4th edition

[einstein_pi]

I'm still pouring through the 3.0 and 3.5 BR rules for Bloodlines and Holdings (and comparing them to the 2ed rules).

I am also assuming that since we have permission to use copyrighted works, that permission extends to updating and reprinting things like adventures, atlases, etc?

The main problem I see with any such extra settings is complication and clarity. The 3.5 rules for Bloodlines for example could have had alot better presentation and clarity at the least as I sit here reading them. Likewise, there is by far, too many optional rules cluttering stuff up. The house GM can create his own stuff or some sort of suppliment can include those sorts of things, but it should not be in the core rules. The domain/holding mechanisms really need to be examined for ease-of-use. I'm not saying there is a problem, but it needs to be a constant goal. If we want players to pick up the Birthright setting, play it, like it, and want to keep using it...we cannot have it be arcane and complicated. I don't mean dumb it down necessarily, but sometimes that may include removing or re-writing things.

I do like the 3 team concept, but I think it should be more - 4th edition rules update for Birthright team, a holding/realm team, and a war team. The rules update most likely has to be started first, and should probably include a sub-team for Bloodlines, that will also work heavily with the holding/realm team. The bloodline team should be more concerned about fitting into 4th edition while keeping in mind domain concerns. The war team should likely be fairly small, and I'd guess it would be more of a review of the current battle system for ease-of-use, 4e battle magic testing/conversion, and then (probably the bulk of the work) packaging and electronic creation of all units/maps/etc. Crap, there really needs to be a 4th team eventually - the Atlas/Lore/Adventure conversion team.

I would furthermore like to see each team/segment able to be distributed as plugins for the core rules. By that, I mean if someone downloaded the core Birthright rules, they would get the core stuff for adventuring plus the bloodline rules (flavor, cultural, and a general atlas and realm description (with none of the provincial info or other such stuff). If the DM wanted to add our realm/domain rules (after the PC's decide they want more than simply running divine-powered PCs), he could simply download it and plug it in. If they went to war, and he decided 4e mechanics wern't cutting it, bam - download the battle system. The Atlas would likely be a component as well, although I'm not sure how to handle this since it's spanned over 4 books in the 2e rules. Converted Adventures would follow, new adventures, new books, etc. I'm not saying we don't need a large core book with everything (we certainly do), I'm just saying that the setting may find more popularity if there was an option that did not include a *daunting* book of epic size with all of these new rules. I realize there is a chapter option (currently) and that a DM can pick and choose rules of course, but how many people will simply download it from gleemax or such thinking it sounds cool, take a glance, go "whoa", and then deleted it? Breaking things apart may help prevent that. Likewise, being able to insert a few bits into people's games (ie the realm or war rules) may result in generating more interest in the actual setting. If your DM suddenly put in realm management into the Forgotten Realms campaign you are running - and you're crazy over finally having rules for being a king, conquering, and raising armies - how interested might you be in the world it all originated in, that integrates it at every level?

Anyways, just spitting out ideas.

[AndrewTall]

While I recognise that more complicated rules may deter some people, simple does not necessarily equal best. A consistent detailed ruleset actually reduces the DM's work over a campaign, albeit at the cost of a steeper initial learning curve. The less detailed we make the rules, the more need there is for a DM to wing it on decisions and arbitrations - the high number of house rules (1 set per campaign ?) suggests that most DM's think that the existing system is too simple...


1. By preference for the holdings I would:

1.1. Offer a kiddies option: realms have a wealth level of, say, 1-5 with no need to track exact income and expenditure.

1.2. Offer a standard option: realms have income as the BRCS modified to a decimal system with simplified RP collection for guilds, revert courts to a version similar to 2e to simplify speed up.

1.3. Offer a more detailed version: the full monty with seasonal income mods, spring and autumn war mods, additional holdings such as manors, 'shadow holdings', parliaments, 3e courts, etc, etc. Each of these should ideally be discrete so that it can be used/ignored as was found convenient.

I would like to see a single page listing all domain action and marking them as possible by adventure/court/full etc actions - but that's not hard to add.

I'd also like examples. Such as "Bob decides that Lord Boeruine will no longer tolerate the provocations of the Thane of Talinie, he decides to..." to show how the mechanics flow from the desired roleplaying and what sort of things would be represented by diplomacy, decree, contest, occupation and pillage actions - and why each is different.

I have tried setting pages up on the wiki for people to add to but very few people have posted


2. Similarly for bloodlines.
2.1. You pick powers as feats, bloodline score tracks the number of feats or is a domain thing only - or whatever ase mechanic 4e uses for ability creep.

2.2. Keep scion as a class but tie it more to the number of powers - so the Gorgon winds up needing 10 levels or so for all his powers, or can only use some of them a day. Powers become a mechanic similar to spells under this system.

2.3. Bloodline score is tracked normally, powers are split out from the standard 4e power system on the understanding that if a player does not have a bloodline then they get some compensation. (Geeman has a gp equivalent system that looks good, others might use xp / additional powers)


It should be remembered that although dropping the IQ minimum in 3e did broaden the game's appeal, BR in particular seems to have attracted the DM's more interested in plot, story, politics etc than just hack 'n' slash and that tended to mean the ones with some nous. As the DM is the only one who needs to know all the rules they are the one we market to - so campaign richness and consistency is key.


I would think that a "BR 101" might be helpful - more of a walk through the book explaining each chapter and the purpose behind it. Similarly with the rues why some act as they do - house rules often go wrong because they 'fix' a mechanic that is actually intended to restrain a specified activity.

I'd like to see a lot more guidance on playing a diplomatic game, possible adventures linking realm and individual action, realm interaction, etc.


I'd note that the wiki is deliberately set up in bite sized pieces to help people navigate, pick and choose, etc. Most new gamers are probably able to get internet connection now - and we have a forum which is happy (some of us anyway) to answer questions, explain, etc, etc. That means that we can keep it more detailed if we want as long as we give directions for people to come here - and possibly add a 'sage advice' board for newbies that want to ask questions but get put off by some of the volume on the other boards.

[RiTz21]

Arjan, I think you’re making some pretty big leaps here. The first, and obviously incorrect, one is that OGL is going away.

If the OGL goes away, this will hurt many who have products using it... So that quote is a bit of hope for the future of my product!!

RiTz21

[Denakhan]

Hiya.

The 3.x OGL can not "go away". It's forever. In 100 years, you could still be using it to produce stuff. Now, a 4e OGL...that's a different story.

[Michael Lloric]

In principle, the conversion to 4.0 was to prepare to try to sell the online gaming concept, where pen and paper games are eventually eliminated for an entirely online, fee-based gaming system. The success initially of Everquest and more obviously World of Warcraft has turned Hasbro and it's subsidiary WOTC from the traditional gaming community as a business. The fact is, 4.0 is a step in converting gamers to an entirely online community, where all materials and content will generate revenue for Hasbro.

Reality is, companies exist to make money. And to make money, you have to either keep offering new content, or force people to buy an all new product line. I just simply refuse after the massive investment in 3.5 materials and books to consider a new conversion to 4.0, even if they decide to bring back Birthright as an active official WOTC campaign setting. I have other things to do with my money (stocks, a new Harley, a house, etc) than to support Hasbro corporate profits with yet ANOTHER edition.

I laud you all for your efforts to make Birthright 3.5 possible. If I had a chance to see the initial 3.0 rules from 'back in the day' and the current 3.5 rules you are developing (.rar format? I never heard of it before tonight!) I might start a new campaign based on Birthright again for a new generation of gamers. I might also consider taking a shot at developing something for 3.5 myself.

But spending more money just to start D&D 4.0? Even if it means Birthright comes back to an active system? I'd sooner sell my dice on Ebay as ballast and take up oragami with my old character sheets and books.

Don't mind the rant, the rave, it's what happens when I get decaf instead of high-test!

[Elton Robb]

Wizards' new branch of lawyers HATE the OGL and everything it stands for.

Elton

[kgauck]

There are two competing models and both of them are on-line models. One is the community commons type of model where ownership is kept to a minimum because copy write prevents development. The other model is the on-line gaming model. However, whether the lawyers know it or not (and why should lawyers know how gaming works) what you are paying for in an on-line gaming world isn't the creative content, its the infrastructure required to keep the gaming experience on-line. The OGL was lost cost, low risk, which is the only way gaming companies have ever made any money. Shifting from that model to the on-line gaming model means a high risk, high cost model. That means as soon as the next big thing comes along, the whole business will decline to irrelevance. Maybe Hasbro will have made bad all of their risk capital, and maybe they will have made a bucket of money before the game falls into irrelevance.

Star Wars Galaxies, which had the branding of Star Wars to boost interest, got up as high as 250,000 subscribers in its third quarter after release, but now is running at half that, and active players number 20,000. While the business model is only interested in subscribers, people only subscribe and play infrequently while they await the next big thing, then they move their subscription dollars away and actively play somewhere else.

Its also worth noting that the MMORPG field is much more crowded now than it was in 2004. For D&D to thing about putting all of its eggs into that basket is to go from being the very big fish in the table top gaming world, to being just one of many along side established players like Everquest, Worlds of Warcraft, and now Vanguard. Does Hasbro really want to take on Sony Online Entertainment?

If Hasbro would seriously consider abandoning their dominance of one market segment into order to climb into a crowded field, then they are violating one of the great principles of successful businesses: "First, Second, or get out".

Generally only the top two companies in a market segment make any money. Everyone else is basically breaking even, or loosing money. This becomes more and more true the longer term you look. So, if Hasbro seriously thinks they can abandon table top and go for the lure of on-line gaming, they will either be spectacularly successful, or they will fail bigger than Philip Morris did when they acquired 7-UP. On-line is high cost, high risk.

If the people making the decisions have any sense, they'll stick with the low cost, low risk model of distributed content (OGL distributes risk) and stay in the market where they are the undisputed giant.

[Sinister]

couple of points:

1. You can't legally own a role playing mechanic, you can legally own the presentation. The OGL is the crux of that. They want you using their materials because they know that sells their book. A D20 mechanic isn't legally protected but using any of their material is. Thus the whole OGL was a big attempt to make people think they they could avoid lots of legal hassles and make money by using and alluding to using wotc materials. That made the OGL brilliant for wotc. IT made alot of other publishers money. But live by the OGL die by the OGL. WotC can yank it anytime and yes you can make a d20 mechanic but you can't touch any of the wotc presentation.

2. WotC doesn't want the world of warcraft world yet. What they want is that monthly income for paid table top content. They need a reason to make you pay a monthy fee and pen and paper doesn't cut it so they've opted for electronic "enhancements".

The big thing will be to see how many fans want "enhancements" and how many think it's a waste of money. If this gamble tanks its bad for pen and paper rpgs , of course from a sells standpoint right now it can't get any worse. If the trend continues gaming stores will have to rely on metal minis to pay the bills, because rpgs aren't selling out of game stores at all.

[Thelandrin]

Well, they can remove the OGL from the website, but I thought the whole idea was that it was a perpetual license.

[Sinister]

actually according to monte cook's website WotC can't yank the OGL so I may be mistaken.