Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Empires

  1. #1

    Empires

    At 11:10 AM 7/1/97 +1000, Jeremy Scrimes(araqyl@spin.net.au)wrote:
    >
    >I LIKE the aspect of choice for DMs... The basic rules for ruling realms
    >are there, and rules for expanding realms are there, and rules for vassals
    >so that large realms aren't sluggish giants are there - if the player can't
    >use those rules to create a realm that is "an empire" (which is usually a
    >self-appointed title for a realm anyway!), then they don't deserve one. And
    >if the DM can't use those rules to predict (and create appropriate)
    >opposition to the player's budding "empire", then the DM should probably
    >hand over control of this campaign to somebody who has the necessary skills
    >to give the player(s) the finest role-playing experience of building an
    >empire that is possible.
    >

    I have to agree with you. One of the many things I love about BR is the fact
    I can speak to any BR DM and know that his game will be little like mine at
    all. But we still have common ground and rules with which to compare our
    experiences. Almost every other campaign setting has both its past and it
    future written out for them by designers, and that bores me. I love creating
    the entire experience with my PCs. Being able to weave our own intricate
    plotlines without having to worry about bucking the "planned" vision of BR
    makes it all that much better. Who, if anyone, will be the new Emperor is up
    to the DM and Players. Not someone who will never sit at the gaming table
    with you. Well thats my 2GBs.

    Sepsis, richt@metrolink.net

    "War is a matter of vital importance to the State;
    the province of life or death;
    the road to survival or ruin.
    It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied."
    -Sun Tzu,(The Art of War)-

    BR Netbook: http://www.box.net.au/~hoss/birth.html

  2. #2
    Matthew M. Colville
    Guest

    Empires

    >At 11:10 AM 7/1/97 +1000, Jeremy Scrimes(araqyl@spin.net.au)wrote:

    >>

    >>I LIKE the aspect of choice for DMs... The basic rules for ruling
    realms

    >>are there, and rules for expanding realms are there, and rules for
    vassals

    >>so that large realms aren't sluggish giants are there - if the player
    can't

    >>use those rules to create a realm that is "an empire" (which is
    usually a

    >>self-appointed title for a realm anyway!), then they don't deserve
    one. And

    >>if the DM can't use those rules to predict (and create appropriate)

    >>opposition to the player's budding "empire", then the DM should
    probably

    >>hand over control of this campaign to somebody who has the necessary
    skills

    >>to give the player(s) the finest role-playing experience of building
    an

    >>empire that is possible.

    >>

    >

    >I have to agree with you. One of the many things I love about BR is
    the fact

    >I can speak to any BR DM and know that his game will be little like
    mine at

    >all. But we still have common ground and rules with which to compare
    our

    >experiences. Almost every other campaign setting has both its past and
    it

    >future written out for them by designers, and that bores me. I love
    creating

    >the entire experience with my PCs. Being able to weave our own
    intricate

    >plotlines without having to worry about bucking the "planned" vision
    of BR

    >makes it all that much better. Who, if anyone, will be the new Emperor
    is up

    >to the DM and Players. Not someone who will never sit at the gaming
    table

    >with you. Well thats my 2GBs.

    >

    >Sepsis, richt@metrolink.net

    >


    This makes no sense to me. . If you had your choice between a
    Birthright which actively ignores, never adresses or even acknowledges
    the question of a PC as emperor and one which does, in any way, you'd
    pick the first one??? Why? Does it bug you that there are rules on
    investiture? Domain actions?


    My point, to which Jeremy was responding, was that the issue of a PC
    as Emperor is so obvious, that it was foolish in the extreme for the
    Birthright designers to ignore the question. How is
    it possible that there are people who disagree with
    this? If you dislike the idea of even adressing the question because
    it somehow, mystically, takes away power from the GM, then why don't
    you disapprove of campaign settings altogether??

    - ---------------------- ---------------------------

    Matthew M. Colville. Armed only with wisdom

    mcolville@earthlink.net The Shintao Monks fight against the
    darkness...

    Role-Playing and Fiction

    http://home.earthlink.net/~mcolville

  3. #3

    Empires

    At 11:24 PM 7/1/97 -0700, Matthew Colville(mcolville@earthlink.net)wrote:
    >
    >This makes no sense to me. . If you had your choice between
    >a Birthright which actively ignores, never adresses or even
    >acknowledges the question of a PC as emperor and one which does,
    >in any way, you'd pick the first one??? Why? Does it bug you that
    >there are rules on investiture? Domain actions?
    >
    >My point, to which Jeremy was responding, was that the issue of a
    >PC as Emperor is so obvious, that it was foolish in the extreme for
    >the Birthright designers to ignore the question. How is it possible
    >that there are people who disagree with this? If you dislike the idea
    >of even adressing the question because it somehow, mystically, takes
    >away power from the GM, then why don't you disapprove of campaign
    >settings altogether??
    >

    I'M not bothered at all by the various Regent and Domain Actions. They are
    at the heart of a PCs attempt to forge thier own Empire. Thats the point I
    was making. What I don't like the idea of is a situation written in stone
    like, "The Regent of Avanil *will* become Emperor within 10 years." Most
    likely I'd have to deal with all my Players wanting to be the destined
    Emperor. The question of who will be the next Emperor is core to the
    conflict within this setting, and the rise to that position is something I
    feel should be determined by DMs and thier Players through actual play. Not
    by following a series of predetermined events. I have no problem with
    campaign settings, but that is what they are *settings*. The actual events
    that take place once a campaign starts should not be ploted out by folks who
    are not in *your* game. Again this has nothing to do with published
    settings, adventures, or supplements in general. Only when they start
    setting a narrow course that must be followed in order for your campaign to
    remain consistant with a predetermined timeline, do I have a problem with
    them. As I have said before, give me a well constructed arena to lead my
    Players into, and we can handle the rest. I just don't like someone else
    saying, "Regardless of how good your Players role-play if they are not
    Regent X they can't become Emperor." I'm perfectly fine with all the
    clarification and mechanics that they want to give to better detail the
    setting, and allow us to undertake our bids for the Iron Throne, I just
    don't want the future of my world's history to be written out as a 'these
    events(or even just this event)will take place no matter what the PCs do'
    sort of situation. Well I hope I cleared up my ealier statment. Thanks for
    listening.

    Sepsis, richt@metrolink.net

    "War is a matter of vital importance to the State;
    the province of life or death;
    the road to survival or ruin.
    It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied."
    -Sun Tzu,(The Art of War)-

    BR Netbook: http://www.box.net.au/~hoss/birth.html

  4. #4

    Empires

    At 09:22 AM 7/3/97 +1000, Jeremy Scrimes(araqyl@spin.net.au)wrote:
    >

    >
    >Who knows? Maybe they planned a "High-level Realms" accessory for BR, and it
    >just hasn't surfaced yet?
    >Also, I don't think either myself or Sepsis mentioned that it takes power
    >away from the DM - we just enjoy each campaign being clearly unique; as the
    >players don't have a 'model Empire' to copy, they have to be inventive and
    >put their own creative energies into structuring an Empire that is uniquely
    >THEIR Empire.
    >

    Again I have to agree with you. I think prehaps we were all getting our
    lines crossed. I think we all agree that "who" will be Emperor must be left
    up to individual DMs and Players. As for how they can run and maintain such
    a huge political entity, there is room for clarification. I could go either
    way on such a set of rules. Although it might be a bear to deal with such a
    huge structure using the present BR Domain maintenence system, shouldn't it
    be? I don't think ruling an Empire is an easy task and the present rules
    would reflect this. But I would call for a way to dump most of the
    'paperwork' into the PCs lap.

    Sepsis, richt@metrolink.net

    "War is a matter of vital importance to the State;
    the province of life or death;
    the road to survival or ruin.
    It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied."
    -Sun Tzu,(The Art of War)-

    BR Netbook: http://www.box.net.au/~hoss/birth.html

  5. #5
    Matthew M. Colville
    Guest

    Empires

    > I just don't like someone else
    >saying, "Regardless of how good your Players role-play if they are not
    >Regent X they can't become Emperor." I'm perfectly fine with all the
    >clarification and mechanics that they want to give to better detail the
    >setting, and allow us to undertake our bids for the Iron Throne, I just
    >don't want the future of my world's history to be written out as a 'these
    >events(or even just this event)will take place no matter what the PCs do'
    >sort of situation.

    But who has ever even mentioned this? Why not tell us you don't
    like asparagus?

    As far as I can remember, no-one has ever suggested that there
    should be a rule governing who can become Emperor. I'm the only one on
    this bandwagon right now, and all I want is the subject of Emperor covered.
    Mentioned. Spoken of. I want a section in the rulebook that says "So you
    want to be Emperor," and then give guidlines and rules as to how that
    happens, and what happens if you succeed. How does this harm the system?
    In fact, how is this not incredibly beneficial??

    - ---------------------- ---------------------------
    Matthew M. Colville. Armed only with wisdom
    mcolville@earthlink.net The Shintao Monks fight against the darkness...
    Role-Playing and Fiction
    http://home.earthlink.net/~mcolville

  6. #6

    Empires

    At 10:44 AM 7/4/97 -0700, Matthew Colville(mcolville@earthlink.net)wrote:
    >
    > But who has ever even mentioned this? Why not tell us you don't
    >like asparagus?
    >
    > As far as I can remember, no-one has ever suggested that there
    >should be a rule governing who can become Emperor. I'm the only one on
    >this bandwagon right now, and all I want is the subject of Emperor covered.
    >Mentioned. Spoken of. I want a section in the rulebook that says "So you
    >want to be Emperor," and then give guidlines and rules as to how that
    >happens, and what happens if you succeed. How does this harm the system?
    >In fact, how is this not incredibly beneficial??
    >

    I must apologize. As I said in my follow up Post to the one you quoted I see
    now that I did misunderstand you. I thought you were calling for an official
    determination of who will become Emperor. I was wrong. My confusion came
    from not seeing a need for additional rules surroung running an Empire when
    the rules for ruling a Kingdom already existed. Although through our
    discussion I have come to agree with you. I would be interested in seeing
    any mechanics specific to running an Empire that TSR would put out. But
    failing this maybe a member of the list should take a crack at it, and
    submit it to the Netbook.

    Sepsis, richt@metrolink.net

    "War is a matter of vital importance to the State;
    the province of life or death;
    the road to survival or ruin.
    It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied."
    -Sun Tzu,(The Art of War)-

    BR Netbook: http://www.box.net.au/~hoss/birth.html

  7. #7
    Gregoire Alexandre Segui
    Guest

    Empires

    On Fri, 4 Jul 1997, Matthew M. Colville wrote:

    >> I just don't like someone else
    >>saying, "Regardless of how good your Players role-play if they are not
    >>Regent X they can't become Emperor." I'm perfectly fine with all the
    >>clarification and mechanics that they want to give to better detail the
    >>setting, and allow us to undertake our bids for the Iron Throne, I just
    >>don't want the future of my world's history to be written out as a 'these
    >>events(or even just this event).
    >
    > I want a section in the rulebook that says "So you
    > want to be Emperor," and then give guidlines and rules as to how that
    > happens, and what happens if you succeed. How does this harm the system?
    > In fact, how is this not incredibly benefial??

    Looks like you are both saying the same thing. I agree with both
    of you. Although the thing that troubles me the most about these
    discutions, is that most of them assume that anuire, having done
    it in the past, is the one who is going to have an empire. If
    there are ever rules on extensive vassaillage of the Empire type
    and which specific seremonies other than a seremony of investiture
    have to be made for an Empire, I'd like them to also apply to the
    other races of Cerelia. Who knows, someone somewhere has probably
    figured out a reason why the elves would go out of their forests
    and conker the humans, though limiting the bloodshed and keeping
    their respect for life and nature enforced with the power of an
    empire???????


    Greg.

  8. #8
    Morten Helles
    Guest

    Empires

    > Although the thing that troubles me the most about these
    > discutions, is that most of them assume that anuire, having done
    > it in the past, is the one who is going to have an empire. If
    > there are ever rules on extensive vassaillage of the Empire type
    > and which specific seremonies other than a seremony of investiture
    > have to be made for an Empire, I'd like them to also apply to the
    > other races of Cerelia. Who knows, someone somewhere has probably
    > figured out a reason why the elves would go out of their forests
    > and conker the humans, though limiting the bloodshed and keeping
    > their respect for life and nature enforced with the power of an
    > empire???????

    I find it hard to imagine a non-Anuirean empire. It simply doesn't fit
    into other races' cultures to accept the almighty power of a single
    individual. Who could, for instance, imagine a Rjurik or Brecht empire?
    Well, not me. You can probably rule out the Vos too, as they may find it
    very hard to unite being as loosely organized as they are. The khinasi
    might have a chance, though, although I find their devotions to magic a
    bit odd as a base for an empire like Anuire's.

    But then again, anything might happen. As DM you have a strong say of
    what is fair and possible in your campaign.

    Morten.

    +

  9. #9
    araqyl@spin.net.au (Jes
    Guest

    Empires

    >> Although the thing that troubles me the most about these
    >> discutions, is that most of them assume that anuire, having done
    >> it in the past, is the one who is going to have an empire. If
    >> there are ever rules on extensive vassaillage of the Empire type
    >> and which specific seremonies other than a seremony of investiture
    >> have to be made for an Empire, I'd like them to also apply to the
    >> other races of Cerelia. Who knows, someone somewhere has probably
    >> figured out a reason why the elves would go out of their forests
    >> and conker the humans, though limiting the bloodshed and keeping
    >> their respect for life and nature enforced with the power of an
    >> empire???????
    >
    >I find it hard to imagine a non-Anuirean empire. It simply doesn't fit
    >into other races' cultures to accept the almighty power of a single
    >individual. Who could, for instance, imagine a Rjurik or Brecht empire?
    >Well, not me. You can probably rule out the Vos too, as they may find it
    >very hard to unite being as loosely organized as they are. The khinasi
    >might have a chance, though, although I find their devotions to magic a
    >bit odd as a base for an empire like Anuire's.
    >
    Ahm - I think that last sentence makes the point the first poster was
    referring to...
    The Khinasi would probably come up with an Empire completely different to
    Anuire's, based not so much on superiority of arms (although it could have
    that!) as on better communication or prediction of problems through magic-use.
    Some world leader once said that knowledge was power... and the use of magic
    would (hopefully!) grant greater (or earlier) knowledge of possible threats
    to a budding Empire...

    >But then again, anything might happen. As DM you have a strong say of
    >what is fair and possible in your campaign.
    >
    *cheer* :}

    See ya,
    Jeremy Scrimes
    araqyl@spin.net.au
    aka: Jes, Bolt, Araqyl, Jeremiah, Jeremy Hinoski.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Empires of Blood
    By Sorontar in forum Category
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-05-2008, 06:09 AM
  2. Empires of Blood
    By Sorontar in forum Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-05-2008, 06:03 AM
  3. Old Empires
    By Midnight in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-09-2005, 06:06 PM
  4. Adurian Empires Map
    By Varsk Rider in forum Empires of Blood
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-18-2004, 05:12 AM
  5. Various empires
    By lyndon@pobox.com (Lyndon in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-29-1997, 06:25 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.