Results 1 to 10 of 15
Thread: Any New Ideas?
11-15-2007, 01:47 AM #1
Any New Ideas?
Andrew Tall wrote: (sorry but I'm not sure how to make the fancy boxes with the people's original writing in them.)
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 was just wondering if anyone has started looking into a next edition of the BRCS? I believe Andrew Tall's post was from quite a while back. I like his idea of a more detailed version.
11-16-2007, 04:39 AM #2
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
I have been in favor of attempting to reduce the number of variants in the BRCS and instead have a single set of "core rules" and instead have a separate document with other variants - sort of a BR Unearthed Arcana. The ones included in Chapter 1 and 2 (which were more than in the playtest document) were the direct result of the polls used to determine how to proceed on that material - basically several results were too close to make a clear call so one was deemed the "default" and the other the "variant".
If variants of the size being talked about here are included, the BRCS will end up being so large (file size wise) that even more people will have trouble downloading it. I could easily envison the domain chapter itself becoming over 100 pages if including all of these "variants". Essentially its own "book".
There were several who complained about the size of the playtest document based on available download speeds.
While the wiki does provide a means of reducing the "size" issue, many people still prefer to have a hard copy of the rules themselves and not just "pages".
But having said that there is merit in discussing this.
For one - trying to capture what the "core" rules should be and another to determine what "variants" should be included somewhere.Duane Eggert
11-16-2007, 07:56 AM #3
I definitely agree that the variants should be in a separate book/chapter. I also liked the ability to download by chapter. Not because of bandwidth issues but printing issues. (I'm one of those who likes hard copy rules.)
I was wondering about what changes would be anticipated when DnD goes 4th edition? I mean specificlly within the BRCS. Do we just continue with the rules the way they are now or is there any support within this community for modifying the core rules? I'm relatively new here and after the rest of you have done such a great job with the 3e conversion I just wanted to know if now is the right time to be looking at this subject?
11-16-2007, 08:07 AM #4
level modified to 3rd?
I'm curious on where to begin? How did the conversion to 3ed start? Which section got the most attention? I love the domain administration/regent aspect of the BRCS the most. But I bet the bloodline abilities and the armies and warfare section were big attention hogs.
11-16-2007, 01:21 PM #5
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Chelmsford, Essex, England
I would like to see a simplified version of realm play in the BRCS for those with little interest in that area, but agree that the 'full monty' version of realm rulership should not go in the BRCS instead having a separate 'book of regency' to hold it - and various other 'variant ideas', example monuments, grand events, etc.
The simplified realm version could be done with 2-3 pages I'd expect.
It is very hard to make revisions until good information on 4e comes out as so many areas tie back to base PC mechanics. I'd expect to see some sort of split between bloodline score (which can be stolen) and personal power from bloodline abilities (i.e. a high score means you get more powers, but a level mechanic determines frequency of use) with bloodline being primarily related to fluff and ruling a realm than to combat stats unless the PC takes several levels in a scion class.
11-17-2007, 03:46 AM #6
Does anyone know if the 4e will continue to use feats/prestige classes? I had read that it will not be easily compatible with 3e.
To trim the domain mechanics down to 2-3 pages would you choose to radically simplify the rules. Something like you get 1GB & 1 RPs per province you control (regardless of level) and then count your # of holdings (any type except source) and compare it to a table see how many GBs and RPs they generate. This would give you one page and then you could use 2 pages to discuss actions and loyalty (domain wide).
What do you think?
11-17-2007, 07:00 AM #7
11-18-2007, 12:44 PM #8
It's good that they will continue using feats. You know I look at my bookshelf filled with 3e books and thank god my wife doesn't know how much they cost apiece. (It would totally take all of the steam out of my arguments with her on her shoes.) I hate to think about having to buy all new books. I look forward to new a new system of play but I desire simpler combat rules. For me, the 3e rules require too much effort for any battle of more than 4 creatures. However, from what little I read it sounds like the 4e system is going to more complex.
11-18-2007, 02:00 PM #9
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Chelmsford, Essex, England
guild levels, and 2/3 of temple levels to get a single income score. The score listed in a table of wealth (with categories of say minimal, weak, modest, average, strong, overwhelming, dominating) that gave the number of military units, castles etc as an abstract. So no maintenance or replacement costs - an average realm can have 10 units. Particularly strong/weak units maybe costing either .5 or 1.5 the normal cost. RP would be the old 1 RP for each province level, 1 RP for favoured holding level, .5 RP for other holding levels. I'd then have a reduced action list (trade routes are assumed in the above figure for example so are unnecessary)
btw:for quotes either hit the 'quote' button under the post, or copy and paste with quote commands: '[' quote ']' and ending '[' /quote ']' (remove the ' marks to use)
11-18-2007, 04:32 PM #10
That system would make it quite simple. Almost like playing Risk.
I understand everyone is different but I find it hard to imagine why someone would want such a simple system. I love the idea of domain management and regent actions. To me that's what BRCS is all about. I only play non-Birthright DnD when I want very high magic campaigns or planar adventure campaigns. (Usually after watching a movie or reading a book that doesn't really fit in the BRCS very well.) Anyway, it's cool that you can step back and look at the game in different ways for different people.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)