Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 202
  1. #21
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    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
    I generally concur with this. I hate having something decided by a single die roll and have personally never awarded experience points for domain actions.

    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

  2. #22
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    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

  3. #23
    Birthright Developer
    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

  4. #24
    Administrator Green Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,018
    Downloads
    20
    Uploads
    0
    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&#39;m sure there are different ways to do this, but I have my own (very strong) personal preference which I won&#39;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
    Cheers
    Bjørn
    DM of Ruins of Empire II PbeM

  5. #25
    Administrator Green Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,018
    Downloads
    20
    Uploads
    0
    ...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&#39;re there for a reason right?

    Cheers
    Bjørn
    DM of Ruins of Empire II PbeM

  6. #26
    Administrator Green Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,018
    Downloads
    20
    Uploads
    0
    Originally 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.
    If you want bloodlines with power, but are unwilling to use level adjustments, giving out a +10% XP bonus to commoner might not be a bad idea. It is certainly more powerful in 3E (but not very unbalancing), but it was pretty meaningless in 2E.

    That said, I don&#39;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
    Cheers
    Bjørn
    DM of Ruins of Empire II PbeM

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    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:

    >
    Quote Originally 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.
    > If you want bloodlines with power, but are unwilling to use level adjustments, giving out a +10% XP bonus to commoner might not be a bad idea. It is certainly more powerful in 3E (but not very unbalancing), but it was pretty meaningless in 2E.

    > 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

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    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

  9. #29
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- 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

  10. #30
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    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
    Which is where a core system with variant rules comes into play. I think it a mistake to treat the BRCS project as an authority on the BR world, and rather focus on it as a set of core mechanical rules around which a DM and players can build their preferred version of Cerilia.

    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&#39;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&#39;s can consider and take advantage of so long as we put it out there in the first place. Personally, I&#39;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)

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.