Results 21 to 30 of 56
-
03-17-2003, 01:38 AM #21
- Join Date
- Dec 2002
- Location
- Malden, MA
- Posts
- 761
- Downloads
- 2
- Uploads
- 0
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Mourn wrote:
> But it can`t be completely modular. If the system from 2nd Edition
> was dropped into 3rd Edition, it would not work.
Yes, there will always need to be translation tables for the *output* of
the system (what is the exact game effect of any particular blood
ability), but there need never necessarily be any *input* system (how do
blood abilities get assigned to characters) at all other than tables 10 to
13 on pages 20 to 22 of the BR rulebook, used *verbatim*. Bloodline
abilility generation need never be changed in the slightest unless we want
to for some other reason. In fact, since there need be no underlying RPG
at all, there need be no translation table at all: only those blood
abilities defined as having an effect on the domain rules (Battlewise and
Courage(Great)) would need to be tracked.
As a matter of design philosophy, since the whole point of the overall
Birthright ruleset is to give procedures for running fantasy kingdoms, any
time the domain scale rules come into conflict with the terminology of the
RPG system you`d like to use to resolve adventure actions, *the domain
rules must win*.
Thus, no matter what RPG you play "on top of", whether it be 1e, 2e, 3e,
GURPS, Vampire, Ars Magica -- or Paranoia, Toon and MechWarrior for all I
care -- Prince Darien Avan`s bloodline will always always always be called
"Anduiras, great, 70" because 70 is the maximum number of RP he can gain
from provinces and holdings in a single domain turn. That and that alone
is the core bloodline mechanic which must invariably be preserved.
Vampire`s 1-5 and GURPS`s 2-12 and D&D`s 3-18 and Ars Magica`s -4 to +4
and RoleMaster`s 1-100 and Hero Wars` 13 to 10w4 matter not a whit. The
*sole* purpose of the bloodline score is to limit RP collection. For
point-buy character generation systems, you will have to figure out how
many points of which things in the rest of the system are the equivalent
cost of how many points of bloodline score, but the scale of the bloodline
score should never ever ever be changed because it is tied into the
regency point system (including via spending RP to increase bloodline and
gaining points by bloodtheft) which has *no* connection to any other part
of any gaming system. Bloodline scores *are* completely modular.
> And there`s no need to make it modular, because this isn`t about a
> Birthright conversion for the Storyteller System or for GURPs of the
> free WINDOW engine.
But generic conversions are always more elegant than specific conversions,
at least in so far as designing the most flexible system to cover all
possible bases goes. There`s no reason to change the blood rules in ways
that will make them harder to convert to any other system.
> According to it, a "powerful" scion could have less power than a
> weaker scion, but still be a higher ECL. That doesn`t make sense.
I`m glad you agree. I don`t think ECLs are the right way to go, but if
other people do, at least please determine the ECL from the particular set
of blood abilities chosen, not just the strength of the bloodline.
>The only thing that depended on 2e mechanics were the effects
> of individual blood abilities. Those are easily changed (50% MR
> changed to 25 SR or whatever).
rules are generated completely separately from every other aspect of
character creation. You in fact do not need to have a character at all
in order to roll up blood abilities. Only the game *effects* of the
independently generated abilities actually *require* translation.
> If we`re playing 3rd Edition, then mechanics should mesh with 3rd
> Edition.
The output mechanics (having this blood ability has the same game effect
as having that feat), yes. The input mechanics (you must spend this 3e
feat to gain access to that blood ability), NO.
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.
-
03-17-2003, 01:38 AM #22
- Join Date
- Dec 2002
- Location
- Malden, MA
- Posts
- 761
- Downloads
- 2
- Uploads
- 0
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Athos69 wrote:
> There is still an XP gap there between both parties. All that has
> happened is that one group is receiving a penalty instead of the other
> group receiving a bonus.
Yes, this makes sense. The problem is not that the ECL idea changes the
inspiration or the direction or the name of the gap, it`s that it vastly
increases the size of the gap.
> That`s a 4,000 XP gap. A bit bigger than under 2nd Ed, but then
> again, you can`t really equate 2nd Ed XP with 3rd Ed. Vastly
> different animals those two.
But you can compare levels achieved. In most of the range of the 2e Xp
tables, XP needed *doubles* from one level to the next. That means most
of the time, even a scion with a *great* bloodline is only *one-tenth* of
a level behind, and doesn`t reach a whole level behind until about 18th or
19th level. He would not be two whole levels behind until level 28.
+2 ECL even for a great bloodline is just disproportionately huge.
And I pity the poor Orog at +3 ECL. Nothing is worth that penalty.
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.
-
03-17-2003, 04:45 AM #23
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Posts
- 317
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
At 10:21 PM 3/16/2003 +0100, you 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=1439
>
> Mourn wrote:
>Originally posted by Shade
>Simple fact according to who? That`s your opinion, not a fact. I disagree;
>I think the bloodline system can and maybe should be modular, something you
>can tack on to the existing system.
>
>But it can`t be completely modular. If the system from 2nd Edition was
dropped into 3rd Edition, it would not work. Why? Because that system is
built on 2nd Edition mechanics, which are vastly different from 3rd Edition
mechanics. Thus, it needs to be rewritten to work with the d20 System.
Only the blood abilities themselves need to be reworked. The bloodline
`score` doesn`t depend on 2e mechanics in any way. It starts with a d100 roll.
>If you dropped it into any other game, like Vampire, it wouldn`t work
either. For one, the traits range from 1-5 or 1-10... with your Bloodline
60 or something for the Gorgon, it would break the system.
I think there is a misunderstanding here. If your bloodline is on a 1-100
scale, what difference does it make if strength is measured on a 1-5 scale,
a 3-18 scale, or a 100-300 scale? Your bloodline score is independent and
doesn`t directly interact with other stats in any way.
It interacts indirectly by determining the number of blood abilities you
have. The blood abilities THEMSELVES need to be modified as you go from
system to system, but the bloodline score itself doesn`t need to be. For
instance, say a 45 bloodline gets you the ability Heightened Ability in
D&D, Vampire, and Final Fantasy. The 45 bloodline score is the same in all
3 systems; but the exact mechanic for how Heightened Ability is different.
In D&D it gets you a +2 strength; in Vampire a +1 potence; in FF a +30
attack power, for example.
>And there`s no need to make it modular, because this isn`t about a
Birthright conversion for the Storyteller System or for GURPs of the free
WINDOW engine. This is for the d20 System conversion of Birthright, and it
should be written for the d20 System. Simple as that.
My point is, it doesn`t need any changing except for the descriptions of
blood abilities. A "surprised on a roll of 1" becomes a "+2 to spot and
listen."
>I agree here. There should be a trade-off. But where we are in
disagreement
>is the size of the tradeoff. I think it should be small; you think it
>should be large.
>Not necessarily. If the scion`s benefit is a large benefit, then yes,
there should be a large tradeoff. If the scions` benefit is small, such as
a +2 bonus to a skill, then the tradeoff should be small.
>
>My argument with the way the system worked in the document went both ways.
According to it, a "powerful" scion could have less power than a weaker
scion, but still be a higher ECL. That doesn`t make sense. I am merely
pushing for a cohesive system that makes use of the new d20 System
mechanics, as opposed to making it a completely seperate system that isn`t
connected to the mechanics.
I see. Let me ask you this Mourn - are you opposed to the idea of paying XP
for each individual blood ability, rather than having a flat ECL for each
level of bloodline strength?
>The only thing that depended on 2e mechanics were the effects of
individual
>blood abilities. Those are easily changed (50% MR changed to 25 SR or
>whatever).
>Actually, technically, the whole system was built on 2nd Edition mechanics
because of the fact that 2nd Edition had *NO* core resolution system. It
was a hodgepodge of various "simulators" that were hobbled together.
Bloodline, in 2nd Edition, was tacked on, just like most of the other rules
released by TSR.
I think this is a circular argument. So you`re saying that because 2e had
no core mechanics, and the bloodline system didn`t depend on that absence
of core mechanics, it was part of the 2e system of core mechanics?
>Bloodline, in 3rd Edition, should mesh with system and give the whole
thing a feeling of consistency.
I don`t think it is particularly necessary.
>And what about those blood abilities that were given vague descriptions in
2nd Edition? Some of them are given vague descriptions in 3rd Edition.
I agree that several if not all blood *abilities* should mesh with the 3e
rules.
>
>If we`re playing 3rd Edition, then mechanics should mesh with 3rd Edition.
In your opinion.
************************************************** **************************
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.
-
03-17-2003, 06:25 AM #24
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- USA.
- Posts
- 626
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
> > I don`t like bloodline as an ability score
> > much at all. It has, however, been the most common one since 3e came out
> > and it appeared in Doom`s original conversion, so I think a lot of people
> > have gotten used to it.
>
> I very much doubt it. It has been the most loudly and shamelessly
> self-promoted, and it was maneuvered into the BRCS doc the same way, but I
> bet a lot of people just used the old tack-on system on top of 3e
> characters. I actually very much dislike that the `7 ability score`
> system got shoved in just because it was in PDF when the rest of us were
> publishing conversion stuff in html and email.
*sigh* I created my conversion manual for one reason only - for _my_
campaign. I released it to BR.net because I thought that others might
enjoy saving the time doing the same. It upsets me that _anyone_ finds
anything that I had a hand in "loudly and shamelessly self-promoted".
Certainly I`ll defend the intellectual positions that I publish
and subscribe to, but is this not the point of rational discourse?
I`m not certain exactly what it is that I`ve done that you find
disagreeable Daniel, but c`est la vie. You are welcome to use anything
from the original conversion or the parts that were used in the BRCS
that you`d like and to disregard the rest. You are welcome to tear any
of the work up on-line if you wish; several of your comments have been
of substantive worth and such discussion can only improve the work.
You are _not_ welcome to take potshots at me. It is unproductive,
unprofessional, and unbecoming. On second thought, since this is a
public forum, perhaps you are entitled to take potshots at me. I
certainly can`t stop you. Yet, I need not endure it.
I think that I`m going to take a hiatus from the list for a while. I
find that, for some odd reason, this comment actually upset me. Since
the entire purpose of these discussions (from my POV) is for enjoyment,
I think that is a signal that it is time for me to take a break for a
while.
I`ll be back in a few weeks.
- Doom
************************************************** **************************
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.
-
03-17-2003, 07:40 AM #25
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- San Diego, CA
- Posts
- 99
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Originally posted by Shade
<snip comments>
My point is, it doesn`t need any changing except for the descriptions of
blood abilities. A "surprised on a roll of 1" becomes a "+2 to spot and
listen."
What do you think of it granting uncanny dodge? If you are rarely surprised, then being caught flat-footed is rare thing.
Surprise in 2nd Edition become being caught flat-footed in 3rd Edition.
I see. Let me ask you this Mourn - are you opposed to the idea of paying XP
for each individual blood ability, rather than having a flat ECL for each
level of bloodline strength?
For example, there are some issues with Major Resistance (Charm and Poison). Charm grants a +4 bonus against Enchantment and a +4 bonus against the Fear ability. Poison grants you a +4 bonus against poison. Now, Charm grants you a +4 against an entire school of magic, while poison grants you the bonus against poison. While this seems alright, taking a look at some numbers shows some holes. For one, there are many more Enchantment spells than poisons. Further, in WoTC material, a +2 bonus against a particular school of magic requires the Arcane Defense feat (which in turn has the prerequisite of Spell Focus), while Poison Resistance feat grants a +4 bonus against poison. Both are minor abilities, but the Charm one is stronger. If this was reduced to a +2 bonus, it would balance far better.
However, I also think ECL is a good system, but the way it has been used thus far isn't right. The way the templates are written, the power levels of scions of equal bloodline strength can vary VASTLY, but according to the rules, they're the same. That doesn't sit well with me.
However, with the idea of Charisma being the primary ability score of blood abilities, I think that the templates can be reworked to take advantage of it, granting a number of abilities (the strength of which depends on your bloodline strength template) equal to Charisma, and then still base ECL off of the templates.
I also believe that all scions should have a Bloodmark... after all, divine heritage, though weak it may be, should show itself.
I think this is a circular argument. So you`re saying that because 2e had
no core mechanics, and the bloodline system didn`t depend on that absence
of core mechanics, it was part of the 2e system of core mechanics?
For example, the High Level Campaigns in 2nd Edition added a bunch of new mechanics, and didn't really do much to expand upon the existing ones. The new 3e ELH takes the core system (and the classes and such) and expands upon them without contradicting them or even having to be a seperate, tacked-on system.
I don`t think it is particularly necessary.
In your opinion.I walk this fine thread...
Mourn
-
03-17-2003, 07:49 AM #26
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- BR mailing list
- Posts
- 1,538
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
From: "Athos69" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
> Let`s look at an XP progression with ECL, shall we?
>
> To achieve a 5th (class) Level character -- unblooded characters require
10,000 XP total (1,000+2,000+3,000+4,000 XP). Blooded characters with an
ECL of +1 require 14,000 XP total (2,000+3,000+4,000+5,000 XP), but they
are considered a 6th level character for purposes of determining CR and
encounter strength.
>
> That`s a 4,000 XP gap. A bit bigger than under 2nd Ed, but then again,
you can`treally equate 2nd Ed XP with 3rd Ed. Vastly different animals
those two.
>
Still that misconception. A ECL modifier +1 character needs 15,000 XP to
reach level 5 - EXACTLY the same amount an ECL +0 character needs to reach
level 6. You need to have 1,000 XP to start play with an ECL modifier +1
character. In a campaign that starts at first elvel, ECL modifier +1
characters are not allowed. Of course, DMs can allow them anyway inder some
special rule, but this is how the rules work from scratch.
__________________________________________________ ___
Gå före i kön och få din sajt värderad på nolltid med Yahoo! Express
Se mer på: http://se.docs.yahoo.com/info/express/help/index.html
************************************************** **************************
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.
-
03-17-2003, 09:53 AM #27
At 01:03 AM 3/16/2003 -0500, Daniel McSorley wrote:
> > I agree with you on that one. I don`t like bloodline as an ability score
> > much at all. It has, however, been the most common one since 3e came out
> > and it appeared in Doom`s original conversion, so I think a lot of people
> > have gotten used to it.
>
>I very much doubt it. It has been the most loudly and shamelessly
>self-promoted, and it was maneuvered into the BRCS doc the same way, but I
>bet a lot of people just used the old tack-on system on top of 3e characters.
I wouldn`t really know what most people do in their campaigns, and though I
would prefer a system of bloodline that was closer to the original I don`t
think it has been particularly loudly or shamelessly
self-promoted. There`s been some debate on the subject, certainly, but
it`s been reasonable and even-handed. Maybe it`s just me, but the
opposition to the idea of an ECL for bloodline has been more vehemently
argued than bloodline as an ability score.
>I actually very much dislike that the `7 ability score` system got shoved
>in just because it was in PDF when the rest of us were publishing
>conversion stuff in html and email.
Given the amount of formatting Arjan apparently did, I doubt that was
really the issue.... I`m not up on PDF formatting in particular but
cutting and pasting text is generally not a lot of trouble. Doom`s version
was the first out there, so it had the benefit of primacy, which I think
was more of an influence than the format it was written in.
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.
-
03-17-2003, 11:12 AM #28
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Posts
- 317
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
At 08:40 AM 3/17/2003 +0100, you 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=1439
>
> Mourn wrote:
>Originally posted by Shade
><snip comments>
>This argument will just continue to repeat itself, as I am of the mind
that the original system should be completely redone. Not just the blood
abilities being updated, but the entire system being meshed into 3rd
Edition. Therefore, I think we should take more looks at what we can agree
on, and what compromises we can reach with other things, because if we can
agree on certain things and get certain mechanics to a point where the
community will agree on it, then we`ve made progress... and that progress
may lead to other points where we can agree.
Sounds good!
>My point is, it doesn`t need any changing except for the
descriptions of
>blood abilities. A "surprised on a roll of 1" becomes a "+2 to spot and
>listen."
>It works... but it doesn`t seem... right to me.
>
>What do you think of it granting uncanny dodge? If you are rarely
surprised, then being caught flat-footed is rare thing.
>
>Surprise in 2nd Edition become being caught flat-footed in 3rd Edition.
In principle that makes sense, but 2 things to consider: UD is useful
outside of surprise situations (such as being attacked from behind), and
second, UD does not stop you from being flatfooted - it lets you keep your
Dex bonus to AC. It is a fine distinction, but an important one, like in
the case of the Flick of the Wrist/Iaijutsu w/ wakizashi combo (admittedly,
this won`t come up in BR, but something like it might).
As for the +2 spot/listen, I used transitive reasoning:
2e Alertness: surprised on a roll of 1
3e Alertness feat: +2 spot/listen
3e Alertness blood ability = 3e Alertness feat
>I see. Let me ask you this Mourn - are you opposed to the idea of
paying XP
>for each individual blood ability, rather than having a flat ECL for each
>level of bloodline strength?
>Not at all. This is a good step. With all the comparison people make
between blood abilities and magic items, XP expenditure is a logical step.
However, I don`t really think that each individual power should have an
experience cost. I think all of the abilities of the appropriate levels
should be looked at, and some reworked to balance against others of that
level.
Ok, so what you mean here is that say, all minor abilities would cost
1000xp for instance, as opposed to Heightened Ability-minor costing 650 and
Enhanced Sense costing 750.
I would prefer to compare each blood ability directly to a magic item, and
derive the xp cost from that. This way WOTC has already done the work for
us, and we don`t have to worry quite as much about balancing within the
system.
I could see these 2 approaches being voted on. I prefer the latter, but
would not necessarily reject the former.
>For example, there are some issues with Major Resistance (Charm and
Poison). Charm grants a +4 bonus against Enchantment and a +4 bonus against
the Fear ability. Poison grants you a +4 bonus against poison. Now, Charm
grants you a +4 against an entire school of magic, while poison grants you
the bonus against poison. While this seems alright, taking a look at some
numbers shows some holes. For one, there are many more Enchantment spells
than poisons. Further, in WoTC material, a +2 bonus against a particular
school of magic requires the Arcane Defense feat (which in turn has the
prerequisite of Spell Focus), while Poison Resistance feat grants a +4
bonus against poison. Both are minor abilities, but the Charm one is
stronger. If this was reduced to a +2 bonus, it would balance far better.
Makes sense. I`m not opposed at all to this sort of tweaking.
>However, I also think ECL is a good system, but the way it has been used
thus far isn`t right. The way the templates are written, the power levels
of scions of equal bloodline strength can vary VASTLY, but according to the
rules, they`re the same. That doesn`t sit well with me.
I`ve found that in most cases, ECL just isn`t worth it - you lose too much
for what you get. 2e had the xp % penalty that worked alright in most
cases. ECL as a concept is okay, but from Savage Species to BRCS the
implementation is very flawed.
I will keep an open mind on the ECL issue. If we can really find a way to
balance it well without making drastic changes (like a scion class??? wtf?)
I would certainly reconsider it.
I still think the magic item=bloodline approach is better because this
allows for a lot of flexibility. A scion has the CHOICE to develop powers
if he wants to.
>However, with the idea of Charisma being the primary ability score of
blood abilities, I think that the templates can be reworked to take
advantage of it, granting a number of abilities (the strength of which
depends on your bloodline strength template) equal to Charisma, and then
still base ECL off of the templates.
I am strongly opposed to tying bloodline to charisma in any form or
fashion. I think it just makes Cha TOO powerful in the Birthright setting.
In a campaign that`s about rulership and diplomacy it is already pretty
powerful, no need to make it an absolutely critical stat.
>I also believe that all scions should have a Bloodmark... after all,
divine heritage, though weak it may be, should show itself.
I used to have a rule in my game where any character could pick up
bloodmark for free. However, I think that this should remain in the realm
of houserules.
>In your opinion.
>So, in your opinion, when you`re playing 3rd Edition, extra material
should not mesh with the system?
I don`t think that it has to in the case of bloodlines. I do see your
point; I just don`t agree with it. Let`s agree to disagree for the time
being. :)
************************************************** **************************
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.
-
03-17-2003, 12:11 PM #29
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- BR mailing list
- Posts
- 1,538
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
> > To achieve a 5th (class) Level character -- unblooded characters require
> 10,000 XP total (1,000+2,000+3,000+4,000 XP). Blooded characters with an
> ECL of +1 require 14,000 XP total (2,000+3,000+4,000+5,000 XP), but they
> are considered a 6th level character for purposes of determining CR and
> encounter strength.
> >
?? I`m a bit confused on this...why is the ECL +1 equivalent to 2
character levels when determining CR? This looks something like what I
saw in teh savage species book, but not quite. IN there. the characters
ECL was a combination of its monsterous HD + char level + modifier.
I thought ECL for a character was a total of their character level plus
modifier. So, a level 5 character with an ECL +1 would need the exp of a
level 6 character....if someone could explain this and quote a source, I`d
appreciate it.
Thanks
Sean
************************************************** **************************
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.
-
03-17-2003, 01:11 PM #30
I`m more than a little irked that Doom has been criticized as a "shameless
self-promoter" who has "pushed his homebrew" into the BRCS.
Shameless: First off, what is the shame in sharing one`s creative effort?
Those people who put up web sites, mention them from time to time, or put
them in a signature, who post their ideas and writings, and who give us the
benefit of their labor are good for the hobby and the community. They (and
Doom in particular) have done nothing but benefit the rest of us with their
effort and creativity. This is shameful? Or is it shameful because they
don`t keep their work secret, showing a "proper" humility?
Self-promoter: Doom is fairly quiet on the list, doesn`t mention either his
conversion or his web site very often, and whose work as been promoted far,
far more by others than it has been by himself. This I take to be a sign of
a quality peice of work. The implied standard in such a criticism is that
we should not mention our own work to the group because its unseamly to draw
such attention to ourselves. That may conform to some Victorian sense of
decorum, but it doesn`t help the community or benefit anyone who has come to
this forum looking for gaming information, materials, or ideas for BR.
Homebrew: Someone is suggesting we try gaming ideas that were not pioneers
and tested on the gaming table? I would hope that the origin of all the
conversions and other ideas published here have a direct route to the gaming
table (or PBeM`s where appropriate). Its the gateway of first resort.
After that, Doom`s particular conversion ideas have been well recieved
(another indication of its utility to a wide membership), and other members
of the BRCS team (who outnumber Doom by a large number) embraced some of his
ideas as a group, which has acted as another gateway, before their inclusion
into the draft materials. The only way we can even identify which ideas
were Doom`s is because he did us all the favor of providing a conversion
manual, putting up a web site, and sharing his ideas here in this forum.
Its the existence of this paper trail which has allowed others to criticize
him for what can only amount to his useful and beneficial contributions.
If there is any shame to be had in any of this, I don`t think it lies with
Doom or any forum participant who puts forth effort and shares it with the
rest of us. Let`s consider this value of this creativity in the spirit in
which it was given.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
************************************************** **************************
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