Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28
  1. #1
    Administrator Green Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,012
    Downloads
    20
    Uploads
    0
    Hi

    My main problem with the BRCS is the lack of a single guiding principle
    behind the conversion (as far as I can tell). Not only does it deprive
    the BRCS from a sense of consistency and innovation, but presents us,
    the members of the BR-L list, with an insurmountable obstacle when
    trying to discuss various conversions.

    Take the monk thread for example; has all the monk posts really done
    much that can be added to a BRCS revision. No, it hasn’t, and it never
    will.

    All the different views are quite acceptable; add the class, remove it,
    or change it. We’ll never reach any sort of agreement, and polls are
    just stupid (by virtue of NOT contributing much to a unified direction
    for the BRCS…). So we can debate endlessly, without producing much (very
    similar to the situation before the D20 team; which I suspect were part
    of the reason they didn’t include the community in the writing process –
    VERY clever choice).

    I strongly suggest that the D20 team show a little responsibility and
    give the discussions a little direction. What IS the overall philosophy
    behind the conversion (if there is one?).

    1. Adapting BR AD&D to 3E (Example: Adding the sorcerer, not coming up
    with alternate magic item creation rules etc.)

    OR

    2. Adapting 3E to BR AD&D (Example: Booting the monk, non-standard
    humans etc.)

    OR

    3. Some sort of bastardization (Example: The 7th ability score, which
    hails from neither)

    So if we had some sort of principle we could then decide:

    1. the monk stays
    2. The monk goes
    3. The monk gets converted

    Which at least takes us one (giant) leap forward

    Cheers
    Bjørn

    ************************************************** **************************
    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.
    Cheers
    Bjørn
    DM of Ruins of Empire II PbeM

  2. #2
    Administrator Green Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,012
    Downloads
    20
    Uploads
    0
    Well, Green Knight, I'm having a little difficulty deciding. there are pros and cons to all alternatives.

    Lets take nr. 3 first, as it seems easiest. This is a BAD idea. Look at the Bloodline system. It worked (reasonably) well under AD&D. Why change it to a 7th ability socre, then add a lot of weird rules to make it work. No, bastardization is not the way to go.

    What about number 1 then? Well, it has a lot of good points, the main one being that 3E is so much better a system than AD&D ever was. That means a lot, so I'm leaning toward this option.

    Number 2 then? Surley, number 2 would prove the optimal solution? You loved BR under AD&D, didn't you? Yeah, and adding things that goes against the flavor of BR isn't good, so there must be some compromise.

    Well, that leads us exactly nowhere...

    Not exactly. I think we should try as best we can to convert BR to 3E, and then add rules for:

    1. Things that aren't covererd by 3E rules (bloodlines)
    2. Things that don't fit (monk), or fit but weren't included (gnome PC race)

    Well Green Knight, than you for the talk.

    You're welcome :-)

    Cheers
    Bjørn
    Cheers
    Bjørn
    DM of Ruins of Empire II PbeM

  3. #3
    >>>> My main problem with the BRCS is the lack of a single guiding principle behind the conversion What IS the overall philosophy behind the conversion (if there is one?).

    <<<<SNIP>>>>>

    >>> 1. Adapting BR AD&D to 3E (Example: Adding the sorcerer, not coming up with alternate magic item creation rules etc.)

    > OR

    > 2. Adapting 3E to BR AD&D (Example: Booting the monk, non-standard humans etc.)

    > OR

    > 3. Some sort of bastardization (Example: The 7th ability score, which hails from neither)


    While your tone is likely to provoke rather than interest (I have that problem also). I think the suggestion could end some of the rankling in the list.

    Many of the difficulties come from mis-perception of what the book should be. Some of those mis-perception could be mine for all that I know. I am strongly in the camp of "build a d20 game for the world of Birthright" but it seems that others are equally strongly infavor of the Forgotten Realms of Cerilia?

    Those issues aside - the parts of the game that make it Birthright were done very well (but still need a little work). Character creation will always be an individual thing. Monster use will vary by individual campaign. Magic prevelance will be different. The Mhor taking his skilled Guardians to defend against the hoardes of Markazor or Guilder Kalien`s manipulation of trade routes is the heart of the game (for me).

    Secondary to the political game/war game comes the Bloodlines. I could do with or without bloodlines but they constitute a large part of the game for some and have the ability to radically change the way the game is played and can interfer with even the loosest character creation guidlines.

    Preserving the integrity of the setting trumps all other things for me. I come from an attiude of "Bend and break d20 to fit Cerilia." It is little wonder that what I find important to include or exclude from the d20 book is in exact opposition to some like Mourn and Lord Shade. Right now, the problem is that both side think that they have the correct path - maybe we should adopt that dreaded coproate idea of a MISSION STATEMENT? I hate the things myself, especially when some moron quotes them to you.

    Finally (maybe), most of us have generated our own rules since the dawn of time. We need to respect that this will be no different. No RPG document is going to please all the people who like an individual setting. Some people play 2E, 3E, Hero, or d20 - all of us need to appreciate the effort and ground work that has been accomplished, while at the same time it should not bug anyone to say "This is the way I do it." It would be really nice to see several websites spring up to provide "alternate visions." BR has a fairly poor web presence - despite being popular in PbeM/PbP arena? I guess what I am saying is rather than cast stones - step up to the plate and take the heat. To avoid being a hypocrite - I will put up what I can of my home rules in the next week or so.(some of my rules are not OCG/OGL - primarily from WoT & SW but a good deal of stuff from Green Ronin).


    Eosin

    ************************************************** **************************
    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.
    Hello, I guess I gotta have a sig.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    317
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I am strongly in the camp of "build a d20 game for the world of
    Birthright" but it seems that others are equally strongly infavor of the
    Forgotten Realms of Cerilia?
    >

    I absolutely despise the idea of a Forgotten Realms of Cerilia. I almost
    felt sick when I read an email from a different thread about a mechanical
    beholder wielding 10 wands.

    >Preserving the integrity of the setting trumps all other things for me. I
    come from an attiude of "Bend and break d20 to fit Cerilia." It is little
    wonder that what I find important to include or exclude from the d20 book
    is in exact opposition to some like Mourn and Lord Shade.

    ???

    I`ve actually found myself agreeing a lot with you (Eosin) and Michael
    Romes. :)

    That probably just goes to show that no two people think 100% alike.

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

  5. #5
    > I`ve actually found myself agreeing a lot with you (Eosin) and Michael Romes. :)

    Whoops - I was running from memory - can`t look at older e-mails from work.

    PS - I have not posted but I frequently review the min-max boards.

    Eosin.

    ************************************************** **************************
    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.
    Hello, I guess I gotta have a sig.

  6. #6
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    All right since Doom was induced into self-retirement (for awhile) it falls to me to post what the goals of the development team were. I searched for the correct words used during our discussions and found the following, which pretty much sums up the goals of the development team:


    -It needs to be elegant - we use existing 3e mechanics where we can, rather than introducing new ones.
    -It needs to be balanced - nothing out of whack with standard 3e.
    -It needs to be consistent - we should use proper terminology, be clear and concise, and never contradict ourselves. Formatting should be standardized and accessible.
    -It needs to be compatible - not too different from 2e that it will be unrecognizable, but we should change things to fit the other goals.
    -It needs to preserve the flavor of Cerilia. 'nuff said.
    -It needs to be simple - no need for undue complexity.
    -Where the rules of 2e contradict with those of 3e, 3e takes precedence.

    I think that about sums up the direction the team was taking.
    :)
    Duane Eggert

  7. #7
    Administrator Green Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,012
    Downloads
    20
    Uploads
    0
    irdeggman wrote:
    > All right since Doom was induced into self-retirement (for awhile) it
    falls to me to post what the goals of the development team were. I
    searched for the correct words used during our discussions and found the
    following, which pretty much sums up the goals of the development team:


    >-It needs to be elegant - we use existing 3e mechanics where we can,
    rather than introducing new ones.
    -It needs to be balanced - nothing out of whack with standard 3e.
    -It needs to be consistent - we should use proper terminology, be clear
    and concise, and never contradict ourselves. Formatting should be
    standardized and accessible.
    -It needs to be compatible - not too different from 2e that it will be
    unrecognizable, but we should change things to fit the other goals.
    -It needs to preserve the flavor of Cerilia. `nuff said.
    -It needs to be simple - no need for undue complexity.
    -Where the rules of 2e contradict with those of 3e, 3e takes precedence.

    >I think that about sums up the direction the team was taking.
    :)

    This is exactly what I wanted to know.

    For instance, no. 1 goes a long way towards explaining why the 7th
    ability score was chosen.

    Now, if only this could be turned into a spell of mega-agreement :-)

    ************************************************** **************************
    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.
    Cheers
    Bjørn
    DM of Ruins of Empire II PbeM

  8. #8
    Senior Member ryancaveney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Manassas, VA
    Posts
    761
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Bjørn Eian Sørgjerd wrote:

    > irdeggman wrote:
    > > It needs to be elegant - we use existing 3e mechanics where we can,
    > > rather than introducing new ones.
    >
    > For instance, no. 1 goes a long way towards explaining why the 7th
    > ability score was chosen.

    Really? As I see it, the 7th ability score is distinctly inelegant, since
    shoehorning bloodline into the generic 3-18 +1/4 levels mold is a
    decidedly Procrustean maneuver. Bloodline = RP collection is the most
    elegant mechanic possible, and also clearly already exists.


    Ryan Caveney

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

  9. #9
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Okay, let me try and sum this up - the problem that existed in 2e was that you measured the relative strength of a bloodline along two different scales. You had the scion status, which, mechanically, didn't really mean anything, and then there was the bloodline score.

    Now, in 3e, capturing scion status is pretty simple through a template. Simply using bloodline score as it was doesn't really work in 3e, though - because you'd generate it independently of most other factors, and thus, you could get either seriously screwed or insanely lucky - there's the law of averages, of course, but most players don't tend to go through 50 characters in a year (I've played in one campaign where a player actually managed to do that, though - not the most serious of campaigns, of course), and thus, there's no real balancing factor to it.

    Bloodline score is useful for BR specific purposes only - bloodtheft, RP collection, and blood abilities.

    I could easily see number of blood abilities simply tied to a template, but that leaves the other two issues. Tying bloodline strength to ability scores is simply a mechanic that is used to "balance" it against something.

    Think of it in terms of hit points - in previous editions, you could screwed or lucky at 1st level. 3e has mostly solved that issue by giving maximum hp at 1st level, introducing feats that increase hp, and having optional rules that give (less than) average hp. Hit points clearly weren't balanced between characters, if one fighter rolled a 1 and another a 10 at first level. Having a bloodline score be generated randomly independently of all other factors would introduce a potential intra-character imbalance.

    The real question is what we can do to replace the bloodtheft and RP mechanic? There's some different solutions I can think of:
    -Simply use flat scores, by template - i.e. Minor - 10, Major - 20, Great - 30, with feats to increase the score, or possibly a dice roll to introduce some diversity without creating too large a gap between characters.
    -Use some different mechanics altogether, dump RP and bloodtheft as they stand, and try to emulate these things through other means. A "prestige score" might replace RP and also be influenced by other mechanics. If everyone gets a score like that, but scions get a big boost, then you have an "RP collection" mechanic of a different type. It is also very house-rulish, but could be elegant.
    -The bloodline ability mechanic as it stands.
    -Using the old system as it were.

    I'm sure I had more variants for it, but they basically revolve around the same concepts tied together in various ways.

    One problem with the initial draft is that in trying to preserve the original version as much as possible, we might not have gone far enough in the end product in terms of 3e-ization. But I guess that's old news.
    Jan E. Juvstad.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 10:17, irdeggman wrote:

    This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
    You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1431

    irdeggman wrote:
    All right since Doom was induced into self-retirement (for awhile) it falls to me to post what the goals of the development team were. I searched for the correct words used during our discussions and found the following, which pretty much sums up the goals of the development team:


    -It needs to be elegant - we use existing 3e mechanics where we can, rather than introducing new ones.
    -It needs to be balanced - nothing out of whack with standard 3e.
    -It needs to be consistent - we should use proper terminology, be clear and concise, and never contradict ourselves. Formatting should be standardized and accessible.
    -It needs to be compatible - not too different from 2e that it will be unrecognizable, but we should change things to fit the other goals.
    -It needs to preserve the flavor of Cerilia. `nuff said.
    -It needs to be simple - no need for undue complexity.
    -Where the rules of 2e contradict with those of 3e, 3e takes precedence.

    I think that about sums up the direction the team was taking.
    :)

    So how do you think you went?

    (be honest - especially with yourself)

    What do you think a poll would show? (if you were graded on the criteria
    -- never mind whether we think you`ve done a good job or whether we want
    not to dump on you) What if it were an anonymous poll?

    ************************************************** **************************
    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)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.