Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 91
  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Redding, California
    Posts
    220
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0


    Imagine the poor regent who shows up to sway the duchess of Tuornen only to confront the representitive of the Prince of Avanil who has purchased Diplomacy x2, Etiquette, Oratory, and Persuasion. If you haven't made diplomacy your specialty, you're out of your league. It doesn't mean you can't win, it just means you need to set your sights low, because a high success number will be modified out of reach in a competative contest of diplomacy.
    There isn't a problem here. If someone does do the ultra specialization they DERSERVE TO WIN, now you can always invade and shove a boot in their hole if the diplomacy of the situation is beyond the PC's ability to face down a diplomacy specialist.

    Of course you could hire your own and deligate some of the events through them to gain advantages such as the specialist you mention.

    Quote:
    Hardly....2nd edition is just fine for me.
    Which does not refute my premise.
    Your premise was the problems you were having in orchestrating you diplomacy actions in 3.????.

    And I am not trying to refute 3.??? issues, I am shedding light on issues of diplomacy by listing a skill set in order to alter it.

    If you don't want to use it fine, but 2nd edition offered fine ways to handle it if you can use the system effectively.

    I have listed a number of proficiencies/skills that could be orchestrated into the game if your DM is talented enough. The proficienies I provided are all related to your "Premise" and will provide a means to resolve it if your DM is talented enough to handle the ideas.

    Of course you will have to be more flexible than normal in 3.??? since DMing skills are eroded. They just don't want to see innovation and personal expression of the DMing skill in the game. Conformity in DMing that is what is offered as part of 3.???!!!

    For instance, my '83 Honda is a fine car for my purposes. Yet I will not deny that many models are more effecient, elegant, or reliable.
    You are talking cars....so lets say an old corvette when we talk of 2nd edition, and you can have whatever you desire for 3.????. I'm staying with my Vette!!

    Further, I will suggest that its much easier to imagine a pure social campiagn in 3rd edition than it is in 2nd edition. You can certainly homebrew 2nd edition up to the task, but 3rd edition comes that way out of the box.
    Rank, privledge, status, neither matter as much as a reputation with the people you rule matter little to me in relation to the game. Social status........you make me laugh.

    The game allows for any classes, with or without nobility to be a regent in the first place, but your perception of a "Pure social campaigh" is totally thrown ascew when thieves, clerics, or mages are thrown into the mix. Yes the higher social classes can more easilly assume social leadership, but any ol' PC can take rulership of a region through any number of powers. They only need a reputation to lead.

    Social gaming be darned. We are talking about diplomacy. I don't think social status is the bottom line here. Skills in social speaking, charismatic leadership skills, and a very good staff of followers is more important.

    The objection posted was based on the constant combination of 2nd edition and third edition terms.
    What objection. It was an saying that the 3.?? issue was not to be interpreted in a 2nd edition way. All I did was show a number of non weapon proficiencies that could handle the issue. This thread can handle 2nd edition too.

    Just because you post to 3.??? doesn't mean that 2nd edition interpretation can be used. I think some 3.??? people might even find a way to use it although you apparently can't. I will post to those people if you don't mind. This forum isn't limited to 3.?? interpretation.

    I am posting to the subject......er I mean premise.

    I would suppose that it was your intent to translate for the benefit of those who are only familiar with 3rd edition.
    To be direct....I was posting how it could be handled with any number of ideas that could be worked into the mechanics of whatever system you are using.

    To those only familiar with 3.???, I was attempting to spark curiousity about the resolution that was easilly achieved with the use of those non weapon proficiencies.

    Which was after all the premise of your original post.


    Later


  2. #12
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Perhaps wandering onto a board and suggesting that others are incapable dungeon masters is not a prudent strategy for one who would model diplomacy in role playing games.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Redding, California
    Posts
    220
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0


    Perhaps wandering onto a board and suggesting that others are incapable dungeon masters is not a prudent strategy for one who would model diplomacy in role playing games.
    1) I didn't wander anywhere.....I have been playing AD&D since 1976. It doesn't make me right, but I hardly wander anymore...LOL!

    I posted here to offer some material to a campaign setting I enjoy to play. At a slightly different.....lets say style.....and system. It is still as VALID as 3.??

    2) I said that a DM could use the skill sets that I presented to create a system/resolution (in whatever edition) through which you could achieve success in dealing with diplomatic situations if they were skilled enough, to convert the material to their edition. I never mentioned anyone, and I did try to be diplomatic in my presentation of a point of view that is allowed in this forum.

    3) Diplomacy is what you first posted to....problems in resolving the issues in 3.??. I simply mentioned how it could be resolved. You can't refute that it is possible to accomplish with the older system. It can and has been worked out by any number of DM's. I was hoping you could find something useful in my post. My mistake!

    4) Why the heck, if you only wanted a 3.??? viewpoint, did you post it in the forum that allows for all editions. You have a whole forum section that you and your fellow gamers can use to keep it true 3.???. I understand you wanted a broader viewpoint here in the "Royal Forum", but you didn't get the information you wanted......and you seem to have taken on a bit of an attitude. It is a game afterall.

    You put this thread out and got a response that showed a possible set of choices that could be usable in the game in an earlier edition. It can be converted by those willing to take the time and make the effort.

    You will see me post more. I do really hope to have successful debates with others here, but I will not be converted. I am staunch 2nd edition, but I will use any "Good" idea from any game or edition to modify my Birthright campaign to make it more enjoyable/playable.....even if it comes from 3.whatever!!

    Later


  4. #14
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MatanThunder
    ...if your DM is talented enough to handle the ideas... DMing skills are eroded... They just don't want to see innovation and personal expression of the DMing skill in the game. Conformity in DMing that is what is offered as part of 3.???!!!...you make me laugh... I think some 3.??? people might even find a way to use it although you apparently can't...
    The point of my post was not that we find you here, its the way you have addressed those with whom you disagree.

  5. #15
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Thanks Kenneth.



    Quote Originally Posted by MatanThunder





    I was trying to help, but I do have a question. Why can't 2nd edition be posted here in "The Royal Library". In fact, isn't this the area for such materials since there is a thread set up for the d20 or 3.????? crowd.
    It is perfectly acceptable to talk 2nd ed or to talk 3.x. I never intended to imply that it was wrong. If that is what you got out of my posts, then I apologize.

    I am just asking, because the thread rapidly degenerated away from whether individual skill/feats/proficiencies could be used to address the problem and became somewhat of a rah rah 3.???? and the old system is ****.
    Not from me. I only pointed out that the two are different systema and permeate the game itself.



    Have either of you ever played through a full blown Diplomacy using any of the proficieinces I mentioned?????????????


    Yes I have and it was extremely cumbbersome and in 2nd ed way too slanted since the non-proficiency checks were based solely (or at least overly dependently) on the ability score itself. So that an Anuirean was better at diplomcay than was an elf due to the wisdom increase (and neither got a charisma increase).


    I noticed that irdeggman has played a role in the 3.??? handbook. Is this the hostility I seem to be getting for bringing up the earlier materia.l
    Sorry for that impression. I don't think I said which system was better in any of my previous posts only that they were "different", nor did I jump on Kenneth and say his "discussion topic" was a bad idea (even though it is not in the BRCS). I only pointed out what I thought were 3.5 smilarities in other mechanics (since his discussion was from a 3.x point of view).



    I was just trying to put labels on some parts of the diplomatic process, and it had degenerated into the feats/skill vs weapon proficiencies/non weapon proficieincies.


    Because you had tied them together by mixing the two systems.

    Lets all try to get back to the subject of the thread, and stop the needless banter of the game systems. This parts of the site allows for some posting of 2nd edition materials, and I think there are still gamers out there able to use the system.
    Kenneth's original post (and he admitted that) was based on 3.5 mechanics not on a general concept. That is what should be stayed on topic. What I mean is that if someone asks a question or makes a proposal then things should be addressed in the same context. Bringing up 2nd ed mechanics for a question/topic routed in 3.5 mechanics is counterproductive. The same applies when someone brings up a topic pertaining to 2nd ed mechanics and gets addressed in 3.5 terminology. Both are equally bad. Both viewpoints are equally valid.

    The reason that most of the posts seem to be based on 3.x mechanics is because most of the newbies have never played 2nd ed and are comiing here based on what they "heard" of somehow managing to get a copy of the Gorgan's Alliance PC game. For the most part anyone (there are exceptions) who just started playing D&D within the past 10 years (amazing but 3.0 has been around about that long now) are playing 3.x rules and not 2nd ed. There are some people who prefer to play 2nd ed, and even some who go ack even farther (some all the way to OD&D). None of these are wrong, but people have to remember the wider audience they are talking to here and they use 3.x rules - good or bad is immaterial it is just a fact.

    The default system on the site (and most other sites dedicated to D&D) is 3.x due to its widespread use. In general when someone wants to a have a 2nd ed topic they make it clear in the first post and then, usually, people use that context to phrase their replies/comments.
    Duane Eggert

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Redding, California
    Posts
    220
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0


    Everyone has their opinions on the game and that is fine with me.

    I feel that the "Royal Library is the one place where the different variations of the game can be discussed without needlessly cluttering things up.

    I mean exactly this, while you may not find any idea I post useful, others may. In addition I am not posting directly to 2nd edition issues here, but instead offered possible alternatives for a gamer in 3.??? that might be worked on by a DM to find a way into the newer systems. The offered material may not be a feat but they are definitely skills, and as such could be ruled into the game by a DM.

    To the needless banter, I say it is water under the bridge, but I was genuinely offering advice (even though it is being pooh poohed). It is viable, to the point, and if not useable in the context of the thread for you, others might be able to.

    Yes I have and it was extremely cumbbersome and in 2nd ed way too slanted since the non-proficiency checks were based solely (or at least overly dependently) on the ability score itself. So that an Anuirean was better at diplomcay than was an elf due to the wisdom increase (and neither got a charisma increase).
    Cumbersome to you, but eminently playable for some of us. If you don't like all the issues then don't play the system. To imply that it is cumbersome by pointing out the number of dice rolls (and yes based on stats....that is what 2nd edition offers and I like it a lot better than what is current). I would suggest that you pre roll your dice to accomodate the added issues/rolls.

    Also if you do a little 2nd ed DMing you can easilly (like I have) factor in issues like CHR adjustments. I am hardly a BtB 2nd ed person, and as I have mentioned, I use what is good and throw away the rest. Makes for about 5 pages of house rules for 2nd ed, and about 7 for Birthright (although I haven't updated it recently.).

    DM alterations are totally accomodated by the rules of 1st & 2nd edition, where things became far less flexible after that.

    It is a matter of tastes gentlemen and ladies......(a girl where????)

    I am here for as long as I can find the time and the site has something to offer. I will post to issues that are 2nd ed when they come up, or I have a question about them. I also intend to post to specific issues that beg some sort of resolution that might be FOUND in my edition of the game.

    I'm not needlessly posting to issues, but neither will I shy away from issues like this that beg to be addressed in a 2nd edition manner to resolve the situation.

    More to come,

    Later


  7. #17
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    Matan, allow me to point something out as a sort of counterpoint: I would hardly need to make a choice between AD&D 2e and Alternity; adopting the feat check system of the latter in an AD&D ruleset along with the Player's Options supplements, though, hardly leaves it a straight off-the-shelf system, now, doesn't it?

    We appreciate your suggestions, but it would be best to realise that your points are commonly a tad more sarcastic than it is generally accepted as being polite, and you could certainly learn to accept that some people appreciate different systems for different styles of play.

    Honestly, of all 3 systems, I prefer Alternity; however, if I were to compare vanilla AD&D 2e with D&D 3e, I'd bet on the latter - if we went for the much more intensive Player's Options outlook on AD&D 2e, then I would tell you that I'd still prefer d20 for some games, but the older system allows a much better outlook on some other things, agreeably a lot more.

    The reason I play along with d20 a lot more, though, is that it is excellent in terms of internal consistency without suffering from lack of material; both TSR and WotC made the same mistake by offering more and more game products continuously to the point of feeding their customers up (note that there are rumours of Hasbro selling WotC off if they don't make more profits). The thing is that d20 offers you a much simpler ruleset to make whatever you want with great internal consistency, while 2e thrived on not maintaining it, to be honest with you: how many times had they had to set unarmed combat in paper to finalize it before they published a new book that somehow pointed out that you may use either this or that book's table, or that this table makes the other book's table obsolete? To be honest with you, I still don't remember their criss-crossing.

    It is also important to remember that some people find (and that is, actually, true) d20 more mathematically consistent: stats are more well thought out in terms of how the adjust other stats in the game; on ther other hand, 2e offers more flavour, since high-Wisdom characters become invulnerable to a great many enchantments and mind-effects, whereas Intelligence does the same trick with illusions under that system. A great idea that is, unfortunately, only partly incorporated in d20, and for good reason: the theme behind the game emphasizes on the character's power instead of the spell's - much like how the same is true when comparing d20 Sovereign Stone with generic d20 (in which case, Sovereign Stone magic, in fact, emphasizes on the caster's personal power even more)!

    However, your suggestions are appreciated; it's only a matter of how you present them, not what you say per se.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Redding, California
    Posts
    220
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Wink



    First and foremost.....I was simply offering advice on the issue. Other things arose after that, and they had little bearing on the issue of Diplomacy and Debate.

    As a senior member I'm sure you have seen a lot, but my position remains the same. I offered advice on the subject at hand, in a system that proceded the one mentioned, in order to provide a possible resolution of the issue that the thread regards.

    I had posters from another edition, denegrating my material and trying to limit a forum that is for all editions (I did ask). They attacked the idea without really addressing how each (proficiency) was connected (or not) to the post at hand. (And they clearly all are!)

    I will freely accept any other posters listed material from whatever edition of the game that they want to post about as long as it is germaine to the threads topic....feel free to test me if you doubt me.

    The issue is that this forum is for all versions, and I still wonder why I am receiving chastisement for posting to "the topic" even though it is an earlier edition.

    Use my information or not, but to claim "I confuse" other gamers is trying to limit the edition they are exposed to. This forum is for all edition, so why not just move the post to 3.?? and remove my responses???

    I wouldn't mind, but we should ALL feel free to post to the Royal Library about the subjects of Birthright without having to "limit" comment to specific editions.

    PS....Alternity is Futuristic, so have you made it Birthright, or are you just posting here too???

    Later


  9. #19
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MatanThunder
    I had posters from another edition, denegrating my material
    This is simply false, and somewhat inflamatory. Neither irdeggman nor I denigrated your material. I posted at some length about how I used such material very happily at one time.
    and trying to limit a forum that is for all editions
    Again totally false. You were called on constant references to 3rd edition in a post on 2nd edition rules. No one even bothered to criticize your denegration of 3rd edition, though I did elect to stick up for it.

    They attacked the idea without really addressing how each (proficiency) was connected (or not) to the post at hand. (And they clearly all are!)
    No one attacked the utility of your proficiencies because they are fine proficiencies. That was not a problem. I used many similar ones in 2e. Frankly no one has done any attacking here except you. Playing the victim card after the post you have written is throwing a little gasoline on the fire.

    The issue is that this forum is for all versions, and I still wonder why I am receiving chastisement for posting to "the topic" even though it is an earlier edition.
    You are not. But rather for accusations that other DM's are not up to the task of good DM'ing.

  10. #20
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    I will take no part in any sort of inflammation; in fact, I don't believe in "sides" in fora: you either offer some input in a discussion, or you don't. So I suggest we clean things up as best as possible.

    P.S.: Alternity actually allows all kinds of cinematic play, which happens to be its true focus (the fact that it originally built on sci-fi is a matter of economics [since there was quite a fad for that sort of thing when it got published] as well as thematics [since sci-fi allowed for cinematic play more readily than the already preset mood everyone had in their minds when it came to perfunctorily heavy-ladden rulesets built for fantasy games]); in fact, a little finetuning allows it to be an excellent system for pseudo-medieval, feudalistic fantasy settings like the ones we are most used to.

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.