PBeM going live

[Magian]

You may want to establish a site where you can post that link. I doubt the admin here will keep it up. Advertising such things is risky. FYI.

[Magian]

Pre-game alliances leaving a bad taste in people's mouths is kind of silly to me. If we are going to play in Cerilia, then let's play in the setting. What leaves a bad taste in my mouth are these arbitrary alliances that pop up in pre-game diplomacy changing the face of the political arena before we even begin. That takes away the feel of the setting to me and it becomes a meta-game more like Total War in sandbox mode. There is nothing wrong with a sandbox play, but there is no sense of historical relationships in a game like Total War, but there is and should be in Birthright.

I like the ideas I am hearing from the DM thus far. Regardless of what a person may think they want in game play, a new experience that attempts to bring a new sense to an old setting is always worth a try. I always wanted to play in a game that would actually bring out the established diplomacy and political climate that the setting offers pre-game. Playing a new role is always worth exploring, and always being able to choose something on your own terms isn't exploring roleplay much at all. For example I am playing TCV in Osoerde in a game and I've done things with it I could have never imagined unless I got the role to play it. This a domain that is rarely if ever taken and most likely seen as a target to get rid of in most games. I suggest give it a shot even if you are leary of the presentation at first. You may find you enjoy it more than your already established assumptions of what the game should be.

[bedwear]

So , when the game will be open to apply?..,)

[Swashbuckler]

I agree with almost every POV that Magian espoused above. I have played in a game where we took the standing alliances and temperaments as they were from the book(s), and I have played in "make a PC, replace a named regent, commence world domination" games. Both are fun in their own right, but I much prefer the canon setting to rewriting every domain and regent and trying to make a game of it. To me, that sorta kills the idea of playing in Cerilia with the Birthright setting. You may as well craft a homebrew world at that point and use just the ruleset.

However, it sounds as if we have a mixed game ahead - one where most of the background/alliances/temperaments are in-place ala the 2nd Ed rules, but one where some of the main domains may have some initial changes which have not been revealed yet (as our DM alluded to above). I have no issues with that, but such things should be clarified before we kick off the first turn.

We are currently planning to let you folks choose your domains. However, I am leaning towards a more "generic" selection to an actual direct choosing of the domain. Meaning, if you want to play a wizard, then we will put you in a source somewhere vs allowing you to choose exactly which domain you want. What are your thoughts or does this matter?

My thoughs are - have players submit a PC concept (basics like name, gender, age, class, etc.), and then give them the "top 3" choices of domains where the DM(s) see a good fit. If nothing suits what the player is looking for, then suggest other avenues or directions that they might consider. I realize this is the most DM-Player-interaction-intensive method, but I've seen it used before, and it worked out very well.

[Fearless_Leader]

I agree with almost every POV that Magian espoused above. I have played in a game where we took the standing alliances and temperaments as they were from the book(s), and I have played in "make a PC, replace a named regent, commence world domination" games. Both are fun in their own right, but I much prefer the canon setting to rewriting every domain and regent and trying to make a game of it. To me, that sorta kills the idea of playing in Cerilia with the Birthright setting. You may as well craft a homebrew world at that point and use just the ruleset.

Hmm... well, I agree with some of the points here, and disagree with others.

- In almost every game I've DM'ed or played in, the pre-existing alliances have remained intact. Most of the time this is a good thing, but since 1995 there have been dozens of pbems (perhaps hundreds) and most of the scenarios in Anuire's balance of power have been played out with each game offering only a minor permutation. I don't mean this as criticism; after all, I have played in and DM'ed those games and they're a lot of fun. I would however make the point that mixing things up and having games without the pre-game alliances can be a very good thing from time to time.

- I think someone above made reference to 'pre-game alliances' in terms of players joining the game and conspiring together. I think there's a fine line to be drawn here. Some players like to join pbems with their friends (or, occasionally, their spouses). This seems fine to me as long as such players join as domains that are either tied together in the pregame setup, or else as domains that make natural allies. I've actually had players join the game before where one takes up as a major power and then seeds his RL friends all around Anuire, so I understand the ways this can get out of hand.

- OP was looking for thoughts on domain selection. My thoughts are that the generic selection mechanism could work, so long as this is made clear to people that are joining. I agree with what Magian said above -- introducing elements into domain selection that are beyond the immediate control of the player sounds interesting, and could allow for domains and options that aren't typically selected. It could also alleviate some of the repetitious play I talked about above in my first point.

[Magian]

I'm sure it'll work out no matter how it is done. Personal preferences tend to leave room for personal growth. That is, as long as we can maintain an open mind. One thing you'll find is there are many definitions of what an RPG is that focus on the various dimensions of the game styles inherent within this aspect of gaming. The tendency to focus on power in the political game of Birthright we can lose the dimension of the story, the characters, the organics of the setting, and the actual role we are attempting to play. The mind naturally can transcend the rules and start meta-gaming. This is where most of our forum discussions begin. Since we have little to go on in our personal experiences to bring this kind of thing out in character, we have tendency to leave the character's knowledge and rely on our own. Unless we are someone like an actual senator or politician we have very little experience to go on. Therefore it becomes a challenge to relate to our roles.

In the wargame aspect of play, which I find very helpful for rules that add to the gameplay, there is a tendency to thinking about how to win the game. For me, this begs the question did Julius Ceasar win the game? Did any emperor of Rome win the game? Persia was always there, Alexander died young, and they like all other humans end up dead. Alexander being the paragon of all Roman emperors as the one conqueror of the empire they could never defeat. To me the notion of winning is in many respects absurd. I see it as a shallow understanding of what an RPG has to offer. The win for me is fun. Back to my TCV game I am getting my royal butt kicked by the bigger domains and yet I feel that I am winning because I have created the domain with more detail that I would have ever given to it before, and I am seeing a political viewpoint of the game I hadn't thought of before. Therefore I see as part of winning as creativity and yet I don't view it as winning.

Why I bring these points out is, if you are Brosengae, Taeghas, or Talinie and are put under the thumb of one of the big guys, you still have options. You owe fealty to them, but are free to read it as you may. That can be a relationship for you if you choose, or it can be a challenge and maybe even an obstacle to overcome. The many styles of play to me are nothing but a focus on a particular dimension of the game and they all fit into the setting as presented or altered by the DM for his own choosing. Therefore it can all work out even if we are put into a role that at first may turn us off.

[DM_Anuire]

Hey guys. I've been reading along and wanted to touch on some of the topics you guys have mentioned so far:

Pre-game alliances: I define these as alliances that are NOT in the setting at campaign start but begin when two people know each other and attempt to benefit one another with an unlikely alliance. First off, these are a drag. They take away from the point of playing the game and in general are no fun to the other players who are working hard to try and establish legit, in-game alliances. This is one reason for a "generic" domain selection as it makes fitting players into domains a tad more random and can help curve pre-game alliances. Also, these types of shenanigans will be monitored. If we notice that the Mohr and Guilder Kalien (for instance) all of a sudden have this unbreakable alliance and are sharing resources freely after just one diplomacy action, then, yeah, we're probably going to have a problem with that. This is where "random events" can surely interfere with unfair alliances and such. Don't get me wrong, we will award players who try hard to establish these types of alliances, but what we won't tolerate is two players coming together to form an unlikely alliance just because.

Story Line: I wanted to mention this again. The storyline that we have will drive many domains to "perhaps" do somethings they wouldn't normally do. Maybe its desperation, maybe its greed. But, what we can promise is this, there will not be a single played domain that will NOT be a part of the story, either directly or indirectly. This is where I believe a lot of the PBeM's fail. They simply try to place players in domains and then say, "Go at it guys! May the best player win!" Not us says I. Having a story line that helps drive the campaign will not only create some unforgettable moments, but it will also drive the campaign so that players will come together, war, intrigue, live, and die. Besides, everyone likes their character more if they are a part of something larger than they are. Granted, not all players can "win." Some WILL be eliminated via character death. Some will play for a while and quit, and well, someone will perhaps rise to be the new Emperor (isn't that the goal, the ultimate prize?). We can't promise who that will be but we can promise you will have fun figuring it out!

Start Date: We are doing the technical stuff now and main campaign setup. Our goal is the first week of August.

Multi-Characters: No. Only your regent. You may name heirs (highly suggested) and that will be the only other characters you could ever play.

NPC Domains: NPCs will control the major powers of the setting. Avanil, Boeruine, Ghoere, to name a few. This is done very intentional. Mainly, as someone mentioned before, to prevent the game from ending up the way most people would imagine it to end up. i.e. Avanil is set up in the campaign to most assuredly take the throne. But, that's BEFORE our story line!

Again, this isn't our first rodeo. We have played in quiet a few PBeM's and BR campaigns and we have a learned a lot from those experiences. I'm telling ya, when we officially open the domains for selection, you better grab a seat and hang on! Its going to be a wild ride!

DM_Anuire

P.S. Continue to post your questions and comments. I'll let ya know when we get closer to domain selection.

[Fearless_Leader]

I agree with the point on pre-game teamwork. I've had a lot of trouble with this before and, yeah, its terrible roleplaying, its unfair to the other players, and it represents a triumph of meta-gaming over roleplaying and strategic skill.

But like I said, some players only join games in groups; either with their good friends or spouses. In such cases, if the players want domains that are far removed from one another and are good enough not to secure an unfair out-of-game advantage, then all is well; although even the appearance of impropriety can be just as damaging as the real thing.

However, if such players want to join together as natural allies (or at least natural non-enemies), that's another matter. Some examples: Avanil and the Prince's Pride or even Taeghas, Aerenwe and High Mage Aelies, etc. But such cases are pretty rare and there are no guarantees -- in the first pbem I ever ran, Aerenwe and HMA ended up fighting each other and successfully killing one another's characters, even though they were played by two old friends of mine.

So basically it all comes down to the preference of the DM (not exactly a stunning conclusion, but there it is).

[AndrewTall]

Pre-game alliances: I define these as alliances that are NOT in the setting at campaign start but begin when two people know each other and attempt to benefit one another with an unlikely alliance. ... If we notice that the Mohr and Guilder Kalien (for instance) all of a sudden have this unbreakable alliance and are sharing resources freely after just one diplomacy action, then, yeah, we're probably going to have a problem with that. This is where "random events" can surely interfere with unfair alliances and such.

I'm sure that some-one said on the forums something along the lines of "in a good game random event's probably aren't". If using the "domain has its own alignemnt and goals" approach, those sort of freakish meta-game domain alignments will encourage the npc's in the relevant domain to take action to prevent the fruits of their hard work being squandered, encourage corruption as others follow the example of the leadership, etc.

That said people are more likely to join, and stay, in a game if they are with friends. Friends are also able to nudge each other to complete turn orders, answer emails, etc. So saying "I'd like a realm that's on good terms with and close to my buddy Joe" doesn't sound unreasonable - as you note though it is something for a DM to watch in practice.

[Arentak]

How will you handle the 2e rules about high-level sources acting as guilds? (TSR 3117 Book of Magecraft, Page 19). This has massive implications for the elven realms. not so much for the rest of Anuire.

How about the maximum number of holdings in a province (TSR3100, Birthright Campaign Setting, Page 34)

Edit: Also, what about "XP For domain actions".