low levels but will slow and stop as you reach higher levels.
Say all your domain actions are based on some skill (Knowledge-kingliness
or whatever). A domain action has a DC, typically between 10 and 20.
There are straightforward rules for assigning experience for encounters
based on skill checks, but DCs for domain actions top out around 20.
I don`t have the chart handy, but basically a DC 15 skill check is a CR 1
or two encounter, and a DC 20 check might be 3 or 4. You gain experience
based on CR, so if you make a DC 20 domain action at level 1, great, lots
of XP, but by the time you get to level 12 you will never earn experience
from domain actions again. And since domain actions are the vast majority
of what BR regents do, they`ll advance very slowly from that point on, if
ever.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.
-
01-30-2003, 11:28 PM #18
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- Belgrade, Serbia
- Posts
- 152
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
>
> In the original ruleset, character ruleset didn`t really
> affect one`s talent as a regent. It was more domain power,
> and occasionally a couple of proficiencies were used, but
> most of those could be picked up within a couple of levels.
>
> 3e uses the skill point system, so if you tie any portion of
> the domain system to a skill (administration or strategy),
> high level characters will be significantly better. Is that
> good? Or should a 3e version of domain rules allow 1st level
> kings to be just as effective as 20th level kings?
It should depend on skills and feats, I think.
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
01-31-2003, 12:11 AM #19
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- BR mailing list
- Posts
- 1,538
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
What I used was similar to the skill synergy bonuses - if tyou had 5 ranks
is certain skills, you get a +2 bonus on that kind of action. Each domain
action has a list of four associated skills. Has worked fine for me!
/Carl
__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.
-
01-31-2003, 01:00 AM #20
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 474
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 08:31, Tommy Brownell wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Raesene Andu wrote:
> > As a related question let me ask you this. If certain skills/feats
> > were required to be a more effective ruler (e.g. administration and
> > strategy) would you spend the points to gain levels in these skills or
> > would you continue to focus on combat, magic, or stealth related
> > skills and feats?
> >
> > In other words, which would be more important, a powerful, harder to
> > kill character, or a character that could rule his realm more
> > effectivly?
>
> Well, the point of BR was to play an adventuring king, so you`d want to be
> able to have some of both (probably wouldn`t be optimal at either, which
> is fine). The "adventuring->XP->levelling->more skillful" model doesn`t
> really work for a non-adventuring king, though, does it? And he should
> probably be a more skillful king than the adventuring king, since it`s his
> only focus. But he never gets XP, so he`ll never improve his skills, and
> the adventuring king will blow by him. Adding XP rewards for kingly
> duties is kind of a hack and doesn`t exactly solve the problem either.
I don`t see why being a good monarch shouldn`t give you XP. The mentality
that adventuring is the only XP source is just the kind of thinking that
makes D&D a joke to other gamers, who feel that a D&D game is all about
saddling up, sacking a monster and his lair, dividing up the treasure and
moving on.
So what you are saying is that good domain stewardship should make a
regent a "better" regent. And that you`d like this to be reflected with
XP (instead of RP, BP or DP)
But gaining XP for adventuring does not make you a better regent. Nor
does being a better regent make you better at adventuring.
To be best then you`d need a separate pool of XP for regents - and a
Regent class that this correlated to.
Now me, personally, I think that gets old very fast.
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks