Regency and bloodline.

[Gary V. Foss]

I had an idea last night and I wanted to bounce it off the people on
this list and get your opinions on it.

There has been a little talk about the 3rd edition AD&D rules bouncing
around lately. I have a sneaking suspicion that these rules are going
to include some sort of Birthright-like materials as part of the core
rules for higher level characters who wish to rule their own domains.
At least, I hope that is the direction that they are going. I'd like to
see more materials in the Birthright setting, and the recent
restructuralization of the campaign worlds by WotWC/TSR has placed BR in
the core rules section, which would seem to facilitate the kinds of
changes I am talking about.

The problem is that gaining RPs in the BR setting is contingent upon
having a bloodline. While one could perform many of the duties of a
regent without RPs, it would be quite a bit more difficult. One cannot
rule up a holding or province beyond (0) without spending RPs to do so.
In fact, most of the domain actions in the Rulebook require RPs. In
addition, wizards and priests would not have access to realm spells as
they require RPs to perform.

So what if in the 3rd edition of the AD&D core rules they said that
nonblooded regents could collect RPs every domain turn equal to their
character level? i.e. A 12th level fighter ruling provinces and law
holdings collects up to 12 RPs a domain turn, just like a blooded
character. A blooded character would add the strength of his bloodline
to his character level to determine the amount of regency he collected.
That way a blooded character would still be more likely to be a more
effective ruler than an unblooded one, and in the case of certain
powerful bloodlines, that effectiveness assured. Even in the case of
the relatively less powerful blooded characters, those with strength
ratings in the teens, it would take a pretty powerful unblooded regent
to compete with him.

Now, I've been against unblooded regents in the past, so this pretty
much flies in the face of those arguments, but I'm starting to think it
makes a little sense. It would help lock the BR setting into the core
rules, assuring it's continued existence, and it would translate the
rules of the campaign into other campaign settings, hopefully leading to
some interest in the world where those worlds originated.

- -Gary

[veryfastperson@juno.com]

>The problem is that gaining RPs in the BR setting is contingent upon
>having a bloodline. While one could perform many of the duties of a
>regent without RPs, it would be quite a bit more difficult. One
>cannot
>rule up a holding or province beyond (0) without spending RPs to do
>so.
>In fact, most of the domain actions in the Rulebook require RPs. In
>addition, wizards and priests would not have access to realm spells as
>they require RPs to perform.

I was thinking about that too. One thing i came up with would be doubling
the cost for unblooded rulers.

>
>So what if in the 3rd edition of the AD&D core rules they said that
>nonblooded regents could collect RPs every domain turn equal to their
>character level? i.e. A 12th level fighter ruling provinces and law
>holdings collects up to 12 RPs a domain turn, just like a blooded
>character. A blooded character would add the strength of his
>bloodline
>to his character level to determine the amount of regency he
>collected.
>That way a blooded character would still be more likely to be a more
>effective ruler than an unblooded one, and in the case of certain
>powerful bloodlines, that effectiveness assured. Even in the case of
>the relatively less powerful blooded characters, those with strength
>ratings in the teens, it would take a pretty powerful unblooded regent
>to compete with him.

I never looked at it his way, but i like it. I too have been against
unblooded rulers, but like you said, it is starting to make sense. (sorta
like how Roele was so good a ruler - not only his true bloodline, but his
high character level!)

>
>Now, I've been against unblooded regents in the past, so this pretty
>much flies in the face of those arguments, but I'm starting to think
>it
>makes a little sense. It would help lock the BR setting into the core
>rules, assuring it's continued existence, and it would translate the
>rules of the campaign into other campaign settings, hopefully leading
>to
>some interest in the world where those worlds originated.

Well thought out, good ideas. I'll have to bring it up to my gaming group
:)

~Erik
>-Gary
>
>
>************************************************* **************************
>To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
>line
>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>

__________________________________________________ ___________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

[Gary V. Foss]

Erik M Samhammer wrote:

> >So what if in the 3rd edition of the AD&D core rules they said that
> >nonblooded regents could collect RPs every domain turn equal to their
> >character level? i.e. A 12th level fighter ruling provinces and law
> >holdings collects up to 12 RPs a domain turn, just like a blooded
> >character. A blooded character would add the strength of his
> >bloodline
> >to his character level to determine the amount of regency he
> >collected.
> >That way a blooded character would still be more likely to be a more
> >effective ruler than an unblooded one, and in the case of certain
> >powerful bloodlines, that effectiveness assured. Even in the case of
> >the relatively less powerful blooded characters, those with strength
> >ratings in the teens, it would take a pretty powerful unblooded regent
> >to compete with him.
>
> I never looked at it his way, but i like it. I too have been against
> unblooded rulers, but like you said, it is starting to make sense. (sorta
> like how Roele was so good a ruler - not only his true bloodline, but his
> high character level!)

Exactly. Character level gets kind of pushed aside in the BR rules. Oh, it
still effects things like realm spells, but it doesn't have much to do with
actually ruling one's realm. This contradicts the "old" way of doing things in
AD&D in which characters had to reach their "name" level before being able to
rule a realm, collect taxes, etc.

I always thought that method was a bit overdone. That is, it required rulers to
have gone through some sort of adventuring process, which didn't really make
much sense. How could you have an inherited crown if rulership was based upon
character level? Rulers would be required to send their kids off for years of
adventuring in order to raise them up to a level that they would be legitimately
able to claim the throne.

Of course, the characters presented as kings in Greyhawk and other campaign
settings didn't always conform to the rules requires of PC, a disparity that
always bothered me. I like things to be nice and tidy in a gaming system. If
an NPC can do it, then so can the PCs. Fair is fair. The costs might be rather
high, but if a PC is willing to spend them (NPCs are more than happy to sell
their souls or whatever, that's what's nice about being the DM and having
imaginary characters around like the redshirted guys on Star Trek) then I think
he should be allowed to do so.

On a slightly related sidenote: I came up with this idea as the result of a
sleepless night brought on by reading the spell Tongue Parasite in the most
recent issue of Dragon (#249) It is probably the most disgusting thing I have
ever read! (Well, except for Gary Gygax's early fiction, that is....) I
positively could not sleep for thinking about it. I'm going to spend the next
two weeks on some shrink's couch trying to deal with the insomnia that spell
description inflicted upon me. What kind of spells are next? Mucous
Explosion? Nazi Dentist Torture? Reading that thing was like drowning in a vat
of tapeworms.

Bleeeaach!

- -Gary

[kirbyvalor@juno.com (Bre]

As a player, I would like to put my opinion in on the "non-blooded"
regent topic. My opinion is to not allow non-bloodeds to receive
regency. One of the big special effects (and affects) of Birthright is
that there are definitely two different types of people and that the
blooded are the ruling class. The ability to be tied to the land is very
big here. I don't understand why you would want a non-blooded regent.
For those of you who cry "fair play" for the non-blooded regent, sure,
let the person rule the land, but they are no different from a PC ruler
of another game world, so they have to do with the lack of regency and
deal with it. If you really want a non-blooded ruler, try games such as
Dark Sun, Greyhawk, Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms. Here you can rule
without being blooded. Enjoy!
As for me, I enjoy the different aspects and that rulers have certain
bonds and yet responsibilites that non-blooded don't. What's more
important, the PLAYERS can choose to be blooded or non-blooded. If they
don't want the blood, they don't get to rule lands. Cool? Coool.

Take care,
Kirby

Valor above all
Hey, McCloud, get off me ewe!

__________________________________________________ ___________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

[Gary V. Foss]

Brett L Kirby wrote:

> As a player, I would like to put my opinion in on the "non-blooded"
> regent topic. My opinion is to not allow non-bloodeds to receive
> regency. One of the big special effects (and affects) of Birthright is
> that there are definitely two different types of people and that the
> blooded are the ruling class. The ability to be tied to the land is very
> big here. I don't understand why you would want a non-blooded regent.
> For those of you who cry "fair play" for the non-blooded regent, sure,
> let the person rule the land, but they are no different from a PC ruler
> of another game world, so they have to do with the lack of regency and
> deal with it. If you really want a non-blooded ruler, try games such as
> Dark Sun, Greyhawk, Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms. Here you can rule
> without being blooded. Enjoy!
> As for me, I enjoy the different aspects and that rulers have certain
> bonds and yet responsibilites that non-blooded don't. What's more
> important, the PLAYERS can choose to be blooded or non-blooded. If they
> don't want the blood, they don't get to rule lands. Cool? Coool.

Well, I agreed with you up until about 24 hours ago. The thing is that the BR
rules for ruling a realm are quite good. Their solid, they make sense, they
play well and they are already established. It makes sense to translate those
rules into other campaign settings.

Besides, the Birthright setting itself won't be substantially altered. Just a
couple of changes that I think a lot of people already think would be in favor
of.

My major objection to nonblooded regents has been that I haven't seen a system
that made sense. The rhyme and reason of them has seemed really arbitrary or
far to complex to work. This seems like a simple solution.

Aleksei Andrievski wrote:

> >The problem is that gaining RPs in the BR setting is contingent upon
> >having a bloodline. While one could perform many of the duties of a
>
> Why not just adopt a simple rule that you collect RP equal to your domain
> power (obviously this would only work for non-BR settings)? No bloodline, no
> restrictions. This would allow powerful states to really show their
> strength, like they should, without being dependent on bloodline
> constraints.

Two reasons.

1. I think blooded characters should be more powerful than unblooded
characters, no matter what setting they are in.

2. I like the idea of collecting regency points being based upon some sort of
ability/skill/experience of the regent. Why should a 1st level fighter be as
effective a ruler as a 19th level one? There's a disparity there that just
doesn't make sense to me.

- -Gary

[Daniel McSorley]

> From: Gary V. Foss
> > Why not just adopt a simple rule that you collect RP equal to your
domain
> > power (obviously this would only work for non-BR settings)? No
bloodline, no
> > restrictions. This would allow powerful states to really show their
> > strength, like they should, without being dependent on bloodline
> > constraints.
>
> Two reasons.
>
> 1. I think blooded characters should be more powerful than unblooded
> characters, no matter what setting they are in.
>
> 2. I like the idea of collecting regency points being based upon some
sort of
> ability/skill/experience of the regent. Why should a 1st level fighter
be as
> effective a ruler as a 19th level one? There's a disparity there that
just
> doesn't make sense to me.
>
The first level fighter should be just as effective as a 19th level one
because level makes no difference in ruling ability. Level is an
artificial construct of the game, in real life new rulers were sometimes
better than old ones. I can see basing it on some attribute, like wisdom
or charisma maybe, something integral to the person, but I don't think
level should do anything. To put it another way, why would being a better
adventurer make you a better ruler?

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[Robert Harper]

At 05:19 PM 6/21/98 +0300, you wrote:

>>Why should a 1st level fighter be
>as
>>effective a ruler as a 19th level one? There's a disparity there that just
>>doesn't make sense to me.
>>
>Granted, but restricting it solely on level is too much - a 1st-level
>fighter collecting 1 RP would not be able to do anything. Perhaps a
>limitation of 10 times the level would be appropriate.

Part of the whole point of Regency, and something that applies whether or
not you use Bloodlines, is that ruler effectiveness is more than
intelligence, charisma, etc.. It is public perception, public aura, influence.

The 19th level character has much more than the 1st. Even if all the levels
were gained in old ruins and caves without a shred of 'public impact' from
the adventures, just the fact he has done and survived so much will make
people take him more seriously. He is simply more experienced *s*.

For those who don't want it all level based, that's part of what Bloodlines
are about. I suggest not reinventing wheels, just redescribing them (as was
done in Dragon when Bloodlines for the al'Qadim setting were laid out).

__________________________________________________ _________________
| |
| We ask ourselves if there is a God, how can this happen? |
| Better to ask, if there is a God, must it be sane? |
| |
| Lucien LaCroix |
|_________________________________________________ __________________|

[Solmyr]

>The problem is that gaining RPs in the BR setting is contingent upon
>having a bloodline. While one could perform many of the duties of a


Why not just adopt a simple rule that you collect RP equal to your domain
power (obviously this would only work for non-BR settings)? No bloodline, no
restrictions. This would allow powerful states to really show their
strength, like they should, without being dependent on bloodline
constraints.

******************
Aleksei Andrievski
aka Solmyr, Archmage of the Azure Star
Visit the Archmage's Tower at
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Fortress/2198/index.html
Join the Mystaran Birthright PBEM at the above website!

[Gary V. Foss]

Daniel McSorley wrote:

> > From: Gary V. Foss
> > > Why not just adopt a simple rule that you collect RP equal to your
> domain
> > > power (obviously this would only work for non-BR settings)? No
> bloodline, no
> > > restrictions. This would allow powerful states to really show their
> > > strength, like they should, without being dependent on bloodline
> > > constraints.
> >
> > Two reasons.
> >
> > 1. I think blooded characters should be more powerful than unblooded
> > characters, no matter what setting they are in.
> >
> > 2. I like the idea of collecting regency points being based upon some
> sort of
> > ability/skill/experience of the regent. Why should a 1st level fighter
> be as
> > effective a ruler as a 19th level one? There's a disparity there that
> just
> > doesn't make sense to me.
> >
> The first level fighter should be just as effective as a 19th level one
> because level makes no difference in ruling ability. Level is an
> artificial construct of the game, in real life new rulers were sometimes
> better than old ones. I can see basing it on some attribute, like wisdom
> or charisma maybe, something integral to the person, but I don't think
> level should do anything. To put it another way, why would being a better
> adventurer make you a better ruler?

Well, I think this is one of the many areas where real life and AD&D are
different from one another. AD&D is quantifiable. We use numbers to represent
reality. That doesn't happy in RL very much. Oh, some two-bit political hack
will pull out a spreadsheet and try to explain why he is demonstrably better
than his opponent, but such things are matters of interpretation, and express
reality according to politicians, an elaborate game of Liar's Poker if there
ever was one....

I would suggest that ability scores are similarly artificial. Ever know
somebody with an 18 wisdom? Care to try to prove it? Other ability scores are
based upon numbers. I remember reading somewhere that intelligence was based
upon IQ. Intelligence x10 equals real world IQ or something. Rather than rant
about the idiocy of standardized IQ tests in the real world (which in my view
are a bunch of baloney use by elementary school guidance counselors to justify
their meager existence) I'll just say that even if this were an accurate
representation of the real world, it would be incredibly hard to give examples
of how it works in real life.

I agree that level is an artificial construct of the game. In fact, that's
kinda my point. Shouldn't we use what already exists in the game to solve
gaming problems? Anyway, I think character level is a better method to use
than an ability score for determining RPs collected by unblooded characters as
level is a better gauge of power than ability score. Bloodline is essentially
tied to the "power of the gods." Technically, the power of the gods in AD&D is
just that of an extraordinarily powerful character isn't it? That power is
based more on level than on ability score.

In the real world example you site of new rulers being more effective than the
old ones, I don't think that has anything to do with character level. Who's to
say that the new ruler isn't of higher level than the old one? Age doesn't
always mean experience.

I do kind of like the idea of ability scores being an influence upon collecting
regency. How about if there were bonuses to "Regent Power" (the combination of
factors that are added up and determine the amount of regency a character can
collect) based upon high ability scores? We could use the ones already
established. The accuracy bonus of dexterity for thieves, the wisdom bonus for
priests, # of proficiencies for wizards....

Let's say, for instance, that Larra Nieles, prelate of the Northern Reformed
Church of Sarimie (FA; Pr8, Sarimie; Br, major, 32; NE) has a 16 wisdom. Her
Regency Power would be level+ability score bonus+bloodline score or 8+2+32=42.
She could collect up to 42 RPs/domain turn.

- -Gary

[Gary V. Foss]

Aleksei Andrievski wrote:

> >1. I think blooded characters should be more powerful than unblooded
> >characters, no matter what setting they are in.
> >
> But there are not blooded characters in other settings.

Well, actually, there are a few running around here and there. Seems to me
Ravenloft has some. Besides, there are a few people who have been saying that
bloodline is similar to being a proxy of the gods in that it is a power
"granted" by them. That means similar abilities might pop up in other worlds at
the whim of the gods. Besides, who is to say that someone's unpublished
campaign world couldn't have something analogous to bloodline? I was kind of
thinking about it for my Cataclysm Campaign....

> >2. I like the idea of collecting regency points being based upon some sort of
>
> >ability/skill/experience of the regent. Why should a 1st level fighter be as
>
> >effective a ruler as a 19th level one? There's a disparity there that just
> >doesn't make sense to me.
> >
> Granted, but restricting it solely on level is too much - a 1st-level
> fighter collecting 1 RP would not be able to do anything. Perhaps a
> limitation of 10 times the level would be appropriate.

10x level seems pretty amazingly generous to me. A 7th level thief having the
same ability to collect regency as Prince Avan?

I was even thinking about going the other way. Maybe half experience level or
something. Having unblooded characters collect regency points will vitiate the
power of bloodlines in the Birthright setting, which is something I am loathe to
do. I mean, it's pretty much the basis of the setting, right? I really like
the setting, I don't want to screw it up. I think a moderate expansion of the
rules is more in order than a total redistribution.

- -Gary