Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Petition

  1. #1
    DKEvermore@aol.co
    Guest

    Petition

    In a message dated 7/18/98 7:59:37 AM, you wrote:

    >Tell me, DKEvermore - (and this is in no way meant in a derogatory fshion)
    >
    >What is the BEST way to preserve Cerilia? The longer it takes TSR to put
    >
    >something on the shelves, the more our campaigns grow apart. I admit - I
    >

    If we keep playing it, a provide feedback, it MIGHT give them a reason to keep
    it going. But in the end, it's up to TSR. This list has been active and
    busy for a long time now. We've kept up the commentary and communication with
    the designers (and they've made a hearty attempt to keep up with us!). Most
    of the players and GMs I know have bought a copy of everything that's come out
    for it. Some of them even still have the stuff in the original store
    wrappers-never opened because that was "GM stuff" but wanting to support the
    line.

    As I see it, we've done our part. If TSR feels like devoting time and energy
    in bringing it back, it will. I feel like I've done almost everything I can
    for the game. (I'm not even playing with the AD&D system anymore, but I'm
    still using the setting.)

    I'm willing to do more, but I feel like it's out of my hands at this point
    anyway.

    - -DKEvermore

  2. #2
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Petition

    DKEvermore@aol.com wrote:

    > In a message dated 7/18/98 7:59:37 AM, you wrote:
    >
    > >Tell me, DKEvermore - (and this is in no way meant in a derogatory fshion)
    > >What is the BEST way to preserve Cerilia? The longer it takes TSR to put
    > >something on the shelves, the more our campaigns grow apart. I admit - I
    > >
    >
    > If we keep playing it, a provide feedback, it MIGHT give them a reason to keep
    > it going. But in the end, it's up to TSR. This list has been active and
    > busy for a long time now. We've kept up the commentary and communication with
    > the designers (and they've made a hearty attempt to keep up with us!). Most
    > of the players and GMs I know have bought a copy of everything that's come out
    > for it. Some of them even still have the stuff in the original store
    > wrappers-never opened because that was "GM stuff" but wanting to support the
    > line.
    >
    > As I see it, we've done our part. If TSR feels like devoting time and energy
    > in bringing it back, it will. I feel like I've done almost everything I can
    > for the game. (I'm not even playing with the AD&D system anymore, but I'm
    > still using the setting.)
    >
    > I'm willing to do more, but I feel like it's out of my hands at this point
    > anyway.

    You know, this might seem like a bit of an oddball comment, but the big problem
    with Birthright to me has been marketing. That's what it's all about. The system
    and campaign are solid, TSR just didn't do a very good job conveying to their
    customers the setting, so it fumbled.

    On that note, I think part of the problem might be something as innocuous seeming
    as the title. I mean, Birthright sounds a little vague, you know? Most of the
    successful campaign settings have been named after the land itself or some
    particularly notable locale within it. Ravenloft, the Forgotten Realms, Oerth,
    etc. Birthright sounds more like a system (which it is, I guess) rather than a
    setting, so I think it lost a lot of people. I mean, people already learned how
    to play AD&D right? The presentation of BR made it seem like they would have to
    learn an entirely new system, which probably put off most of the folks who read
    the box.

    I think TSR would be much better off calling the much anticipated (by people
    around here) relaunch of the setting The Lands of Cerilia or something like that,
    as it would seem less intimidating to newbies. I think they should come up with
    something catchier than TLoC, but this is coming out rather extemporaneously....

    At least, that's my half-assed marketing take on it.

    Oh, the low-level aspect of the campaign setting is probably not the sexiest thing
    about the campaign either. It attracted me, but I'm a freakish aberration in the
    gaming world (and many other places) being over thirty and all. Higher level
    campaigns seem to be more appealing to the average gamer, as they have more
    flash/bang stuff in them.

    Gary

  3. #3
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Petition

    Gary V. Foss wrote:

    > Oh, the low-level aspect of the campaign setting is probably not the sexiest thing
    > about the campaign either. It attracted me, but I'm a freakish aberration in the
    > gaming world (and many other places) being over thirty and all. Higher level
    > campaigns seem to be more appealing to the average gamer, as they have more
    > flash/bang stuff in them.

    You know, I'm going to respond to myself on this post.... I don't really think I said
    everything I wanted to, and as I reread it I get a creepy feeling off it, so I'm going
    to make a clarification or two.

    I don't really see BR as a low-level campaign world. I know, that's how it got
    promoted and all, but I don't honestly think it is. There are gobs of high level NPCs
    presented in the standard material. NPCs of higher level than I have ever had a PC
    legitimately rise to in a campaign that I am running. Oh, I know there are more
    powerful folks portrayed in other settings, but I honestly think a lot of the BR NPCs
    could hold their own in just about any gaming world.

    I think the low-level promotion of the campaign world came about as a response to
    people seeing characters below the "name level" of their character classes running
    around as the rulers of their respective realms and leading vast armies. The early
    testers and designers of the game couldn't help but see that as a "low-level"
    emphasis. In fact, they might very well have intended to keep things that way, but as
    the setting developed and NPCs like Aelies came along, it became less and less
    feasible. Of course, the most powerful NPCs in BR are the villains, but I think
    that's a good thing. It gives the PCs something a difficult task and the DM a
    constant threat. That's something that every campaign world needs.

    Essentially, I see Cerilia as being a more rationally designed campaign setting.
    Sure, there are high level NPCs, but they are relatively few and far between. They
    correspond to the size of the population. Temples aren't cluttered with high priests,
    every inn is not rife with barbarian lords and the countryside isn't littered with
    wizard's towers. To me, that's a logically designed setting, not a "low-level"
    campaign. I've seen a lot of worlds where some farmer is a 3rd or 5th level fighter.
    While a few of these guys might exist, that appears to be the norm in a lot of
    campaign settings. That just doesn't make sense to me.

    Anyway, I hope I haven't bored you too much with this clarification/diatribe.

    Laters,
    Gary

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Petition
    By Simon Graindorge in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-19-1998, 03:03 AM
  2. [BIRTHRIGHT] -Petition (was Birthright Campaig
    By Kyle Foster in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-18-1998, 04:20 PM
  3. Map of Muden Petition
    By Sepsis in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-25-1997, 05:02 AM

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.