Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 150
  1. #101
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    I thought the way Dynamic Organizations worked (pg 166 PHB II) was the ideal template for this kind of thing. I think BR offered more natural modifiers than the system as presented, but I started with Dynamic Organizations.

    So a law, guild, or certain temple holdings had espionage as their main function and would provide both the offense and defense of a domain for espionage.

    A domain couldn't take more offensive espionage actions than it had dedicated holdings (and the holding in question couldn't be doing something else), but could always defend the domain.

  2. #102

    4.0 Blood power source

    Quote Originally Posted by Pabloj View Post
    Totally agree on this. We should use 2nd edition as source and inspiration and build things using 4E system and paradigm.

    It just came to me that it will be perfectly reasonable to add a "power source" to the BR setting: Blood. Just as "Martial" fuels the cool fighter moves and "Arcane" fuels the wizard´s magic, "Blood" can fuel blooded abilities, being either adventuring or domain powers.
    I completely agree with Pablo. "Blood" as a power source would work precisely within the new mechanics, is simple and extremely flexible!

    -Greg

  3. #103
    Senior Member Mirviriam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Where the moon cuts the wind.
    Posts
    259
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    Sorry I disappeared here, but got two jobs & a new girlfriend(my other project is still in planning stages for an application)...she's anxious to get to bed so this one will be short...

    Any discussion of using xml tags to allow us to mark rules, npcs etc for import into pbem like systems? The code is normally invisible to websits so the look of the wiki will not be altered.

    This could allow for your rule conversions to have multiple rulesets for 2nd, 3rd, 4th for npc's:

    <npc 2nd>
    <npc name>The Gorgon</npc name>
    <npc description>Tall mo'fo</npc name>
    <npc stats>
    <npc bloodline-score>80</npc bloodline-score>
    <npc bloodline-str>STRONG</npc bloodline-str>
    <npc lvl>20/19/whatever</npc lvl>
    <npc hp>Eighthundred billion</npc hp>
    </npc stats>
    <npc item>bag o'tricks</npc item>
    <npc item>bag of chips</npc item>
    2 cookies</npc items>
    </npc 2nd>

    You could classify spells the same way...

    <spell> -> lets computers know a new spell starts
    <2nd> -> lets computer know first version is second edition
    <spell name>Big boomer</spell name> -> sets the name within the 2nd edition version of spell
    <spell damage>10d8</spell damage> -> gives 2nd edition style damage for spell
    </2nd> -> lets the computer know the 2nd edition part of the spell is done
    <3rd>
    repeat what you saw in 2nd but with the right values for 3rd
    </3rd>
    <spell desc>it really shakes things up</spell desc> -> sets description which will apply to all versions

    ...say you need an extra description added to only one version, inside the edition wrapper (term for the <2nd> or the <3rd> with their matching </2nd> or </3rd>...

    <extra desc>also leaves charged ruins behinds...boom?</extra desc>

    Just throwing that out there, because then different DM's could add all different versions of the rulesets into wiki at will (no time restrictions)
    Last edited by Mirviriam; 06-20-2008 at 07:12 AM.

  4. #104
    Howdy.

    Man, I missed a lot. Ah well. First, I like that people are talking about introducing new concepts into 4E instead of taking concepts away to satisfy a system that's two editions old. This is, I think, the right idea: if a campaign setting's first thought is, 'We take this, this, and this away from the game.', it's starting on a negative note, and chances are we'll end up with more negative ideas than positive ideas. Like, an earlier suguestion about dropping Warlocks: is it really a great idea to go, "No, drop a core class." right out of the park? Fey exist, stars exist, infernal creatures exist, and the whole idea of magic coming from a pact with a greater being, honestly, feels more midevial than the classic D&D-style wizard. Why not just say that the first Warlocks were the disciples of Azari's easier, more aggressive style of magic, and it was eventually "stolen" from Azari when ways to make different, less malevolent pacts was discovered by clever heroic types?

    But I'm getting off track. The first thing I know I want to think about is: What is the core idea of Birthright? You play a heroic king. Keeping this in mind, I think it translates really well into 4E's tiered system. Let me give an example;

    Heroic Tier: A local leader. You bring a country together, and can rise to lead a hunk of your region of Cerilia. A good example of a party of hero-kings at this level would be the Diemend breakway states.

    Paragon Tier: Regional leader. The paragon levels can chronicle your advancement from a local ruler to a major nation and potential unifier of your people. A good example of a paragon domain might be Muden or Daingau, both of which would be a logical starting point for a second attempt at a united Brecht League.

    Epic Tier: World leader. Having united your people behind your banner, it's time to step into Roele's shoes, battle the strongest tyrants and most horrible awnshaeghen, and try to forge a perminant peace with the elves, dwarves, and other proud peoples who a wise king would rather have as allies than enemies.

    Naturally, a campaign doesn't have to be like this, but I think that makes a logical "standard" campaign idea: it fits with Birthright's story of a Cerilia that's fighting to struggle out of its Dark Age and, something very important, encourages party-based play, something really important in 4E. By having a "standard" campaign in mind, as long as it is a broad one, we can design the converted mechanics according to a goal instead of kinda flailing around.

    Some other thoughts: Why not tie class role into what kind of leader you are? Defenders are just that, weather kings, generals, or religious champions, they focus on metaphorically defending the realm. They're great at stopping up hostile influence, and creating bullwarks that an invader has to fight through before getting at the invader's real target, weather it be a fortified castle or a metaphorical wall of red tape and paperwork. Leaders are inspiring figures who strengthen their followers and companions; becides the obvious agitate actions, you've got everything from improving crop yeilds to encouraging population expansion to constructing wonders and pieces of art that keep the people strong in the face of adversity. Strikers are direct and to the point, from espionage to mundane invasions to diplomatic missions, they're doers, and most effective when allowed to concentrate on offense. Finally, Controllers are the guys who balance the billion other things that can happen to a country, using works of magic or military showmanship to quell rebellions, sooth a neighbor's bruised ego, search for enemy spies or hunt down bandits...

    Wall of text aside; I think paying attention to a class's party role could be a great way to revitalize the rulership part of the game, and make it feel like the adventuring part-a group activity you and your friends can work as a team to excell at.

  5. #105
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatSeanGuy View Post
    First, I like that people are talking about introducing new concepts into 4E instead of taking concepts away to satisfy a system that's two editions old. This is, I think, the right idea: if a campaign setting's first thought is, 'We take this, this, and this away from the game.', it's starting on a negative note, and chances are we'll end up with more negative ideas than positive ideas.
    Its not to satisfy a system that is two editions old, its to remain true to the setting which is system independent. Diluting the setting is easy. Having a setting that is special and different requires a bit more thought. By which I take you mean, negative ideas. The good ones.

  6. #106
    Senior Member ShadowMoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pula, Croatia (HR)
    Posts
    278
    Downloads
    8
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    Its not to satisfy a system that is two editions old, its to remain true to the setting which is system independent. Diluting the setting is easy. Having a setting that is special and different requires a bit more thought. By which I take you mean, negative ideas. The good ones.
    totally agreed
    "If the wizards and students who lived here centuries ago had practiced control - in their spellcasting and in their dealings with the politics of the empire - you would be studying in a tall tower made by the best dwarf stone masons, not in an old military barracks."
    Applied Thaumaturgy Lector of the Royal College of Sorcery to new generation of students.

  7. #107
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowMoon View Post
    totally agreed
    Ditto

    Let's not make 4th ed BR another Eberron or Realms. It is a setting of its own - let's look for what makes it "unique" and try to maintain that.
    Duane Eggert

  8. #108
    the feature that I most like is that it is a stretegy game as well as and rpg rolled into one with fairly simple rules even in 2nd ed (which had 2 to many variation of rules for its own good), 3rd which had to many places to find rules, all builds should try to be consists for a base brcs book, phb, dmg, and mm, and then all other books like thaele, shadow world and so on can be done to build upon those books with unique classes but the basic brcs shoud be based from Cerilia, but add new stuff into additional books.
    So instead of arguing of which is allowed and what is not lets look at it this way there are 3 continents and 1 plane to work with, only one has any major detail, one has a book an that is bloos spawn, which is the only shadow world book out.
    next question should the main information come from the campaign setting, Cities of the sun, havens of the great bay, tribes of the heartless waste, Rjurik Highlands, Book of Magecraft, Book of Priestcraft, Book of Regency, blood enemies abmonation of cerilia, and the naval battles, Sea of Cerilia.

    In 4th I have not notice any rules dealing with water and that could lead to a swashbuckler type class, all people have to do is keep it simple and the easiest method is that we create a basic idea of stuff for a brsc, this is still a work in progress

    here is a continent I have been working on:
    Chapter 1 Introduction
    Chapter 2 Races
    Dwarves, Cerilia
    Elves, Cerilia
    Half-Elves
    Halfling, Cerilia
    Humans, Anuireans
    Humans, Khinasi
    Humans, Brecht
    Humans, Rjurik
    Humans, Vos

    Chapter 3 Classes
    Cleric
    Fighter
    Paladin
    Ranger
    Rogue
    Warlock
    Warlord
    Wizard

    Chapter 4 Bloodline
    Chapter 5 Skill and Feats
    Chapter 6 Gods
    Haelyn
    Erik
    Cuiraecen
    Nesirie
    Ruornil
    Sera
    Avani
    Eloele
    Laerme
    Kriesha
    Belinik
    Moradin
    Kartathok
    The Cold Rider
    Powers of Darkness

    Chapter 7 Equipment and Magic Items Unique to Cerilia
    Chapter 8 Domain Ruling Rules
    Chapter 9 Strategic Combat Rules
    Chapter 10 Creatures of Cerilia
    Chapter 11 History of Cerilia
    Chapter 12-34 can be a brief description of Cerilia
    (this would be how I would do but then again this would be bulky but it was and idea not a concrete method)
    Last edited by Thelandrin; 06-21-2008 at 10:55 PM.

  9. #109

    What if we just started a game...

    And tried out the ideas in practice?

  10. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    Its not to satisfy a system that is two editions old, its to remain true to the setting which is system independent. Diluting the setting is easy. Having a setting that is special and different requires a bit more thought. By which I take you mean, negative ideas. The good ones.
    This is the sticking point of course. I do not think any person posting on this board is saying they don't want to stay true to the original setting, it is a matter of perception on what is staying true.

    In my mind the setting is mostly about the story and history and not about how classes are balanced. It is about different ruling powers battling each other for supremecy in the world. It is about a group of people that have gifted powers taken by the old gods that elevate them above others.

    If those above remain in place, I am fine with much of the other stuff changing. Does it really matter in the overall setting if we use the rules that govern the elves in the PH4 and not some homebrew verison? They are still the same elves, same personalities, and can be described the same way as before.

    Does it really matter if Warlocks are now part of the world where they weren't before? Does it honestly change anything? They would be rare enough that it might not even be a blip on the radar.

    There are certainly core changes that need to be discussed as a whole. How blood powers work in 4th edition rules? Does there need to be changes in the ruling system to resemble 4th edition or can we get away with keeping it mostly the same? How will classes include abilities to rule a domain. We need to spend a majority of our time on that and not sweat the small stuff. If someone wants to change elves, then let them, and include as a variant on Wiki.

    Where we are going to have the most trouble in deciding new rules are the people that aren't sold on 4th edition but want to create a 4th edition rule set. Instead of embracing the rules and creating a world that compliments 4th edition, they will create a Birthright system that is mostly still 3.5 but put a coat of 4th edition paint over it. It might look like 4th edition, but the guts of the system are still squarely based on 3.5.

    I will finish this new wall of text with saying I have a great amount of respect for everyone that involves themselves with the site and keeping it alive. I am sure we will come up with a great 4th edition system ... for those that actually plan on moving their campaigns into it.

    -BB

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Starting Rjurik Winds PBeM
    By cyrano24100 in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-21-2007, 02:58 AM
  2. Starting Campaigns
    By Aren Yashar in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 09-05-2006, 07:09 PM
  3. Anuirean Ars Magica Pbem Starting
    By Kalien in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-12-2003, 01:59 AM
  4. Need plots for starting campaign in blackgate
    By MichaelRoele in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-04-2003, 11:41 AM
  5. New Anuire PBeM Starting Up
    By Birthright-L in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-26-2002, 10:06 PM

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.