Results 21 to 24 of 24
Thread: My 5 Month Birthright Playtest
-
08-11-2003, 02:24 PM #21
-0600, Lord Rahvin wrote:
>In fact, we could even retroactively remove all the rules of D&D and their
>implications, leaving only those that truly add to a Birthright
>flavor. It was published as a AD&D setting, but it wasn`t originally
>AD&D, it was a novel by Rich Baker. It was adapted to AD&D, and not it`s
>being adapted to D&D, and it`s a great setting with a great
>story. There`s no reason we can`t remove the D&D elements altogether and
>play it under a different system that better captures Birthright`s flavor,
>or create a new system altogether with Birthright as our primary inspiration.
I just wanted to chime in to say that in addition to making some very good
points, the post in which the above quote is from was also very well
written. This is email (or a message board) and as such those things
aren`t usually big considerations or something that folks should worry
overmuch about. It was, however, a pleasure to read something so well
articulated. Kudos.
Gary
-
08-11-2003, 03:45 PM #22
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Originally posted by void@Aug 9 2003, 12:03 PM
On the topic of domain action changes, i think investiture needs to be changed so it doesn't require a priest. Since elves don't have any priests, it is kind of hard for elven realms to expand. My elven regent is trying to reclaim the elven lands of old, and is currently using a dwarven priest to invest conquered realms. I think there should at least be an option for elven wizards to invest.
Duane Eggert
-
08-31-2003, 04:44 PM #23
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
I haven't played D&D in many years now, but I still enjoy reading the novels, and keeping up with the rules. When I skimmed the magic item creation rules in 3rd edition DMG, I was hooked, and bought all the books, even though I don't play. I remember in 1st and 2nd edition rules the guidlines for creating a +1 flaming sword were like, "Requires the lower left incisor of an adult red dragon, and one and half pints of moonbeam juice." Which didn't tie into the rules at all. Mark Aurel had a very good point in the Mainboard's playtesting thread: 2ed was a set of cohabiting but fundamentally different subsystems. The new system, where the cost of a magic weapon is its bonus squared times 2,000 gp, and the cost to create is 1/2 the market value in materials, and 1/25th the market value in XP is brilliant.
None of the bloodline rules that I read "clicked" for me the way the magic creation rules did. But I think this is because the Birthright campaign violates some of the assumptions of the core 3e rules. Please allow me to explain.
First, I sincerely hope I'm not offending anyone. I love the world of Birthright, and am very impressed with the quality and quantity of material produced by the Birthright fanbase. But after looking at the new 3.5 edition of the rules, it is clear that the D&D world is being driven more towards exact accounting identities and away from the vaguer but more heroic worldview of the earlier editions. It is very difficult for me to imagine that WOTC will allow Birthright to be reintegrated into core without having to chop off some of what makes Birthright distinctive. Now, on to the core of my argument.
Scions are essentially living artifacts. This is why creating rules for bloodline strength is so difficult. Folding the power of artifacts into a system designed to make all characters equal is like trying to square the circle. Two of the axioms of D&D game design are:
All characters are created equal.
Power is the result of successfully overcoming obstacles.
Yes, of course there are exceptions, with the random generation of ability scores being the most notable. But more broadly, a great deal of effort has gone into insuring that that all characters, and all classes, are created equal. The D&D rules are an interesting mixture of democratic and aristocratic tendencies. Much effort is expended keeping the core and prestige classes in balance with each other, but no one really cares that a 5th level mage with Craft Magic Arms and Armor blows away a 5th level commoner with Craft Farm Implements in terms of power and wealth.
So, adventurers as a class are superior to non-adventurers as a class, but within the class of adventurers, strict equality rules. This is because all players are adventurers. Also, in terms of progession, HPs, base attack bonuses, skills and saves are heroicially oriented--tied to the accomplishments of the character. But the rules are very wary of inherent ability bonuses, prefering the technical (ie magical) over the inherent. For example, a Tome of Clear Thought +2 costs 55,000 gp, but a headband of Intellect +2 costs only 4,000. Similarly, artifacts are placed "beyond the rules" in the senses that characters cannot create them, and they cannot be discovered randomly.
"Artifacts are very powerful. Rather than magic equipment, they are the sorts of legendary relics that whole campaigns can be based around. Each could be the center of a whole series of adventures--a quest to recover it, a fight against an opponent wilding it, a mission to cause its destruction, and so on.
"No table has been included for you to randomly generate specific artifacts, since these items should only enter a campaign through deliberate choice on your part."
DMG 3.0 pg. 236
True and Great bloodlines seem to me to precisely fit the description of artifacts described above. Is it even theoretically possible to incorporate the Birthright worldview into strict 3e rules? Maybe True and Great bloodlines should be barred from use by player characters? Maybe no characters should be allowed Great or True bloodlines at creation, but only achieve them through repeated heroic efforts. But that would contradict the fact that bloodlines are inherited.
Or maybe Birthright campaigns should be Regent-only or non-Regent only affairs. That would solve the game balance issues by redefining the reference set, like the distinction between adventurers and commoners embedded in the core rules.
What do the rest of you think?
-
08-31-2003, 10:11 PM #24
- Join Date
- Dec 2002
- Location
- Malden, MA
- Posts
- 761
- Downloads
- 2
- Uploads
- 0
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, QuestingMage wrote:
You`ve made two nearly identical posts, and I read the mailing list, so
I`ll respond only to the first one.
> I think this is because the Birthright campaign violates some of the
> assumptions of the core 3e rules.
You`re not alone in that opinion. The general feeling on the natural
consequence of that is that core 3e cannot be used to model Birthright
very well without significant changes to at least one of them. The big
arguments are over which specific bits of what to change.
> It is very difficult for me to imagine that WOTC will allow Birthright
> to be reintegrated into core without having to chop off some of what
> makes Birthright distinctive.
Then we should be happy not to try to reintegrate it, as I want nothing
distinctive chopped off! Of course, then there are arguments over what
exactly is disctinctive, and what constitutes chopping it off...
> Scions are essentially living artifacts. This is why creating rules
> for bloodline strength is so difficult.
I don`t see it that way at all. Scions do have some inherent magical
powers, but detect lie or cure light wounds once per day, even teleport
once per week, is on the level of a fairly minor magic item, not an
artifact. Only the Gorgon and his fellow True Azrai awnsheghlien, with
multiple great blood abilities each, have anywhere near artifact level
power, and even then I don`t think most of them get that far. Most scions
get only a few minor magic items. Sure, they don`t take up a space and
can`t be removed, so in some ways they`re like a sorcerer level, but they
generally don`t ever *improve* with level like a real sorcerer would.
Yes, a 1st-level character with a handful of blood abilities is often a
level or two more powerful than a 1st-level character with no blood
abilities. However, a 10th-level character with that same handful of
blood abilities is generally *not* a whole level more powerful than a
10th-level character with no blood abilities; a few minor differences in
treasure collected could easily equalize things or even reverse them. In
view of this, I would recommend a level adjustment that started big but
slowly died away -- perhaps something like "a scion with X number of blood
abilities is always considered at least a 4th level character for purposes
of determining experience earned."
> All characters are created equal.
That may be the goal, but it sure isn`t the result. 3e may have tried
harder to be balanced than previous editions did, but it did not achieve
anywhere near complete success.
> Power is the result of successfully overcoming obstacles.
Which is fundamentally opposed to the entire Birthright core concept of
literal Divine Right of Kings. Therefore, to model BR properly, this
aspect of 3e, if it really exists, simply must be abandoned.
> but no one really cares that a 5th level mage with Craft Magic
> Arms and Armor blows away a 5th level commoner with Craft Farm
> Implements in terms of power and wealth.
I care. I think it illustrates a fundamental flaw in the design concept,
or at least the way said concept is often described. As long as this is
true, level simply cannot mean anywhere near an actual equality of power.
It must mean something much more like an equality of expenditure of effort
in learning to reach that point, which is what I always thought the name
"experience points" was meant to convey (but apparently is no longer what
D20 means by XP, since it wants you to *spend* them to conduct research).
Whatever 3e may claim about balance, it will never really be balanced
until a Commoner 5 is exactly the same power as a Wizard 5 -- which seems
not only impossible, but also not really worth all that much effort. In
some ways, the existence and design of the NPC classes is an admission
that this goal can never actually be reached. I would not get so worked
up about this issue if so many proponents of 3e didn`t spend so very much
time hyping the nonexistent balance of the new system. Don`t get me wrong
-- I like 3e a lot. I think it`s a great game. It`s just nowhere near
actually balanced, despite frequent claims to the contrary.
> So, adventurers as a class are superior to non-adventurers as a class,
> but within the class of adventurers, strict equality rules.
No it doesn`t. So they claim, but no it doesn`t. Even if it does hold in
certain very narrowly-defined circumstances (the stereotypical dungeon
crawl) -- though I am not convinced even of this -- any significant change
from those default circumstances totally ruins any balance which may have
existed. Case in point: a perfectly sensible Birthright campaign may very
well consist of *nothing* but court intrigue. Fighters are almost
entirely useless in such a setting, where Rogues and Bards rule the roost.
> "Artifacts are very powerful. Rather than magic equipment, they are
> the sorts of legendary relics that whole campaigns can be based around."
Blood abilities are often very weak. Most of them, as magic items, would
cost less than 10,000 gp. Even the most powerful is equivalent to a Ring
of Regeneration (Caster level 15; 90,000 gp), a Bowl of Commanding Water
Elementals (Caster level 13; 100,000 gp), or similar big-ticket but very
much *non-artifact* items. They are also quite common. According to the
Birthright rulebook, one person in a hundred is blooded, and such people
"usually" have blood abilities. That makes them immensely more common
than wizards, and thus possibly more common than normal DMG magic items!
> "Each could be the center of a whole series of adventures--a quest to
> recover it, a fight against an opponent wilding it, a mission to cause
> its destruction, and so on."
But in Cerilia, scions are everywhere. There are certainly tens of
thousands, maybe even a million of them. Some of them rule great
kingdoms, but some of them are nothing more than minor functionaries of
middle-class businessmen, or prosperous farmers, or even poor, homeless
wanderers ekeing out a meagre existence in the forest. Practially *every*
minor nobleman ought to have some bloodline by now. Artifact is
completely the wrong analogy for the vast majority of blooded scions.
> True and Great bloodlines seem to me to precisely fit the description
> of artifacts described above.
True, perhaps. Great, not really. Yes, there aren`t many, but the
child of a bastard of a bastard of Darien Avan`s great-grandfather would
have a great bloodline (though possibly of strength only 9, but in the
rules this is a possible result for a great bloodline!), and very well
might have no idea.
> Is it even theoretically possible to incorporate the Birthright
> worldview into strict 3e rules?
If not, then I think it is 3e which must be changed, not Birthright, when
the two are combined. To do otherwise means the result isn`t really
Birthright anymore -- and as some of the other settings have shown, D20
can be twisted and turned in all sorts of ways yet remain "official"!
> Or maybe Birthright campaigns should be Regent-only or non-Regent only
> affairs. That would solve the game balance issues by redefining the
> reference set,
Well, those are two of the campaign styles suggested in the rules, but not
the only ones. In the ones which mix the two, you basically have to have
a party where people are content with the fact that only one of them is
king, and there is really nothing which can ever be done to truly balance
that. For some people, that`s great, for others it`s not -- but no rule
can be written which would make it work out any easier for anyone.
Ryan Caveney
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks