Results 21 to 30 of 202
Thread: Variant Rules For The Brcs
-
08-25-2003, 09:58 AM #21
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 24 2003, 06:01 PM
I agree with the principle that greater challenge equals greater reward, only I don't think the single roll of a d20 adequately represents a PC overcoming a challenge. I think intelligent approaches to a challenging problem are worthy of great reward, yet such a system rewards the foolish risk-taker who gets lucky. Is this the character who deserves to level up?
Great challenges can be overcome in seemingly effortless ways by the proper application of strategy and technique. But is nothing learned, no skills improved or refined through such an approach?
In truth, failure often teaches as much as (or more than) success. Unfortunately, D&D doesn't operate on this principle, so I'm struggling to find some sort of compromise between reality and the D&D xp system. Part of that evolved into a "practice makes perfect" idea - do something correctly, and you improve the proper skills through repetition of right application.
I don't know - I'm still working on a happier solution. Maybe in the end the looser role-playing awards do work better. Must ponder this...
Osprey
In Chap 5, pg 101 there are some suggestions for gaining regency due to domain actions. This might be closer to what Lord Rahvin is talking about and closer to something you might like.
Regardless of our opinions on things being decided by a single die roll, the core mechanics inevitably make this a reality. Many combats (especially between lower level combatants) are in effect decided by a single die roll. A critical hit can destroy an opponent.
Also what you are talking about in way of measuring the inventiveness of the player's solution to a problem is totally a DM subjective assessment. IMO any "rules" written to address this would in effect be hamstringing DMs and discourage DMs using their own "best" judgement in situations such as you are addressing.
I believe that in this case less specific rules are actually better.Duane Eggert
-
08-25-2003, 11:14 PM #22
Here are some rough notes regarding converting domain level into adventures
and, by extrapolation, a way of determining the XP awards for domain
actions. This is part of a larger (and largely inchoate) system of
converting domain actions to adventures, but for the purpose of this
discussion these are the salient points.
What is a Domain Action?
IMO the domain level of play is an extrapolation on the standard adventure
level of play. It`s a form of "game mechanical shorthand" if you will in
which the actions and assets of the adventure level are compiled into a
system of game mechanics and statistics. Interaction between the two
levels of play needn`t exist, but combining them in the long run makes for
a better overall system. Using the domain rules one can fill out and
inspire adventure level activities and the effects of adventure level
activities can be portrayed in the overall domain system.
When it comes to XP awards for domain actions I`m a big proponent of
role-playing out the domain actions, but it is nice to have the domain
level rules around for those cases when the DM doesn`t have a particular
thing in mind for an adventure level of activity, or when one is resolving
actions quickly for neighboring realms or other NPCs. It also allows us to
reflect many of the advantages and results of adventures into a broader,
more inclusive system of action and effect, allowing for what is a natural
extension of one of the basic implications behind many adventures--how will
the results of this adventure actually effect the world at large? In the
domain level of play we often have our answer to that question: a new
holding is established or one becomes contested, GB go missing from the
treasury, the population level of a province increases, the bandits that
threatened a region are dealt with, etc. Furthermore, if we can
extrapolate the domain actions into adventures and vice versa then we can
develop a set of guidelines for adventure design and development that will
cross over between the two levels of play.
Within such a context, I`d suggest that for the purposes of XP awards for
domain actions what we need is a system of converting domain actions into
adventure level play and then such a system can be "backward engineered"
into a system of XP awards for domain actions. We have a few good examples
of exactly how one might do that sort of thing with the LotHK text (IMO the
best of the BR supplements) but that is for random events as well as being
something that was developed without much of an eye towards the
relationship between the adventure level of play and the domain level. It
was not, of course, developed with the system of EL and CR that exists now
in 3e either, which is one of the aspects of the system that can have a lot
of use for our purposes.
So what does a domain action represent? First of all, it represents a
month`s worth of activities and effort on the part of the regent, the
population that he administrates, his staff and other associated
characters. For the purpose of simplicity and parity with the way the
domain level breaks time up into domain turns, action round and war moves,
I`d suggest that for our purposes we can convert the four weeks of time of
a domain action down into weeks (war moves) for the purpose of determining
how to convert to encounters and adventures.
Converting Domain Actions to Adventures
A domain action represents a month of activities, but it is not the only
activity that goes on during that period of time. The regent must still
administrate his domain on a day-to-day basis, dealing with those constant
issues that anyone in a position of authority must address. The domain
action itself merely represents an area of concentration during that
period, not the whole of the regent`s time. One of the things that RPGs
often do is assume that certain activities happen automatically. We do not
role-play PCs washing their clothes, cooking their food, polishing their
armor and weapons or engaging in most of the mundane activities of life
except on those occasions where it segues into an encounter or where the
player has some particular concept in mind. Just to shake things up DM
might say, "While polishing your armor you are approached by a group of
unsavory looking men" in order to arrange an encounter with the PCs in
which their equipment or other stats are not as high as normal. Similarly,
a player might have a character who was an excellent chef and mention that
fact when cooking out of doors. In general, however, such things are
exceptions rather than the rule. Most mundane activities are assumed.
When it comes to domain level activities, I`d suggest that the same is
true. Most of the administrative and mundane activities of controlling a
domain are assumed, and unless the DM or players want to engage in them for
some reason they can be ignored. How much of a regent`s time do they
take? That`s quite debatable, but for the sake of simplicity, I`d suggest
they take half the time of the regent. The domain action itself would then
represent taking three or four days a week.
In D&D "an adventure" really has no time limit. One assumes it is a
relatively brief amount of time that is extended into longer amounts of
time to form "a campaign" but adventures are not themselves set to a
stopwatch. In 3e, however, it is suggested that the "average" adventure is
comprised of four encounters of CR equal to the party level. I`d suggest
that this can work well into the above break down of the amount of
activities involved in a domain action. Since an "average" action is
equivalent to roughly the same amount of encounters that occur in a week of
activities performed as part of a domain action we can associate the two
easily, making a domain action equivalent to what the DMG suggests is four
adventures at the adventure level of play comprised of four different main
encounters.
While there is no time limitation on the sequence of those encounters, it
would appear to be generally assumed that they are going to occur
sequentially, so that PCs may not rest up or otherwise rejuvenate between
encounters. At the adventure level of play there is a time restriction,
but the time is spread out over a greater amount of time. Four encounters
per week means the PCs have a day between encounters in order to heal,
research, etc. In order to deal with this issue, I`d suggest that any
encounter that isn`t ultimately resolved in a "single sitting" be
considered a failure for the purpose of the overall success of the domain
action. (See Below)
This only gets us half way to our goal, however, because we also need to
address the issue of CR in order to find the actual amount of XP that would
be awarded for such an adventure. D&D normally assumes that encounters are
going to be scaled to the party level of the PCs. The DMG describes these
as "tailored" encounters (pp 100-101) and provides guidelines for
developing them. I`d suggest that for our purposes, however, we should not
assume that to be the case. At the adventure level of play one has a broad
range of character levels. It would make sense to preserve the interaction
of low level PCs with higher level ones and vice versa, since that`s a
basic aspect of the BR domain level. We can either tailor encounters or
employ a "status quo" set of encounters, but in several ways the system of
encounters used to reflect the particulars of a domain action need not
abide by the strictness of the EL system as presented in the DMG. For one
things many of the encounters need not be of the hack `n slash variety that
standard D&D seems to assume. A diplomatic encounter can represent widely
different CR values than a stand up fight. The results of the encounter
might not be all that different since the total modifiers of a high ranking
character versus a low ranking character could make the opposed checks
pretty much a foregone conclusion, but where the DMG assumes that 25% of a
party`s resources are going to be used up in such an encounter than isn`t
the case for our purposes. Similarly, the encounter can be role-played out
rather than the result of rolls, so in general things may not be as unequal
as they would normally be in a typical EL-minded encounter.
When determining the encounters that comprise the adventure level portrayal
of a domain action it`s important to consider the difficulty of the domain
action itself. More difficult domain actions will represent higher CR
values in the encounters involved, or might be used to justify more than
the "average" either the four encounters per adventure or the four
adventures per domain turn estimate. If a typical domain action is DC 15
then we can extrapolate from that "average" encounters. Now, if we`re
creating tailored encounters that means a grand total of sixteen encounters
of CR equal to the party level.
The standard range of encounters for D&D is encounters with EL within four
levels of the PCs. We can use that number to shift the CR values of the
encoutners when creating an adventure to represent the activities of a
domain action. Every 2 points of difference in the success number results
in a 1 level increase or decrease in the EL of the encounters it
inspires. That is, a domain action with a success number of 20 would have
encounters that were equal to the party level +2, while a domain action
with a success number of 5 (pretty easy) would have an EL of party level -5.
After determining the EL of the encounters the DM can assign characters to
the sixteen encounters of the adventure.
Determining Success of Domain Actions from Adventure Results
Success at the adventure level can be converted to the result of a die roll
to determine success on a domain action by counting each successful
encounter as 1 point. Since there are an average of 16 encounters in a
domain action that means a "die roll" of 16 is possible on a typical
adventured out domain action.
As with typical domain actions a player should announce the number of RP
spent on the action. Those domain actions that have success numbers higher
than 16 will require spending RP to assure their success.
Assigning XP Awards to Domain Actions
Not all those encounters need necessarily be of the type that will grant
normal XP awards nor should we assume that even if the domain action is
successful that every encounter was a success, so the regent shouldn`t
necessarily get XP for all those encounters (more on that later.) After
determining what the average number of encounters and the average CR of
those encounters might be we are ready to assign XP. There are, however, a
couple of factors we need to consider for how many XP should actually be
granted. The first is success. Since the average domain action represents
sixteen encounter we cannot assume that every encounter is a success. The
second factor is how many of those encounters are of the type that will
grant XP. Now, I`m of the opinion that XP should be granted in one form or
another whether an encounter is combat oriented or story oriented, but some
encounters may wind up being neither. So for each of these conditions, I`d
suggest that we should simply half the number of encounters, so that each
domain action results in four encounters that grant XP. That might seem a
bit low, but we should also take into consideration that we`re using the
domain level as a short hand for what would normally be adventures in
tradition D&D. If one wanted to grant more experience, however, it would
be easy to assign a different number to the "encounters that grant an XP
award" number.
In a tailored system of adventure design for a group of PCs with a party
level of 8, the average domain action would, therefore, result in four CR 8
XP awards or 9,600 XP to be split amongst the party. If the XP award is
going to go to a single regent one should bear in mind that the CR system
assumes four PCs. If using tailored encounters the CRs would be scaled
down by -2 for a single PC. That would result in 4,800 XP being awarded to
the regent.
Now, I should note that IMC I grant XP at a rate of about 1/3 that of the
DMG`s Table 7-1. The XP awards are actually 1/4 those on that table, but I
also grant story awards based on the overall activities of the players, so
it winds up being more like 1/3 of the standard awards for D&D. For the
above awards I would give out 3,200 XP to the group and 1,600 to an
individual level 8 regent.
Gary
-
08-26-2003, 03:12 AM #23
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- USA.
- Posts
- 626
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Green Knights sez:
> In my mind it really doesn`t matter WHY something made it into the BR
> setting, only that it did. I`m highly sceptical about changing basic
> stuff, and actually not caring WHY it is changed (whether to be more
> 3Eish or to fit someones canception of how the writers REALLY intended
> BR to be).
[snip, reordered]
> To me, the only worthwile BRCS
> is one that stays true to the original. And I`m not talking about the
> typos, the inconsistencies or the plain crappy stuff. I`m talking about
> the important stuff, the things that gave flavor to the world of BR.
I think that you`ll find that most people agree with the general
principles that you espouse. The devil is in the details. There are so
many points where the dividing line between BR/2e are not easy to
draw. I`ll comment on some of your examples to demonstrate my POV.
> Take healing magic for example; In BR, only clerics can heal. There is
> nothing more to say on the subject. If some players don`t like this, too
> bad, they can make their own house rules. If DnD 3E gives healing magic
> to bards, change it, because they do not in BR.
Tricky. It is also true that in BR, only clerics of Nesire, Ruornil,
Sera, and Kriesah could Raise Dead. [If I recall my major Necromantic
sphere access correctly]. Should the same be true when playing 3e? If
so, where do you draw the line? Should priests of gods w/o major
access to the Healing sphere not be able to cast Heal? What about new
spells with no 2e equivalent (or visa-versa, e.g. Nap?).
If you are willing to allow some clerics to cast Heal or Raise Dead or
new 3e spells when they could not before (and I would argue that if you
want to play 3e that you must) is that any more/less of a change than
allowing Bards to cast healing magic? In regards to magic, 3e changes
are pervasive. I don`t think that a simple solution such as "don`t
give bards healing spells" is a reasoned solution. If you play 3e,
some changes pretty much have to be accepted - to do otherwise would be
diverge from the d20 system beyond the scope of a d20 BRCS project. I
would argue, contrary-wise, that to play BR with the same magic
restrictions/possibilities envisioned in the original release that it
would be best to do so in 2e (a fine and workable system for such a
goal).
> Bloodlines are an add-on system, so it stays that way. Bloodlines come
> in tainted, minor, major, great, and true variants. There are minor,
> major and great blood abilities.
True.. and yet... Magic items were an "add-on system" in 2e as well.
Yet, in 3e, DMs are provided with base values for each item to help
gauge the "appropriate" equipment-level for a party of PCs. The
entire XP/CR system is affected by any "unaccounted" for changes
in party level. 2e also recommended a 10% XP bonus for unblooded
characters. Would you recommend that this remain unchanged as well?
If so, I would point out that a 10% bonus has a different impact
when XP breakpoints for level increase geometrically rather than
exponentially. These are not straight-forward issues, and are
highly inter-related in 3e. 3e is not forgiving regarding
increases in character power without an accounting. This
mandates, IMHO, considerable change in the bloodline system.
Of course, that is just my .0001 GB.
- Doom
-
08-26-2003, 07:38 AM #24
I couldn't disagree more...well that's not true I supporse, but it probably caught people's attention. B)
I don't think everybody agrees with my general principle of "staying true to the setting". I think that is one of the core issues here. Pepole have wildly different views as to what is true to the setting. Some difference of opinion is to be expected, but when reading BR-L mails I get the distinct impression that some members are looking for a "fix" instead of an update/compilation. When you start arguing that "this is what the writers intended" or "I don't think this is BR, it was only made that way because of 2E limitations" I think we're of on the wrong track. We need to let go of our own personal preferences, and actually pick up the books and READ what they say. I catch myself wishing up stuff all the time, all the while I could just look up the reference in one of the BR books. :unsure:
Now, that the devil is in the details, with that I can agree. Yet here too do I sense a lack of direction - I for one have no idea as to the guiding principles behing the BRCS (I made this same point a while back). Is it to make BR into 3E, BR into a D20 system game, is it a compilation, a fix or something in between? If we knew, the details could be worked out. :blink:
From my last post, it must seem that I'm all for keeping every little thing from 2E and transplanting it into the BRCS. In a way, I am. I would love to just kick out the stupid domains (BR has domains already) and make a separate spell list for each type of cleric, and give them special abilities as well... h34r:
However, this may be a little too much in terms of work, so I envision that some other approach must be taken. Which leads me to a 3E conversion that stays relatively true to 3E DnD (to keep down the workload, and make the game more accessible to other DnD players). Indeed, I have run several good BR games with no conversion of the (character) rules at all (save bloodlines which were handled by bonuses to skill, bonus feats, and spell-like abiliites handed out by the DM). <_<
Things that was never part of any core edition of DnD (most notably bloodlines, magic items were not unique to BR, maybe I should have not used "add-on" but rather "unique add-on") needs to be handled. I'm sure there are different ways to do this, but I have my own (very strong) personal preference which I won't restate again. :angry:
But we can still keep the good stuff, the stuff that made BR what is was. I know that otehr 2E gods also had their spheres, but the fact that only some gods could cast spells was very important to my BR games. The "Priests of Belinik" sidebar with their special powers (and lack of domains) and the Unique spell lists for BR clerics would be equally appreciated.
I realize that we will still argue onto the last days, but hise were my silver pennies. :blink:
Btw: I think the devil is really in the SMALL details - such as what 3E spells get included in the Priests of Belinik spell list... :P
Cheers
Bjørn
-
08-26-2003, 07:40 AM #25
...and no, there are logic in my use of smilies. I just thought they looked cool (I rarely use the message boards) and decided to include some...they're there for a reason right?
-
08-26-2003, 07:48 AM #26Originally posted by doom@Aug 26 2003, 04:12 AM
2e also recommended a 10% XP bonus for unblooded
characters. Would you recommend that this remain unchanged as well?
If so, I would point out that a 10% bonus has a different impact
when XP breakpoints for level increase geometrically rather than
exponentially.
That said, I don't think that is the way to go. There were other modifiers to XP in 2E, but that mechanic was removed altogether, and it seems to me quite artificial to keep it (but not so bad as to make it impossible to keep it).
I think the main point here must be that scions are more powerful, and that issue needs to be adressed. Make up a core rule for this, my preferences runs towards level adjustments, and put the rest in sidebars or appendixes..."the Scion of Anduiras class", "Bloodlines without level adjustments" and whatnot.
Cheers
Bjørn
-
08-26-2003, 03:54 PM #27
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
- Location
- Germany
- Posts
- 883
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Green Knight schrieb:
>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
> http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...ST&f=36&t=1876
> Green Knight wrote:
>Originally Posted by doom,Aug 26 2003, 04:12 AM
> That said, I don`t think that is the way to go. There were other modifiers to XP in 2E, but that mechanic was removed altogether, and it seems to me quite artificial to keep it (but not so bad as to make it impossible to keep it).
> I think the main point here must be that scions are more powerful, and that issue needs to be adressed. Make up a core rule for this, my preferences runs towards level adjustments, and put the rest in sidebars or appendixes..."the Scion of Anduiras class", "Bloodlines without level adjustments" and whatnot.
> Cheers
> Bjørn
>
>
Mmm, for something completely different:
Make blooded characters the norm for the BR setting so that they need no
ECL.
Unblooded characters then should AUTOMATICALLY earn more XP as they face
greater challenges compared to their abilitys :-)
bye
Michael
-
08-26-2003, 05:03 PM #28
- Join Date
- Dec 2002
- Location
- Malden, MA
- Posts
- 761
- Downloads
- 2
- Uploads
- 0
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Green Knight wrote:
> I don`t think everybody agrees with my general principle of "staying
> true to the setting". I think that is one of the core issues here.
> People have wildly different views as to what is true to the setting.
Which means everyone really can agree with "being true to the setting" in
*general*, even though they disagree with your *specific* idea of what the
setting "truly" is about.
> Some difference of opinion is to be expected, but when reading BR-L
> mails I get the distinct impression that some members are looking for
> a "fix" instead of an update/compilation.
Of course! This list has always been about discussing ways to tinker with
BR to make it "better", and there have always been strenuous disagreements
about what "better" would be; I see no reason it should change now. I
mean, really, since the project amounts to "rewrite the BR rules", I see
no reason to expect us not to try to toss in every house rule we`ve ever
thought of! I know there are those who argue for minimal change, and I`ve
even sometimes been one, but even then we can never agree on what such a
minimal change would be (in part because half that group wants to minimize
the total change to BR, and the other half to minimize the change to 3e;
and then within those groups, there are disagreements over what BR and 3e
"really are", and which changes to either are bigger than others). I see
no reason to expect this group to ever come up with a final version that
really pleases anyone except its authors, and maybe not even them.
Consensus is just not a viable possibility. Hence I really don`t care
very much about what the "official" end-product is -- well, I do want it
to be as good as possible so that people coming late to BR can have
something decent to get themselves started, but I never had any intention
of using it myself as-is; neither, it seems, do many of the most prolific
posters. As should be quite clear by now, my own campaign, and that of
many (if not most) of the major contributors to the list have such a large
and well-loved collection of variant interpretations and house rules that
the divergence is really too great for ideas to be readily cross-adaptable.
> When you start arguing that "this is what the writers intended" or "I
> don`t think this is BR, it was only made that way because of 2E
> limitations" I think we`re of on the wrong track.
Sadly, I don`t think there is any better track. True objectivity is an
attractive delusion, but a delusion nonetheless. There will always be
some reading of the tea leaves involved in any exegesis of the rules.
> We need to let go of our own personal preferences, and actually pick
> up the books and READ what they say. I catch myself wishing up stuff
> all the time, all the while I could just look up the reference in one
> of the BR books.
But the references mean different things to different people. Our
personal preferences strongly influence what we read the books as saying.
As we established years ago, there is NO campaign that does not use at
least some house rules, in part because it is not equally clear to all
people exactly what the rules "actually say". There have long been deep
divisions over what the words in the rulebooks mean. It is impossible to
escape making subjective interpretations: you need to make them even to
read the rules, and many more arise during play. There is a lot of text
in the books, and some of it seems to clash with other parts (and, again,
of course, there are disagreements about which bits are discordant or
harmonious with any given snippet); there are a few cases than those where
interpretive choices are required, but many more where they just happen --
each person chooses to emphasize certain aspects of the setting and
deemphasize others. And really, whyever not? After all, it`s just a
game. =) For many of us, changing things in the setting and the rules is
a significant part of the fun. We come here to share ideas with fellow
tinkerers. Personally, I`m quite tired of all the focus on 3e. Sure, it
ought to be one of the threads, but there ought to be lots more besides,
and no suggestion about gaming in Cerilia using any system or using BR
realm management rules in any setting should ever be considered off-topic.
Even when 3e is mentioned, I want to hear *every* idea, *especially* the
strange ones.
> I sense a lack of direction - I for one have no idea as to the guiding
> principles behing the BRCS (I made this same point a while back). Is
> it to make BR into 3E, BR into a D20 system game, is it a compilation,
> a fix or something in between?
There are differing answers to that question, too -- and I don`t think
those are likely to ever be resolved, either. Well, except as the
directionless all-of-the-above mismash you`re already reading on the
list. =)
> From my last post, it must seem that I`m all for keeping every little
> thing from 2E and transplanting it into the BRCS. In a way, I am.
> However, [...] I envision [...] a 3E conversion that stays relatively
> true to 3E DnD (to keep down the workload, and make the game more
> accessible to other DnD players).
So you can`t decide either. =) As I`m sure you`ve noticed, 2e BR and core
3e have a large number of significant differences; therefore it is just
not possible to stay particularly true to both. Oh well.
> I`m sure there are different ways to do this, but I have my own (very
> strong) personal preference which I won`t restate again. :angry: But
> we can still keep the good stuff, the stuff that made BR what is was.
But that`s exactly the problem! Everyone has a different, very strong
personal preference about what BR was and what made it that way! I think
you think you`re trying to be a voice of reason in all this, but it seems
to me that you are just as polarized as I or anyone else. Subjectivity is
simply inescapable.
> I know that other 2E gods also had their spheres, but the fact that
> only some gods could cast spells was very important to my BR games.
> The "Priests of Belinik" sidebar with their special powers (and lack
> of domains) and the Unique spell lists for BR clerics would be equally
> appreciated.
I very much agree here, as I know others do (Mr. Gauck, for one), though
no doubt others disagree. If I ever do get around to using 3e rules to
run a BR game (which looks steadily less likely), I will take this
approach, and have *no* standard PHB clerics. Unique spell lists for
every religion, huzzah!
Ryan Caveney
-
08-26-2003, 06:10 PM #29
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 11:27 AM
> But the references mean different things to different people. Our
> personal preferences strongly influence what we read the books as saying.
> As we established years ago, there is NO campaign that does not use at
> least some house rules, in part because it is not equally clear to all
> people exactly what the rules "actually say".
I`m going to jump off from this statement and add that I think the designers
were intentionaly vague in a lot of places so that a big BR tent could be
established. One of the results of this is that there is wide disagreement
about what is going on in BR. Narrow interpreations are bound to disappoint
most readers for this reason.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
-
08-26-2003, 08:30 PM #30I`m going to jump off from this statement and add that I think the designers
were intentionaly vague in a lot of places so that a big BR tent could be
established. One of the results of this is that there is wide disagreement
about what is going on in BR. Narrow interpreations are bound to disappoint
most readers for this reason.
Kenneth Gauck
The variants (which were getting discussed as archives/e-zines, etc. in the Royal Library) seem to be the place where we (the veteran fans and DM's of Birthright) can contribute our individual visions and ideas that can serve as idea generators and setting possibilities for BR gamers, new and old alike.
Thus, it seems reasonable to keep the "deviant" variant rules as variants, but not ditch them altogether. I think the contributors to this page have a goldmine of creative, interesting ideas that open-minded DM's can consider and take advantage of so long as we put it out there in the first place. Personally, I'm looking forward to a more structured way to contribute solid world-building or alternative ideas for BR, rather than at random points in threads that will eventually get left behind and forgotten. But neither would I get too insistent that the original material be changed too drastically in a core BRCS book.
Osprey
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks