Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: PBEM Rules!

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    439
    Downloads
    31
    Uploads
    0
    Thanks for the good tips, everyone!

    Most of them focused on how to GM a PBEM, and I think all of these points are very important. The other thing I was getting at, though, is the possibility, especially with 4e coming out soon, of creating a revised ruleset--either a new 4e BRCS, or a ruleset specifically for PBEMs.

    The guiding idea behind new/streamlined rules for PBEMs is to prevent that number one cause of PBEM death: GM burnout. Also to make the game more fun, quicker and easier for players to play, and more balanced for PBEM play.

    Basic principles to follow when looking at the system are similar to those asked when considering 4e: can we streamline the system down to what is essential, and then how can we simplify the math/resolution systems to work as smoothly and consistently as possible? Specifically, can we get Domain Turns down to a single page or short page? Can we reduce regent character sheets to the bare minimum necessary for realm rule and PBEM-style adventure? Can we come up with an easy resolution system for military action, considering the weaknesses of limited PBEM communication?

    I understand the value of sticking to the Core Rules, but that's one of the reasons that I'm actually advocating revising them. In my experience, most players in the PBEM community are pretty experienced with BR and could pick up changes easily if they had a single format to review them all in (like a new BRCS) rather than many house rules posts. Those that are newer could benefit from a more streamlined, intuitive, simpler resolution system.

    Some of those changes I outlined above, such as simplifying and re-balancing the income scales to get rid of calculating thirds, and yes, letting Sources gain minimal income rather than kicking in as guilds at level four (an unnecessary mathematical and book-keeping dimension of the game).


    One of the more radical suggestions I'd like to make is reducing the number of different actions. I'm still working on this, but when you look at the action types, it's rather complex, particularly for a newcomer, and it seems perhaps unnecessarily so to me. You've got Character Actions, Court Actions, Domain Actions, Full Actions, Realm Actions, and possibly Lieutenant Actions. Maintaining separate Courts and Lieutenants affects your numbers of those actions. Bleh. Really, thinking about them, I could find no sufficient good reason to distinguish amongst them so much. Can someone else?

    It seems to me we could streamline the system by making everything essentially a Court action and rebalancing a little from there. Lieutenants or regent character actions would merely serve to improve the success chance of the actions they took, either through skill or bloodline modifier; they'd be assigned to actions, and able to take character actions only if not assigned. Doubling up Actions would represent increased effort and attention spent on particular actions, providing a +2 or +4 bonus to the success chance (I'd say +4). DC's could be pushed up somewhat, and minimum action costs might even be increased (overall income is increased already if rounding up to whole and half numbers rather than thirds).

    The benefit is that you'd have primarily just one Domain-level Action type (character actions apart from these a rare secondary) to keep track of, and no artificial distinctions forcing people into a more limited mode. Further, PC control of or creation of vassals could be more easily handled by simply allowing vassals to take these actions, increasing the overall number of actions minimally rather than creating a situation with possibly 4 more Domain actions and many Court actions each. Allowing players to control vassals lets them potentially reduce the NPC burden and increase the efficiency and flavor of feudal realms with extensive vassalage systems.

    I have some more thoughts, but this is getting long. Feedback?

  2. #12
    Junior Member Capricia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    24
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I think you are underestimating the ability of new players to firgure things out. That being said, assigning new players a "mentor" or "buddy" they can ask turn questions (and anything else game related) of besides the GM will help with rules etc while they get their feet wet.

    As for streamlining, the moment you start altering the game's core, you create issues. One of the reasons BR works is because its "mostly" balanced. This is hugely thanks to all those who did the time, tested and helped created the BRCS that is in place. Come 4e, I'm sure that mountains of effort are going to be needed to go in and revise it all again. So much depends on what *exactly* is changed, and how much. For every item you tweak, the pendulum will swing another way and the oddest things start to happen. Players are cunning, sneaky and downright evil with their plots and ongoing search for loopholes.

    For me, I've spent hours designing an 'in house', hyperlinked version of most of the open source data, and it's all 3.5e, and frankly the thought of redoing it for 4e makes me want to curl up and scream for prozac and chocolate ice cream.

    Making everything into a Court action will cause all sorts of problems. These are supposed to be things done by the Court. Some things are limited by their very nature to be only doable once a season. There are very good reason for defining some of the more powerful actions for the regent alone, and to be done rarely. So instead of simply naming them as Domain actions, you'd have various "classes" of court actions. Not all that different. Also, when I play, my character actions often take up more space than my domain and court actions. LT's travelling, regents meetings with the realm. These are how I lay out to the DM where my regent was. (very handy to avoid being somewhere they are trying to assassinate you) To dismiss them as secondary would be unfortunate.

    And truly, I've never seen GM burn out caused by processing normal turns. Reality and players are the game killers more often then not. War turns are far more complicated than normal turns. If you are running a combat oriented game, it might save sanity to have a war GM, or run a smaller game.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    439
    Downloads
    31
    Uploads
    0
    Capricia, I'm proposing getting a head start on converting the core BRCS rules to 4e right here--specifically with a focus on streamlining them, keeping in mind the PBEM user and the ability that format has to expand the fan base if the barriers to entry in the game are reduced somewhat.

    Do you think turn processing is not a factor at all? I have hesitated running a game because of that burden. The bookkeeping involved is tremendous. Fearless_Leader is a really good DM, and I don't know all the reasons for his games not lasting too long, but I think burnout is a part of it, as well as getting some of the bookkeeping and rules adjudication crossways at times and creating situations he's not satisfied with. Thelandrin and I think Wanderer have welcomed the idea of aiding in turn resolution somehow, so I think they recognize it as a factor, too. It may not be the biggest one, but I think it would help prevent the perfect storms that end up crashing games in 1d4-1 turns.

    Could you explain the problems of changing all realm-level actions (excepting character actions) into a single action type (Domain Action) in a little more detail? I'm not sure I understand your position yet. The only action that seems limited in the way you are describing is the Rule Province action, and that is a written exception to the normal rules, anyway.

    To clarify, one of the possibilities I'm thinking about is something like a base of 2 Domain Actions per season, modified by Assets--Palaces, expanded Courts, Embassies, Spy Networks, and fortified holdings (guild: trade councils; temple: synods; source: towers or academies; law: war college, armory, barracks, magistrates, courts, prelates, etc. The point is, call them what you will, any form of fortified holding could give extra actions).

    The maximum number of Domain Actions would probably be around 6, about what it is now. This could mean ruling multiple holdings, arranging treaties, establishing trade routes, mustering troops, arranging constructions, agitating, or conducting war. If you're concerned about balance, and I agree some actions would need this, simply change the DC of certain difficult actions to make them very difficult to do without more concerted attention of the realm or a skilled regent.

    For instance, Create actions might have a base DC of 15, needing two actions or a skilled ruler or lieutenant's personal attention to accomplish. Personally, I see Creating most holdings as easier than ruling or contesting them, so it has always seemed odd to me that it's so much harder to do so. If ley lines and trade routes are not sacred cows and get disrupted occasionally (as they should), then it seems well balanced to let them be created more easily as well. Basic espionage (in one's own realm) can be conducted a little more easily and frequently if it doesn't take up a full action--much of what rulers historically did, it seems to me, is spend time keeping tabs on their rivals, though they also managed to rule realms and conduct wars.

    War in particular needn't necessarily be so difficult, currently requiring Standard actions to move troops. Well, many realms historically managed near-constant states of war for long periods while doing other things, and I don't see why BR should be that much different. Avanil should be able to wage war on several fronts and still attend to a few issues at home, as well as engage in espionage.

  4. #14
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Rowan,

    What I see you really looking for is a DM's guide of suggestions for how to run a game.

    Sort of like the DMG II.

    As far a 4th ed goes, it is far too early to postulate what is or isn't really going to be there.

    The books don't come out until June/July and the SRD won't be available until Jan 09.

    Here is something I found on EnWorld that someone compiled from the recent convention in Washington DC that featured some 4th ed gaming.
    Last edited by irdeggman; 03-13-2008 at 10:06 AM.
    Duane Eggert

  5. #15
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Oops here is the attachment.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Duane Eggert

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    439
    Downloads
    31
    Uploads
    0
    It would be valuable to compile a DMG II for PBEM games, yes, but I really think the system needs attention to make it easier to run these games.

    I also think it matters very little what 4e looks like when we want to address realm-level aspects of play in BR. It may give us some ideas for how to do things, but really, how much did 2e or 3e or 3.5e matter to the domain rules?

    We can proceed with any modifications to realm-level play without knowing much about 4e. What 4e does is open our minds to the possibility of a revision, since a major change is coming to adventure-level play anyway. Also, 5+ years after BRCS, it seems to me that we have enough data and insight from playing that game that we can justify creating a new edition to parallel the 4e changes; we'll need to make some adjustments for 4e BR adventure play, anyway.

    As for the need of such a change apart from 4e, I am expressing here a need observed in the PBEM community, since games of this type have such trouble lasting very long. Running a game of 20-40 players requires different rules approach than a tabletop game of 4-6. Even the tabletop game could benefit from streamlined rules, as it would make it easier for the DM who likes to play NPCs by the rules to put more NPC realms into serious play. The volume of work for either style puts the game at greater risk of disruption than lower-maintenance games because real life happens. If so much of your time is required just to keep things running, then you have very little buffer against real life issues striking and messing things up.

  7. #17
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Rowan View Post
    It would be valuable to compile a DMG II for PBEM games, yes, but I really think the system needs attention to make it easier to run these games.
    I created a page for 'DM Tips' on the wiki a while ago hoping that people would add tips they'd built up over the years on how to run the game, keep it manageable, make it fun, etc but sadly interest has been thin:

    http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/DM_Tips

    There is a similar page for Player Tips that is equally ignored.
    http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/Player_tips

    On the Action front the domain action summary:
    http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/ind...action_summary

    lists out actions and types and for some of the actions suggests alternate uses for the actions beyond the obvious. I'd personally love to see more on the latter side, a small number of 'wide' actions appeals more to me than a plethora of 'narrow' actions that have a steeper learning curve.

    Court actions
    Personally I preferred the old court system, simply because otherwise turns do get unmanageable - 'I'll pay 10 GB and have 13 actions this turn please Mr GM' is a major headache effectively quadrupling the number of realms from a book-keeping perspective. The BRCS system also seems to favour larger realms to a greater extent than 2e, not necessarily a bad thing of course but not something that fits my gaming style.

  8. #18
    Court actions
    Personally I preferred the old court system, simply because otherwise turns do get unmanageable - 'I'll pay 10 GB and have 13 actions this turn please Mr GM' is a major headache effectively quadrupling the number of realms from a book-keeping perspective. The BRCS system also seems to favour larger realms to a greater extent than 2e, not necessarily a bad thing of course but not something that fits my gaming style.
    Personally, I'm always pro flexability. The system should be able to handle a group playing a group of small allied kingdoms as well as playing one medium sized kingdom as well as playing a large kingdom where most of the challange is in just keeping on the throne. Sure, it'll take some fidgeting for individual games by the DM, but that's why you aim broadly in the first place: The DM's going to make minor changes anyway. I don't know a single one that doesn't.

    That said, it's something I noticed as well: later in the line's lifespan, domains got larger, to the point where it seemed kind of clumsy. I mean, there are only eight Rjurik realms, and two of them are practically colonies. The Awanshaegh realm isn't just as big as the Gorgon's crown, but Rjurik still has to worry about the Gorgon as a very real, very close by threat. It's kind of overwhelming for when you want to start your game off.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. House Rules
    By gazza666 in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-23-2006, 05:55 PM
  2. How do you best describe the rules you use?
    By irdeggman in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 09-04-2006, 04:11 AM
  3. GBs collection in the new 3.5 rules
    By stv2brown1988 in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-11-2006, 05:04 AM

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.