Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    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).

  2. #12
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    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

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    New Haven, CT
    Posts
    231
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by irdeggman
    IIRC the entire reference to wonders came from the Book of Regency and this one tiny section:
    Ah, yes. I believe you are right.

    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.

  4. #14
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0

    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

  5. #15
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    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

  6. #16
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by EnWorld member
    My FLGS owner, who is a close friend of mine, was told by a source at WotC that 4th edition will be integrated with Magic: the Gathering. He was vague on *how* this would be done, as 4th edition is still very much in the preliminary stages. But the terms "feat cards", "spell cards" and "power boost cards" (?) were used.

    Please note: this is NOT just another "4e rumor". I've known this FLGS owner for years now, and his WotC insider friend is a man of honesty and integrity, who was with TSR long before WotC took over.

    At any rate, I thought I'd share it here. Personally, I'm looking forward to it already!
    and this... http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.a...nd/dx20010401a

    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!!

  7. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    England
    Posts
    95
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    how to kill a good game

    morons!

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    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 Rahvin
    NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.

  9. #19
    Member
    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

  10. #20
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    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)

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.