Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Robert Trifts
    Guest

    Fw: How it should have been

    As there was some discussion regarding Ed's post from June, I repost it here
    to the list in its entirety.

    For my part - the product I'd like to see most is the one more or less ready
    for publication
    ; namely, the Book of Regency

    - -----Original Message-----
    From: Ed Stark
    To: birthright@lists.imagiconline.com
    Date: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 8:41 PM
    Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - How it should have been




    1. The BR Revised Edition is/was not finished at the time of its removal
    from the schedule. It was stopped before editing, essentially, and most of
    the new material was pretty rough. It included a non-warcard mass combat
    system (still very light on rules, heavy on "getting the war out of the way
    so you can do other things) and some material that was intended to expand
    on the adventuring in Cerilia sections and de-emphasize the "you have to
    play a king" aspects of the game.

    2. The Book of Regency was finished in design and, I'm pretty sure, in
    editing. I'm still hoping to get it posted to the website at some point,
    but no such luck so far.

    3. Hogunmark was finished and printed, but made available as a special
    promotion for the RPGA. Since an RPGA membership cost $20 and you'd get
    Hogunmark, several issues of Polyhedron (6?), and other freebies, it was a
    no-brainer. Join RPGA, get all that stuff for $20. I believe the RPGA may
    have a few left, but you'd have to talk to them.

    4. Bloodspawn and The Shadow Moon (the two Shadow World projects in
    development when they were pulled) were in various stages of unfinished.
    Bloodspawn, IMO, looked pretty good, but needed some development time.
    Shadow Moon needed some heavy playtesting, IMO, but was about what I'd say
    two-thirds of the way done through the design process. Very rough, and
    completely unedited.

    5. Rich Baker's novel Falcon and the Wolf was finished but never released.
    Again, this is something I'd like to get made available on the web, but
    that's even trickier than Book of Regency, since it involves an author's
    ownership (novels are handled differently than game books when they are
    cancelled, since we don't have people working on staff time writing novels).

    That's the status. Not much to report, but hopefully misinformation is
    downgraded.
    Ed (or "Ted," or "T'Ed," or whatever) Stark
    Creative Director, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons
    Wizards of the Coast

    To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
    with the line

  2. #2
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,181
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7

    Fw: How it should have been

    Robert Trifts wrote:

    > As there was some discussion regarding Ed's post from June, I repost it here
    > to the list in its entirety.
    >
    > For my part - the product I'd like to see most is the one more or less ready
    > for publication
    > ; namely, the Book of Regency

    Here, here!

    Though I would have liked to have seen something for guilders to (The Book of
    Guildcraft?) to explain a few details in what I think is probably the most
    poorly outlined type of regent. Mages are the most unbalanced, IMO, because
    they get no revenue, no support structure, no troops, etc. but the rules
    covering guilds are not very well fleshed out, leading to a lot of "house rules"
    regarding things that really ought to be standardized....

    Gary
    To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
    with the line

  3. #3
    Earl Hildebrandt
    Guest

    Fw: How it should have been

    GeeMan wrote:

    >Though I would have liked to have seen something for guilders to (The >Book
    of
    >Guildcraft?) to explain a few details in what I think is probably the >most
    >poorly outlined type of regent. Mages are the most unbalanced, IMO,
    >because
    >they get no revenue, no support structure, no troops, etc. but the rules
    >covering guilds are not very well fleshed out, leading to a lot of "house
    >rules"
    >regarding things that really ought to be standardized....

    Actually, it seems that the Birthright staff was considering a "Book of
    Guildcraft"(possibly for 1999) in one form or another before the line went on
    hold:

    Carrie Bebris wrote on April 15, 1999:
    >1) What was the status of the Shadow World trilogy and guild book at the
    > time BR was put on hold?
    >To the best of my knowledge, Shadow Moon was partially written. Blood >Spawn

    >was written and partially edited. Design on Charge of the Cold Rider had >not

    >started yet, though as the climax of the series, we had notes and ideas
    >about
    >what it would contain. The guild book had not been started at all.

    __________________________________________________ __________________
    Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com.To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
    with the line

  4. #4
    RocksHope@aol.co
    Guest

    Fw: How it should have been

    In a message dated 7/28/99, 4:20:08 PM, birthright@lists.imagiconline.com
    writes:


    You think a Court Wizard is up a creek, try playing a fighter with only law
    holdings. At least source holdings don't have maintenance (ok, law claims
    can get you some money, enough for maintenance and maybe an action every now
    and then, but since you're, in effect, stealing from others, you're asking
    for trouble).

    Which would you be more scared of.. a fighter controling law holdings and
    provinces, or a mage controling sources and provinces? (Even at first level,
    high level is way too obvious). Or, if you prefer, which would you be more
    scared of.. a fighter with only law holdings, or a mage with only source
    holdings? (Assuming the mage has alchemy, I think it's a no brainer). Last
    case, a fighter with no holdings, or a mage with no holdings. Ok, that got
    off tangent. But the point is, there's no limitation in the game on who owns
    provinces. Comparing holdings, law and sources both have severe limitations
    compared to temple and guilds, but at least the sources allow magic. Law
    holdings are by far the weakest of the bunch, IMO.

    And, with magic, all limitations are merely temporary until the caster takes
    the time to "fix" them.
    To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
    with the line

  5. #5
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,181
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7

    Fw: How it should have been

    > Hello RocksHope, Adam Theo here. (7/28/1999, 7:25 PM)
    >
    > hm, how about this idea for making law more balanced and important:
    >
    > move the ability of taxation from provinces to law holdings. it's an
    > idea i'm playing around with.
    > the higher your law holding in the province, the greater the taxes,
    > and the greater your 'iron fist of control' on the province. makes
    > sense to me.

    Personally, I don't have any objection to the taxation that law holdings levy
    on other holdings. I think it is a matter of interpretation on how those taxes
    are described by the DM or the player who levies them.

    On the other hand, I don't have an objection to your suggestion either, Adam,
    though I wonder how this would affect a regent who was a province holder.
    Seems like it might kind of remove him from his position of authority or, at
    least, his position of economic superiority.... Normally, the guy who
    generates the most taxes in a province is the regent who controls the land
    itself. Changing this to the law holder would shift the significance of being
    the province holder away to the law holder a bit. Normally, this isn't really
    a problem because they tend to be the same guy, but it could drastically change
    the situation when it came to creating vassals. Other regents (like Avan)
    control a LOT of law holdings outside of their borders. Making this change
    would probably also drastically change the way some regents collected taxes and
    divvied up their realms....

    None of the above are necessarily bad things. Just a change in the game's
    dynamics. How is it working for you?

    Gary

    To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
    with the line

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    159
    Downloads
    21
    Uploads
    0

    Fw: How it should have been

    SCO Adam Theo wrote:
    >
    > move the ability of taxation from provinces to law holdings. it's an
    > idea i'm playing around with.
    > the higher your law holding in the province, the greater the taxes,
    > and the greater your 'iron fist of control' on the province. makes
    > sense to me.
    >
    I've considered removing "province rulership" altogether and let the law
    holdings determine who really controls the province. That way two (or
    more!) regents can have a dispute over a province (there are plenty of
    examples of that from medieval times). Law holdings also generate the
    "province" taxation, and where you get province support, you'd get law
    holding support instead.

    - --
    ******************
    Aleksei Andrievski
    aka Solmyr, Archmage of the Azure Star
    solmyr@kolumbus.fi
    http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Fortress/2198/index.html
    To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
    with the line

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.