Results 11 to 20 of 25
Thread: Wondrous structures in the BRCS.
-
11-01-2005, 08:12 AM #11
Actually, Monte Cook's contract with WotC was canceled (or so it seems) a little after these announcements of his, and the whole 4e thingy was a hoax.
In any case, a wondrous structure has to effects: it plays some role in the development and general attitude of the people whom it concerns, and it grants a payoff of RP for what the regent does (which he might be able to convert back to GB, if that's what matters to him).
-
11-01-2005, 01:33 PM #12
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Now I do think that the wonders issue could definitely use some work in the revision. IMO something akin to what was done in Chap 2 regarding creating new blood abilities. Basically give some guidelines to follow and maybe an example or two of potential ones. I do not think we should have a list of wonders - they really are designed to be individually created for a set game and should remain that way.
Personnally I never really liked the wonders aspect - it just seemed to muck things up and led very much towards a game that tried to emulate the various computer games. But that is only a personal opinion and won't reflect what ends up in the BRCS.
IIRC the entire reference to wonders came from the Book of Regency and this one tiny section:
Creative regents can build all manner of interesting structures. A regent might choose to build an edifice or “work of wonder” to attract trade or support for his holding. For example, a regent who controls a trade port might choose to build a giant lighthouse. He could have to spend upwards of 3d6 GB to construct the “work of wonder,” but he could gain a modifier to the number of Gold Bars he receives in taxes or trade, and the DM might increase the amount of Regency Points he gains per turn because people flock to see the edifice—and support him for building it.
Duane Eggert
-
11-01-2005, 02:37 PM #13
- Join Date
- Feb 2002
- Location
- New Haven, CT
- Posts
- 231
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Originally Posted by irdeggman
The one thing of notice in this is that the 2E 'wonders' definitely had a payback period. Obviously things in 2E were screwed up - a 'wonder' costing only 3d6 GB could be built each turn by a guilder while various landed regents would never build one. But regardless of who could build them, the initial cost would be repaid in time by the benefits gained. In most 2E PBEMs I played in, everyone and their cousin were building 'wonders'. I didn't like this, but I think the current rules are a bit hard handed (no attacks intended, I haven't offered up any solutions myself).
Thus I tend to agree with the comment that the next version ought to review this. Perhaps the cost could be reduced a bit - 15 GB per level is still a lot of money. Then you could say the maintenance is zero because the costs of maintaining are off-set by the increased income of people coming to see it. Just pick up .5 RP per wonder level and be done with it.
-
11-01-2005, 03:33 PM #14
Wondrous structures in the BRCS.
At 09:12 AM 11/1/2005 +0100, RaspK_FOG wrote:
>Actually, Monte Cook`s contract with WotC was canceled (or so it seems) a
>little after these announcements of his, and the whole 4e thingy was a hoax.
IIRC, the comments from Monte Cooke came well after he had left WotC and,
though it did read as being a little disgruntled in terms of tone, I don`t
think that really changes the truth value of what he had to say. It is,
after all, a pretty good business strategy; one that has been adopted by a
large percentage of people in the entertainment industry. Heck, just about
everything is released in a similar fashion nowadays. The newest, latest
thing is the "fashion" of the moment. WotC/D&D seems to get guff for doing
what every other major gaming system does on a regular basis. Relatively
few people get upset about the release of a potential new edition of
GURPS. (Of course, that might have something to do with the way WotC is
trying to infringe on the market share of other systems, and a few
questionable issues having to do with quality and content, but still it
strikes me as being a double standard.)
As for the 4e thing being a hoax, I haven`t found anything to confirm
it--but I haven`t been looking too hard. The comments I heard do differ
from those more obviously "hoax" stuff in that seems to be common for such
things such as "the 4th edition will mark the return of the boxed set" and
that there will be starter and master sets. Developing rules geared
towards computer games seems like a good idea strategically speaking. I`ll
get back to the person who told me about it to see what his source
was. Until then take it with a big crusty grain of salt (like the kind on
the lip of a margarita glass.)
Gary
-
11-01-2005, 04:29 PM #15
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
IIRC (there was a lot of discussion about 4th ed on Enworld - especially around 1 April) - the "plan" of WotC was to have revisions (i.e, different editions) about every 10 years - which was for the most part the historical pattern.
They discovered that a 3.5 was "needed" and instead of merely doing a few tweaks in became a pretty major redo - although as Monte had described it is mas more than an update and less than a real revision (hence the 3.5).
The reason, IMO, that 3.5 came out so quickly was the fact that WotC hadn't really factored in the "internet" factor and the fact that they would be getting feedback and suggestions so quickly because of it.
Regardless we will just have to wait and see since there is no "official" announcement by WotC yet.Duane Eggert
-
11-02-2005, 04:09 PM #16
See some of the posts on the matter to understand how this has gone on: no 4e will come up unless more than just a couple years pass by...
Originally Posted by EnWorld member
I had to fend off some guy who presented himself as part of the WotC personnel; you can't begin to imagine the number of trolls out there!!
-
11-02-2005, 05:11 PM #17
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Location
- England
- Posts
- 95
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
how to kill a good game
morons!
-
11-04-2005, 01:19 AM #18
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- BR mailing list
- Posts
- 1,538
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Wondrous structures in the BRCS.
If anyone`s still interested, a few people on this list wrote up some
solutions to the wonders-issue that I still really like. This information is
a little old and hasn`t been updated in awhile, but if you`d like I can
update it a little with some of the latest ideas from this list/board.
The system involved creating "specialty holdings" by using a Rule action to
assign a specialization to one of your holdings, giving it new abilities
instead of an additional level. There`s been a lot of work done with these
by various authors here; I mostly just did editing and made some overarching
system decisions. It includes rules for making things like gold mines, varsk
ranches, grand bazaars, watch towers, and other such specializations that
people might be tempted to write up as "wonders".
http://www.geocities.com/lordrahvin/holdings.htm
Please check it out and feel free to comment or add to the system, as you`d
like.
-Lord RahvinNOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.
-
11-04-2005, 10:29 AM #19
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Location
- England
- Posts
- 95
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Great work but
colour me stupid but i'm confused.........(time lapses)
its amazing what can happen if you actually read something properly.
My question was going to be can you still raise a holding that has been specialised. simple answer is yes. yay but i have another question and this one i cant sort out.
With the upkeep cost say 1 lvl of Law how does it work?
is it this: Border Guards require a Law 3 and have an upkeep of Law 1. after successful creating of the specialty holding, does the law lvl drop to Law (Border Guards) 2 or does it stay at Law 3 (border Guards) nut have the effect of a lvl 2 law?
Manty
-
11-04-2005, 11:01 AM #20
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
As I read what Lord R posted (via link) it works like this:
“Upkeep” refers to the amount of levels that need to be sacrificed for acquiring the specialty. Most Specialty Holdings have an upkeep cost of one level, effectively negating the benefits of the Rule action used to establish the Specialty Holding. Remember that a holding is still considered it’s true level for purposes of determining level limits and so forth, but is effectively a lower level for purposes of using that holding for RP collection, revenue collection, domain actions, etc.
Basically the upkeep is the difference between the max holding level allowed of the base type and the specialty holding type (basically it is a subholding that gives difference benefits than the "base" holding does hence it doesn't count towards the benefits of having a base holding of a higher level in exchange for granting "other" things.
Note that these variations were written based on the 2nd ed rulesets and not the BRCS ones.Duane Eggert
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks