Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    d20 opens up the possibility of escaping D&D altogether, and exploring for
    ourselves the numerous possibilities open for Birthright, both from our own
    innovation and from that of the entire d20 communitiy. Not only does this
    mean making new classes, races, feats, spells, etc., but also the potential
    for exploring all new options such as different magic systems, combat
    options, advancement rules, challenge rating systems, poison/desease rules,
    and things that aren`t in D&D such as customized abilities, background
    rules, class/heritage/caste rules, and of course the exclusive BR-related
    aspects of bloodlines and domain rules.
    You probably know the frame of reference my initial comments came from - the BRCS is basically a D&D-compatible book, with particular modifications to suit BR. On a personal level, I might want to take certain things a bit further. That said, to keep things honest and workable, it should all work within the existing rules - if, for nothing else, for a common baseline.

    For that matter, I might be reading more into your "escape from D&D" line than I should, but I personally don't see a compelling reason to do so. Even 2e Birthright used the typical D&D assumptions - you advance in levels, and you have hit points, and spells are Vancian. The game is basically what you make of it, and replacing one abstraction for another doesn't help much unless it is one that is generally easier to use (as 3e streamlined mechanics dramatically). Further, you can do quite a lot within the existing D&D framework without having to change mechanics or descriptive devices substantially. You can introduce a lot of new elements and still call it D&D - Oriental Adventures is still D&D, yet it has different classes, lots of new Prestige Classes, feats, spells, equipment, spell lists, monsters, and so on - all of which are modular add-ons to the existing rules system, but changes the flavor of the game substantially. To "go d20," you'd need to redefine certain subsystems of the game, like having a different hit point system, redefining the magic system, change the combat rules, and so on. You can argue that to your interpretation of BR, that would be appropriate, and I'd understand completely - however, someone else might have a completely different interpretation or simply not care, and then that'd have to be considered too.

    One of my favorite golden rules for game design has always been to use the existing rules as they are to the fullest extent possible, only inventing new rules when absolutely necessary - not to invent rules for their own sake.

    One thing that has been discussed has been the adding of more variant rules to the final version of the BRCS. If there's any particular ideas, though not too extensive (no 20 page essays on a "realistic" Rolemaster-style hp system, for instance), I'm sure something might be crammed in or considered.
    Jan E. Juvstad.

  2. #12
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Mark_Aurel@Aug 9 2003, 06:41 AM
    One thing that has been discussed has been the adding of more variant rules to the final version of the BRCS. If there's any particular ideas, though not too extensive (no 20 page essays on a "realistic" Rolemaster-style hp system, for instance), I'm sure something might be crammed in or considered.
    Jan is absolutely on target with this one. Variants are generally a good idea and help give GMs more options to draw from, but a whole book's worth would be unweildy.

    Mainboard,

    I think I understand your point. What I get out of it is that your group is basically going to continue to play 2nd ed Birthright, but they just want a "better" domain system to use than the original one.

    Now this is a very viable course of action and I know that there are a lot of others out there who, for one reason or another, don't wish to embrace 3rd/3.5 into their Birthright campaigns. Pretty much any domain rules can be overlayed on to a 2nd ed system. The real issue would be to try to incorporate the DC and skill concepts, since they really weren't as clearly defined in 2nd ed. Skills did not have ranks which is a big advantage IMO for 3rd/3.5 D&D.

    Unfortunately this project was designed to bring Birthright into 3rd/3.5 ed D&D. Which by its very nature changes the way things need to be looked at. Options and player's choices are at the heart of the new D&D. This colors everything that is done. So this project will never be exactly what you want, although I think that you will find something in it you can use for your campaign and that is the best that can be hoped for with any project.

    Keep plugging away and good gaming.
    Duane Eggert

  3. #13
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    9
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by irdeggman@Aug 9 2003, 08:28 AM
    Unfortunately this project was designed to bring Birthright into 3rd/3.5 ed D&D. Which by its very nature changes the way things need to be looked at. Options and player's choices are at the heart of the new D&D. This colors everything that is done. So this project will never be exactly what you want, although I think that you will find something in it you can use for your campaign and that is the best that can be hoped for with any project.
    Ok, there is my problem in the nutshell. Why must you stay with "traditional" 3e ways of doing things? I think that will hinder BR far more than making birthright.... Birthright. One point to bring up, how many "Standard" and "By the Book" d20 settings are selling well vs ones that have been modified and altered in a direction COMPLETELY different then what d20 was supposed to do? I can only think of 2, Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms, even then Greyhawk is not doing so well. FR is getting a boost in popularity right now because of Neverwinter Nights. Besides those examples, the rest have some type of altered system that does not follow the "standard" way of doing things, some change the whole system (think M&M)! So please do not use "we need to make it 3e" as an excuse.

    On a side note, who CARES if WotC gives you the "permission" to do this or that? You will not see an increase in your fan base sticking with the "traditional" methods, there is WAY too much competition for that. You are going to have to create something that is going to blow people way, and this is not it (with revisions or not), no offense. I'm sure you have worked very hard on the birthright project, and no one would want to start all over. But I think the direction that it's going will do nothing more than make BR just another d20 system, like it is right now.

    Many people that I know WANT something similar to what they played in 2nd edition. Last night I asked a few people outside my group about what if bloodline strengths and scores were done in a traditional sense similar to the second edition style. But, what if you had to pay for the abilities using experience points? And the only way of buying blood abilities was to find a priest with the "Investiture" feat? They were hesitant at first but the idea caught on and was well received. If you could keep it THAT simple then, I believe, it will do fantastically.

    One last thing, the projects goal should be to make BR compatible with 3e without having to reinvent the core mechanic "a.k.a. bloodlines" and make everything d20. The main problem that birthright HAS HAD the WHOLE time is the domains and strategic battles! They are the main thing that should be worked on, because it IS broken! Except for converting the races and blood abilities (only) to be compatible in 3e, I don't understand why you have to change and power down the ONLY things that ACTUALLY WORKED WELL in the whole system! Geeze you don't "bring" BR to 3e and make something that does not feel nor play like BR, you make 3e work with BR and the naysayers be damned.


    P.S. If WotC pulls your license, demands that you stop working on BR, and/or forces you to surrender all the material that you have come up with so far to them because it's getting way to popular and they want to publish it....

    Isn't that the point?
    "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die."
    -Roy Batty, Blade Runner

  4. #14
    Junior Member void's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    16
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.

    Mainboard,
    You should be slightly more concerned for the interests of Wizards of the Coast. Birthright a registered trademark of Wotc, as is all the setting material. Should we switch to a d20 system they dont like, or a non d20 system, and they revoked their permission, Birthright would have to be renamed, and the setting created entirely anew. Each domain, the history of the world, everything. As the creators of this awesome campaign setting, they have a right to a modicom of control over their intellectual property.

  5. #15
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    9
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by void@Aug 9 2003, 11:03 AM
    Mainboard,
    You should be slightly more concerned for the interests of Wizards of the Coast. Birthright a registered trademark of Wotc, as is all the setting material. Should we switch to a d20 system they dont like, or a non d20 system, and they revoked their permission, Birthright would have to be renamed, and the setting created entirely anew. Each domain, the history of the world, everything. As the creators of this awesome campaign setting, they have a right to a modicom of control over their intellectual property.
    I am not suggesting going to a non d20 product. I am interested in RETURNING to what made birthright, Birthright. BR is its own world and rules, thats why its not called Cerilia: a Forgotten Realms Expansion. The Bloodlines and how they work are unique to BR, changing this for no other reason then to make them more compatible with 3e rules ruins the feel and overall tone of the setting (The same goes for the Races). The FR system is different from GreyHawk's system and both are VASTLY different from Dragonlance and how it deals with the rules. Each setting does things differently from the others, thats what makes them unique. I feel that powering down BR is a crime and that the project is fighting a needless uphill battle. To return and build on the foundation that is already made, just makes sense.

    BTW on the issue of WotC and their control, my suggestion is to USE what is already there in the original books and convert bloodlines and races to KEEP what is there. You can EXPAND on this but its a really bad idea to 3e/3.5 or d20 it to death. Bloodlines were OUTSIDE the normal rules framework, they had no levels/kits/s&p/attributes in 2nd edition. It does not matter how well things "fit" into prestige classes or feats because its Birthright and it should NOT be adapted to fit rules, instead it should be the other way around. In the end how could they NOT approve a setting that CHALLANGES what players think of 3e AND gives them a better "upgrade" on the game they love?

    And pardon me for saying this void (and I am not trying to be harsh) but, I am more interested in BR being fun and true to its roots than "correct" for 3.0 or 3.5.
    "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die."
    -Roy Batty, Blade Runner

  6. #16
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I am not suggesting going to a non d20 product. I am interested in RETURNING to what made birthright, Birthright. BR is its own world and rules, thats why its not called Cerilia: a Forgotten Realms Expansion. The Bloodlines and how they work are unique to BR, changing this for no other reason then to make them more compatible with 3e rules ruins the feel and overall tone of the setting (The same goes for the Races). The FR system is different from GreyHawk's system and both are VASTLY different from Dragonlance and how it deals with the rules. Each setting does things differently from the others, thats what makes them unique. I feel that powering down BR is a crime and that the project is fighting a needless uphill battle. To return and build on the foundation that is already made, just makes sense.
    So if I were to use Storyteller rules (you know, Vampire, Mage, etc) or maybe Runequest in Cerilia, I would still have to use the bloodline rules literally as written in the 2e BR Rulebook to retain the *flavor* of Cerilia? That doesn't make sense at all - essentially, you're making the basic flaw of confusing the game mechanics in the original materials for flavor material, rather than looking at the flavor material itself and how to implement that in a different rules system. 3e is a different system from 2e and has certain standards for how things are done that 2e didn't have - there's the concept of "character level," for instance - a given character of a certain level is supposed to be around a certain level of power; anything else would make levels meaningless. Thus, characters with power beyond what their experience indicates (like scions) are given extra 'effective levels' (ECLs) to show their true level of power. That's just one example.

    Now, how different mechanically was BR from those other settings you mention in 2e?


    And pardon me for saying this void (and I am not trying to be harsh) but, I am more interested in BR being fun and true to its roots than "correct" for 3.0 or 3.5.
    Okay - let's go to the root of some of the system discussion here. Any roleplaying system attempts to mechanically emulate a more complex reality. Let's put forth some basic theories here:
    1. No roleplaying system is absolutely perfect for every purpose, regardless of complexity.
    2. All roleplaying systems can theorethically be used to mimic anything - however, the level of functionality will be different.
    3. What we have here is two components:
    3-1: The world of Cerilia.
    3-2: The 3e rules.
    4. The purpose of the BRCS is to combine 3-1 and 3-2, *not* to make up an entirely new system, simply convert the 2e Rulebook, or simply put the 2e Rulebook out using different words.

    Thus, there's a limited mandate for what the rules we write and publish as the official 3e BR rules. I know there's a fair share of dissatisfied people, and there's a share of overall satisfied people, and there's a share of people who don't care. The people who don't care is probably the largest group by far, while the dissatisfied group is the most vocal. From what I've seen, it consists mainly of people who do things their own way anyway, which is fine, there are those that just complain as a general principle, and there are those that go on a crusade to get something changed, and there are a few who seem to really want to write it themselves.

    Now, in seeking feedback, there are several useful forms. There's generic design-level feedback, about which way to proceed in general, and what the consensus is on a few specific issues. Then there's feedback that's more immediately useful on a practical level, and which I tend to consider more as actual 'feedback' to what has been made, not just a discussion around it - and that's the type of feedback that goes into written mechanic specifics, adherence to certain rules, rules contradictions, and so on. In all cases, though, I think the given feedback should be grounded in a certain level of understanding of how the rules work - both 2e and 3e and/or other systems or games in general. Feedback on a rulebook from people who don't quite understand the rules isn't very helpful.

    Anyway, that was a tangential little rant.

    Bloodlines were OUTSIDE the normal rules framework, they had no levels/kits/s&p/attributes in 2nd edition. It does not matter how well things "fit" into prestige classes or feats because its Birthright and it should NOT be adapted to fit rules, instead it should be the other way around. In the end how could they NOT approve a setting that CHALLANGES what players think of 3e AND gives them a better "upgrade" on the game they love?
    The thing is, there was no general "rules framework" for previous editions of D&D - it was a patchwork of subsystems that worked fairly independently and differently from each other - initiative was rolled one way, saving throws another, wrestling was handled different than regular melee combat, not to mention proficiencies - in that game, when you wanted something new, you invented a new subsystem. All the 2e rulebooks are full of it, more or less - the bloodline system was no exception to this - saying it was a different type of add-on system ignores the simple fact that there was no form of standardized method for creating add-on systems in 2e. 3e, by contrast, has several different standards that allow players to customize characters more than they could in 2e - but in a standardized fashion. It only makes sense that bloodlines are implemented in the way 3e does pretty much everything of the kind - with ECLs and templates or levels, not as a straight add-on. There's no point in trying to invent a new subsystem of rules for 3e when the existing subsystems will work perfectly well, with minor modifications.

    Finally, define what would "CHALLANGE" what players think of 3e, and what a "better" "upgrade" means to you a bit better. I suspect I know the answer, but I could be wrong.
    Jan E. Juvstad.

  7. #17
    Birthright Developer Raesene Andu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    1,357
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by void@Aug 10 2003, 02:33 AM
    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.
    Elven regents do have special rules for investiture. They do not require a priest regent to cast an investiture spell and may simply choose to crown a successor, designate an heir, etc. Elven regents involved in the investiture are required to spend an action, but success is automatic unless the transfer in against the will of one of the regents, in which case it follows the normal rules for divestiture (but does not require a priest to perform the ceremony).

    Elves have a much closer relationship with the land and are able to mystically tranfer regency while other races must use regent priests to perform a ceremony of investiture to initiate the transfer or regency from one regent to another.

    Hope that clears things up a litte for you.
    Let me claim your Birthright!!

  8. #18
    Birthright Developer Raesene Andu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    1,357
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Mainboard@Aug 10 2003, 05:43 AM
    BTW on the issue of WotC and their control, my suggestion is to USE what is already there in the original books and convert bloodlines and races to KEEP what is there. You can EXPAND on this but its a really bad idea to 3e/3.5 or d20 it to death. Bloodlines were OUTSIDE the normal rules framework, they had no levels/kits/s&p/attributes in 2nd edition. It does not matter how well things "fit" into prestige classes or feats because its Birthright and it should NOT be adapted to fit rules, instead it should be the other way around. In the end how could they NOT approve a setting that CHALLANGES what players think of 3e AND gives them a better "upgrade" on the game they love?
    On the Issue of WotC and their control, I'd have to ask "what control exactly are we talking about?" To the best of my knowledge WotC has exercised absolutely no control over the content of material released by Birthright.net, apart from setting down guidelines about not asking for money for the material we create and release, and ensuring that this material is only available from Birthright.net (as the official Birthright webpage). Arjan can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but for the entire time I've been involved with this project not one single person on the payroll of WotC has exercised any creative control over what the BR developers have been writing. The only people who have done that have been the BR developers themselves.

    Personally, I think that WotC doesn't really care that much what sort of material we create as long as no one is making any money from it. So we have freedom to pretty much create what we want, write what we want, and so on. Now, of course, you have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise nothing ever gets done, but there is no reason why the BR rules cannot be kept seperate the 3/3.5 rules, especially the bloodline, domain, and war rules. I have to agree with Mainboard here, the original bloodline/domain rules were always outside the normal rules framework, with only the races and classes as part of the 2E rules system.

    However, before we all say great, let's do that, look at the main reason that this was changed, and that is the issue of game balance. A great scion with several blood abilities is obviously more powerful than a commoner with none. In 2E, that difference was handled with an XP bonus, which does not work as well in 3E, so an ECL system was used, giving major scions +1 ECL, great scions +2 ECL, and true scions +3 ECL. Does that work? That appears to be the point we are debating at the moment.

    If we were only talking about simply the bloodline strength, not the blood abilities that go with it, then we wouldn't be having this debate, things would have stayed as they were. But the power of a scion's blood abilities do make them more powerful than standard characters, and under the old random system of bloodline generation you often had the case of one player rolling well and ending up with a much more powerful bloodline than the other players. It happened in my first campaign, and I imagine most people who have DMed Birthright campaigns will have encountered this situation. Now personally I just dealt with the problem by making the more powerful bloodline more attractive to blood hunters out to steal a scions bloodline and as a result the character with the powerful bloodline always seemd to be the first attacked when the party encountered someone intent on a little bloodtheft. This worked well IMO, but it is only a roleplaying solution, not a rules one and 3E seems to NEED a rule solution to everything, hence the ECL for blooded scions. 3E does really suit a certain sort of player/DM, but this probably isn't the place to get into my pet peeves over the 3E rules.

    Does the ECL solution work? Personally, I think it doesn't do a bad job. Obviously there are some tinkering that could be done to improve things, which is the reason that the whole playtest document was released when it was, to give everyone a chance to look at the rules and make comments about what they think should be changed. The bloodline system is one part of the BRCS that has caused the most comments, and probably rightly so, as it underwent the most changes. It is also the chapter likely to undergo the most changes in the 2nd release of the rules.
    Let me claim your Birthright!!

  9. #19
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    nk there`s a mistaken impression here in that making

    the BRCS fit into the D&D 3e rules is the goal of the conversion

    process. At the very least, the BRCS project says "Birthright D20" on the

    cover, not "Dungeons & Dragons 3e -- Birthright Edition." I keep saying

    that 3e is designed and developed to support the core settings FR and GH,

    which seems to upset people, but this is exactly the reason why I keep

    pointing it out. 3e is not particularly apt to describe the themes and

    ideas for BR. A more D20 approach would be much more productive and true

    to Birthright. The strong parts of the BRCS are IMO the ones that differ

    the most strongly from 3e into a more D20 system.



    What`s worse is that it appears the "D&D 3e -- BR Edition" thinking is

    being embraced so strongly that some very detailed and even some rather

    Kabbalistic interpretations of that system of rules are being used to

    justify some of what gets included in the BRCS. A few months ago I said

    that the more things look like 3e the less they will look like Birthright,

    and I think this is a good example of how that statement is correct.



    Gary

  10. #20
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    Well, I might have not had as much of a Birthright experience in my life as I have other games, but I have to agree with Mark Aurel that the idea of making the game 3e/3.5 is the thing to lead on right now...

    The idea of playing the game in a whole new d20 level incorporates within itself a whole new bundle of trouble. For example, what is it that makes hit points the way they work? Are critical hits going to remain the same?

    When you walk on the other side of the matter at hand, you will have to reconsider everything under a new light. For example, both real life and the wonderful novel "The Falcon and the Wolf" present us with an issue: wounds bleed, and critical wounds kill you. According to this reasoning, any wound could make you lose 1 additional and cumulative hit point per round due to blood loss for every 5 hit points of damage. That means that a hit that deals 13 hit points of damage makes you lose another 2 hit points every round until you are healed. Also, critical would be a lot different, maybe like the ones presented in ICE's Middle Earth (talk about hard criticals)!

    The point is that you should think that the game was D&D, even if it was introduced as AD&D. For your information, and truly a funny point, take Ursula le Guin's (sorry if spelled wrong) Earth-sea series and try to transfer it in any d20/D&D system... Birthright, however strange that may sound, seems to be the best to build such a campaign on! There is no issue if it should be made a new d20 thingy unless you are glad and ready to work from the start (all the way to the beginning&#33 and change mostly everything! It's bad form to say that it was a novel transfered for the AD&D 2nd Edition, and then go on and say it was just transfered, only to rant that it should be more 2e like! You just ruin your own argument, right then and there!

    ECLs and extra XPs: You mean you are glad to give more XP? Boy, would I like to be in your game sessions? :lol: ! As if the new rules didn't make advancement easy (only 190.000 XP to reach 20th level for all classes), you also give them extra XP?!? Not to mention that adding a template never lowers your actual level, only gives you more effective levels (that can hurt a lot too, but not that much, you know)!

    Racial Advantages and Overal Power: I can understand you people want the power (sounds like He-Man, doesn't it? :lol: ), but I am not sure if most players would appreciate a full ECL 1, even if this means making the races even cooler than they already are... Seriously now, I can still remember one of my friends (who never heard of Birthright until recently by me) and who just loves elves and halflings; well, I basically mentioned how the two really were interpreted in 3e (leaving out the 2e equivalents) and he was almost drooling!

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.