Results 1 to 6 of 6
Thread: Fw: How it should have been
-
07-28-1999, 03:03 AM #1Robert TriftsGuest
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
-
07-28-1999, 08:21 PM #2
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
-
07-28-1999, 08:38 PM #3Earl HildebrandtGuest
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
-
07-28-1999, 09:22 PM #4RocksHope@aol.coGuest
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
-
07-29-1999, 12:50 AM #5
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
-
07-30-1999, 08:49 PM #6
- 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)
Bookmarks