Chapter 2 - Blood Score Proposals

[geeman]

At 07:36 PM 6/9/2003 -0400, you wrote:

> > Experience levels reflect an endless range of capacity--and also
> > address something that is oft ignored when it comes to assessing
> > things like skillfulness or ability.
>
>You can`t be truly great without *both* talent and training. The amount
>of "total ability" gained from "each unit" of practice depends on the
>"number of units" of talent, and vice-versa. In fact, I`d argue that what
>this observation really means is that instead of making *no* stat bonuses
>multiplicative, the better approach is to make them *all* multiplicative.

I not exactly sure what "truly great" means in real life. (It`s kind of
like the word "genius" which I`ve always considered a verb, but most people
think is a noun.) I suspect it`s just a descriptor some people put on the
combination of success and recognition in order to attempt to quantify
something that is in many ways random or the result of cunning
marketing. Many people are just as talented and capable as those that are
lauded as "truly great" or whatever, but are overlooked for reasons having
little to do with their work or productivity. Others are described as
"truly great" who are objectively less talented than others. It`s a crap
shoot. (When feeling cynical I sometimes suspect that what history does
can be described as "retroactive cunning marketing.")

Aside from that I don`t think it means anything at all in a gaming sense
since everything is so open ended. A character who gains +15 bonuses from
one set of class features or ability scores is 3 more "truly great" at that
thing than another who got +12 from a different set of them. The
particulars of where they come from are incidental. If we were to go back
and look at the list of human characteristics that you posted a few weeks
back that included all the characteristics of "intelligence" I think we
would find just about every aspect of D&D characters; all ability scores,
character classes, feats and levels. That said, does it matter if the
"ability" in question comes from an intelligence ability score or from
ranks purposefully spent on a particular skill, BAB gained from levels or a
capacity earned by using a feat? In effect, those things are incidental to
the highly simplified system of modifiers for gaming.

You could, however, make all ability score modifiers "multipliers" rather
than "flat bonuses" if you really wanted to make ability scores more
important than the features of character class. I considered expanding the
list of multipliers rather than reducing it so that there would be one for
each ability score and the system would then be "balanced" that way. (It
wouldn`t really be balanced, but it would at least be
symmetrical.) Instead I found it easier to do away with the multipliers
than to add more. If one wanted to add more, though, I`d suggest that
things like strength modifier could be made a multiplier on top of BAB (or
multiply BAB x Str) and use a similar method to assign values for saves,
skill points, etc. It`d probably make the levelling up system approach the
point of absurdity much more quickly, but the "epic" level of play and the
superhero type games are perfectly workable.

In general, the point is that the unbalanced/unsymmetrical nature of the
multipliers vs flat bonuses that come from ability scores is something that
makes D&D`s rules rather lopsided.

> > Isn`t it more interesting and useful to portray Einstein as a person
> > of maybe average intelligence (as his teachers and family originally
> > thought him to be) who later through grit and hard work levelled
> > himself up to a point of great ability and knowledge?
>
>Not to me. To me that *devalues* the sort of stories I want to tell.
>Beethoven`s father wanted him to be Mozart, but for all Ludwig`s gifts and
>all his father`s practice (and beatings?), he just couldn`t be Wolfgang --
>only Wolfgang was born with the gift to be what he was. Still, if either
>of them had never been allowed to play a musical instrument, that
>potential would never have been developed. You need both nature and
>nurture to have anything at all. Among other things, I think it is
>entirely the opposite of, and therefore rather inappropriate in, the
>Divine Right of Kings attitude basic to Birthright.

From a game mechanical standpoint the difference between Beethoven and
Mozart is pretty slim. In fact, it`s a matter of style and emphasis not
skill and ability (productivity and exposure to so the comparison between
the two doesn`t strike me as very apt.

>IMO, a 20th level wizard with an Int 11 should be at least as useless as a
>1st level wizard with an Int 20, if not moreso. In fact, I`d probably cap
>not only the first guy`s max spell level, but also max *class* level by
>his "prime requisite" (to use the ancient language of our tribe), and thus
>not have allowed him to take more than one level of wizard in the first
>place.

Given the way the rules work at present (note that intelligence modifiers
to spells are flat or prohibitive) that`s how it would work. The 20th
level guy, of course, would have more of the ancillary effects of level at
his disposal (hit points, BAB, etc.) but their relative access to magic is
pretty nearly the same. A 20th level wizard with an 11 Int would have four
0th level spells and four 1st level spells per day, while a 1st level
wizard with 20 intelligence would have three 0th level spells and three 1st
level spells.

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.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:59 PM


> It`s kind of like the word "genius" which I`ve always considered a
> verb, but most people think is a noun.) I suspect it`s just a descriptor
> some people put on the combination of success and recognition in
> order to attempt to quantify something that is in many ways random
> or the result of cunning marketing. Many people are just as talented
> and capable as those that are lauded as "truly great" or whatever, but
> are overlooked for reasons having little to do with their work or
> productivity.

For the purposes of fantasy gaming, I am willing to follow the lead of those
medieval admirers, the Romantics, who had very clear ideas about what genius
was and whose ideas greatly influence the current age. So the kinds of
things you see in the works of Shelley, Wordsworth, Keats, and Coleridge
about what constitutes genius, the heroic figure who struggles against
impossible odds, who understands things on a level unknown to common men.
This both suits the heroic tone of fantasy gaming (especially in BR) and is
quite compatable with our sources of the mediaval world in literature.

While I do not generally take Romanticism seriously, and certainly not in
historical analysis, the genius in history is a Hegalian construction in
which the hero in history is the one who advances the inevitable cause,
Napoleon being the archtypical example, both for Hegal and for those who
employed his ideas of heroicism in history. One would like to think that
figures like Hitler and Stalin would have purged the idea of the hero in
history, but alas, it is not so.

In fantasy gaming, I`m willing to indulge in the most heroic notions of
character, whether Romantic or Homeric.

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.

[irdeggman]

Ryan, Kenneth, Gary,
Before this discussion goes too far along the line of the thread on Intelligence as an ability score let's try to real it in some. The original topic was a discussion of the 4 blood score proposals. What is the opinion of those?:)

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, irdeggman wrote:

> The original topic was a discussion of the 4 blood score proposals.
> What is the opinion of those?:)

I thought I`d made my feelings on those clear months ago. =)

Bloodline is not an ability score. It just isn`t.

I think ECLs are terrible, especially compared to actual class levels.

I am moderately fond of the idea of buying blood abilites with XP, at
least relative to all the other stuff.

I think scion isn`t a class, but that could perhaps be the least bad way
of modeling it -- or perhaps not.

I like Gary`s idea of making all blood powers variable in strength, but I
think the overhead of his method is a little high.

Honestly, even given all the silly problems of the original rulebook`s
random tables, I don`t see that any of the options in the draft are
actually superior to it.

I think my personal choice for the method I`ll be using IMC is a
combination of things Kenneth and Starfox have said which aren`t in "the
proposals ™" -- the DM assigns the blood scores he wants you to have,
and then you pick blood abilities based on your assigned score. The end.

If I have to vote for one of the options presented, I choose B. However,
given that all abilities in that system have to be bought with XP anyway,
I just don`t see the need to have XP-penalizing templates also. Even if
the templates are kept, too, the ECL ought to be based on the bloodline
*score* (which determines access to blood abilities), not the bloodline
strength class.

I think part of the problem is that, whether or not there is a fair way to
balance scions vs. non-scions in terms of spell-or-feat-like blood
abilities, there just isn`t any fair way to balance *regents* vs.
non-regents -- that level of resources to command is just much too big to
represent sensibly on the adventure scale. Trying to balance realm and
character against each other means you end up with a party of 20th-level
commoners and Rogr Aglondier, which doesn`t play well at all. Therefore,
since domains can be balanced against each other, and adventurers can be
balanced against each other, but domains can`t really be balanced against
adventurers without producing results too lopsided to play, we should just
give up on that point. Scions should not be penalized for their ability
to become regents, because regency blows apart attempts at character power
balance. Rather, if scions must be penalized, it should be only for the
exact amount of adventure-scale power their blood abilities provide. Any
domain rulership basically needs to be handled entirely separately.


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.

[Mark_Aurel]

I think part of the problem is that, whether or not there is a fair way to
balance scions vs. non-scions in terms of spell-or-feat-like blood
abilities, there just isn`t any fair way to balance *regents* vs.
non-regents -- that level of resources to command is just much too big to
represent sensibly on the adventure scale. Trying to balance realm and
character against each other means you end up with a party of 20th-level
commoners and Rogr Aglondier, which doesn`t play well at all. Therefore,
since domains can be balanced against each other, and adventurers can be
balanced against each other, but domains can`t really be balanced against
adventurers without producing results too lopsided to play, we should just
give up on that point. Scions should not be penalized for their ability
to become regents, because regency blows apart attempts at character power
balance. Rather, if scions must be penalized, it should be only for the
exact amount of adventure-scale power their blood abilities provide. Any
domain rulership basically needs to be handled entirely separately.

I agree. The only thing that really requires balancing on a character scale is the blood abilities. The ability to rule a domain falls into the social aspects of the game, generally speaking - and those aren't part of character balancing per se, with a couple of exceptions. You don't penalize a character in terms of mechanics for obtaining role-playing benefits any more than you grant mechanic bonuses for role-playing penalties. The main thing to remember is that if a regent uses the resources at his disposal liberally in his adventuring career, he's likely to face less actual challenges, and thus probably wind up advancing slower. On the other hand, it's a foolish or metagaming regent who rides out of his castle bereft of bodyguards in order to rack up XPs by slaying monsters. In a way, this dynamic can be used to slow down advancement in BR by quite a bit, even if you play D&D by the book.

Of course, I think I would penalize the type of player who grossly abuses his domain somehow for character benefit - like starting with a domain, and then liquidating it for cash, or simply running away with the treasury. Such a player would probably be subject to more burglars than most.

In terms of game mechanic balancing, though, the only aspect of scions that should need to be balanced out are the blood abilities. This can be done in a variety of ways; finding the best way to do so is what we're really after here.

[DanMcSorley]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
> Honestly, even given all the silly problems of the original rulebook`s
> random tables, I don`t see that any of the options in the draft are
> actually superior to it.

Indeed. The basis of the system is that bloodline is used to rule a
domain, and correllates to RP income on a 1-to-1 basis. This should not
be changed.

The blood abilities are not effective on a domain level, nor should they
be. They work on the adventuring level, and that`s where the balance
needs to be. There are effectively two levels of game going on.

> If I have to vote for one of the options presented, I choose B. However,
> given that all abilities in that system have to be bought with XP anyway,
> I just don`t see the need to have XP-penalizing templates also. Even if
> the templates are kept, too, the ECL ought to be based on the bloodline
> *score* (which determines access to blood abilities), not the bloodline
> strength class.

The ECL should be based on the score/blood abilities, yes.

> I think part of the problem is that, whether or not there is a fair way to
> balance scions vs. non-scions in terms of spell-or-feat-like blood
> abilities, there just isn`t any fair way to balance *regents* vs.
> non-regents

There doesn`t need to be. Balance applies at the adventurer level.
Balancing a regent versus an adventurer is like trying to balance the
spellcasting of a wizard versus the spellcasting of a fighter- it just
doesn`t apply. Luckily, all the proposals seem to attempt to do the right
thing, which is to balance an adventuring scion with blood abilities
versus an adventuring non-scion. They all agree with you here, so what
is your complaint exactly?
--
Daniel McSorley

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

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Daniel McSorley wrote:

> Indeed. The basis of the system is that bloodline is used to rule a
> domain, and correllates to RP income on a 1-to-1 basis. This should
> not be changed.

Absolutely!

> The blood abilities are not effective on a domain level, nor should
> they be.

I agree they mostly aren`t (Battlewise is a counterexample), but I`m not
convinced they shouldn`t be -- if for no other reason than I play almost
only on the domain level, and would like the "flavor" of blood abilities
there, too.

> There are effectively two levels of game going on.

There certainly can be, but some of us here favor one or the other almost
to exclusivity.

> Luckily, all the proposals seem to attempt to do the right thing,
> which is to balance an adventuring scion with blood abilities versus
> an adventuring non-scion. They all agree with you here, so what is
> your complaint exactly?

This has to do with, among other things, "Option B"`s decision to charge
XP for blood abilities, and then on top of that charge ECL for just being
a scion irrespective of blood abilities. This charging scions just for
being scions looks to me like an attempt to account for the other thing
scions can do besides blood abilities (namely regency), which seems wrong.


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.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark_Aurel" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 11:44 AM


> there just isn`t any fair way to balance *regents* vs. non-regents

I think the way to properly balance rulers and non-rulers is to apply the
heavy crown principle. Realms should be a serious responsibility, demanding
two-thirds of a rulers time, at a mnimum. Realms should come with natural
rivals and threats, ready from the start to pose a danger. Realms have
those great resources because the social order has agreed to make that
particular kind of ruler (be he ruler of market, temple, court, or fortress)
because of a social need. Rulers must meet these needs, mostly in the form
of providing protection, or lose their realms. A realm is the classic
example of the gilded cage. The suggestion that being a ruler should come
with aging effects strikes me as about right.

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.

[Eosin the Red]

MIDNIGHT has a problem similar to BR - Low magic world; balance versus
Standard D&D.

Player are assumed to have Heoric Paths (a set of special powers - different
but in the same vein as Blood Powers). The designers limited these powers to
Player Characters. No ECL or template applied. The rational they used was
that in order to keep the players balanced against traditional source books
the players needed something extra. The additional powers merely off-set the
low magic nature of the world. They considered it a wash. No need for any
fancy foot work.

Personally, this harmonizes with my own thoughts on Birthright.

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

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by kgauck

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark_Aurel" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 11:44 AM


> there just isn`t any fair way to balance *regents* vs. non-regents

I think the way to properly balance rulers and non-rulers is to apply the
heavy crown principle. Realms should be a serious responsibility, demanding
two-thirds of a rulers time, at a mnimum. Realms should come with natural
rivals and threats, ready from the start to pose a danger. Realms have
those great resources because the social order has agreed to make that
particular kind of ruler (be he ruler of market, temple, court, or fortress)
because of a social need. Rulers must meet these needs, mostly in the form
of providing protection, or lose their realms. A realm is the classic
example of the gilded cage. The suggestion that being a ruler should come
with aging effects strikes me as about right.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

I think the way that Mark_Aurel had expressed it earlier is probably best. Character level is a measure of power, not just learning. Learning will by default grant more power but a character can be very powerful without "learning" much of anything. I think this is were you've confused me with the reference to suggestions that being a ruler should come from aging has me confused. I don't believe that I've seen a proposal that being a ruler comes with aging (not directly at least). I'm assuming that this was in relation to the scion class levels discussions.