Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 63
  1. #51
    irdeggman point still stands.

    Book of Regency and City of Suns are at the same level as far as flavor and how 'official' it outlines the world and flavor of the game.

    For me, the Player's Handbooks, the additional region settings, adventure sets, novels, and additional rule books all add flavor to the game and consistency (I know, ironically using that word when speaking of Birthright which is known for its inconsistencies.) Any of these can be 'trashed.'

    Regardless, back to the discussion, I feel that watering down the uniqueness of the blood abilities and how they separate a blooded individual from a non-blooded individual goes against the spirit and original purpose of the setting. Not all things need to be equal and sometimes attempting to ensure balance of everything leads to derailing the setting.

  2. #52
    Special Guest (Donor)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    532
    Downloads
    11
    Uploads
    0
    Sigh...

    First, the "bloodlines should be tied to an alignment" thing is not something that would be needed to be converted from 2e to 4e. It's rules-invariant so I don't see why it should appear in a conversion as nothing needs to be converted. So no matter who is right or wrong here, it won't be a problem for the conversion.

    Second, Cities of the Sun is a Campaign Expansion (official and cannon) and The Book of Regency is an accessory (official and as cannon as you want it to be). It's not the same.

    But better see one example of this "accessory (flavor) = cannon" behavior: The Book of Magecraft and the BRCS 3e Conversion

    There's some cool flavor text on The Book of Magecraft about caerbhaighlien. I suppose it has to be really important because if you check the BRCS 3e Conversion you can find it in chapter 7. It's puzzling why flavor text should be converted, but it's more puzzling why someone invented a rule for it in the conversion process: caerbhaighlien sources aren't counted in the sources levels for the province. I have no idea why this was added but there it is.

    Now let's advance a little more in The Book of Magecraft. You will find an action called Ley Link who allows people to share sources and ley lines. It's a very simple action so I suppose it's official and cannon too. Let's go to the BRCS 3e Conversion: you won't find it in the actions (chapter 5). Let's check chapter 7: here comes the big WTF.

    Quote Originally Posted by BRCS 3e
    Ley lines are a non-transferable domain asset. When a regent dies, her ley network is destroyed. Ley lines cannot be used or invested to another caster. The only exception to this rule is the use of the ley lines by the regent's lieutenant as part of a lieutenant domain action.
    I could have understood (to some degree) not translating the action as it's pretty simple. But contradicting it? There's no ground on the Campaign Setting or The Book of Magecraft for that. Also I haven't found the level 7+ source equals a level 0 guild holding to create trade routes is on the conversion (I haven't searched much, could be somewhere).

    So much for accessory = cannon...

    And no, this is not an attack to the impressive work done in the BRCS 3e Conversion. It's just an example that the "accessory = cannon" thing has not been followed on previous work, so do not try to sell it now.

  3. #53
    Ehrshegh of Spelling Thelandrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,086
    Downloads
    68
    Uploads
    0
    The word is "canon" and the adjective is "canonical". All rules produced for the Birthright setting are canon, regardless of how mixed up or consistent they are. In cases where these clash, either the prime source (usually Ruins of Empire) takes precedence or you go with either common sense or personal preference.

    The novels are not canonical, with regards to the rules, but provide some interesting back story.

  4. #54
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    Caerbhaighlien sources are not controllable, therefore they either replace usable source holdings with unusable ones or effectively reduce the source potential of a province. The BoM deigned to mention which interpretation was correct. The BRCS team appear to have figured that something described as rare and wonderful should be positive, figured that a plot device McGuffin (we need to access the ancient caerbhaighlien to have the power to defend our province) was better than a sore point (ok GM, how do I get rid of the Caerbagh crap polluting my source?) and so decided that the Caerbhaighlien sources would be additional to the normal sources of the province, not instead of them.

    Leylink has similar issues; it was out of sync with the treatment of other domain types and also become obsolete with the concept of control by a council of scions rather than a single scion - the BRCS therefore removed the existing 2e anomaly and fixed it with a more versatile generic mechanic.

    Part of the 2e to 3e conversion was to remove randomness from holding income thus technically all the old income rules were ignored... The 'high level sources act as virtual guild rule' was retained as an optional rule in BRCS and is used in some PBEMs.


    In general the BRCS appears to have tried to follow comments in all products as far as possible, I have to admit I've not been aware of anyone splitting the 'accessory' and 'expansion' concept in the way you have, to me the terms are interchangeable, but everyone will rank products in terms of importance based on a number of factors, this can put RoE on top (prime source) or the bottom (first attempt corrected in later books) dependig on point of view. Personally I go for whatever works best and is most consistent in my campaign.

    My understanding is that flavour text will convert either to explain issues which came up in play with more clarity, reflect the fact that the typist gets bored just copying, or be an attempt to avoid copyright issues. Rules issues will tend to change to improve consistency across the ruleset, fit with the 3e philosophy better (i.e. the change from random income to fixed), update earlier 'canon' for later 'canon', or because the players on the forum at the time simply preferred the new rule in gameplay.

    Alignment as a ruleset has changed frequently from system to system and that does need to be reflected in the conversion; to be honest though alignment is so poor a system given modern personality tools that I find it meaningless - I've had characters described as CE by half the group and LG by the other half based on their interpretations of the characters actions - the 4e version which assumes that chaos is bad and law good is even more broken than the 2 and 3e 'balance' alignments imho. This is one sacred cow which should have been slaughtered early in the 4e process...

    Part of the 4e conversion will be not only considering the relative importance of sources, but also identifying 'canon' that is inconsistent with 4e philosophy. My current worry is that BR was aimed at the gamers who wanted the 'outside combat' stuff and 'role not roll' play, whereas the 4e conversion seems to have dumped any consideration of either game style. I have no problem with a game that consists wholly of PC creation, shopping, and random acts of violence, but I want more from BR and a conversion may wind up having to ignore significant chunks of 4e design philosophy.

  5. #55
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    It is a vast mistake to confuse behavior and alignment. Bloodline draws one towards the values and behaviors associated with the god of its derivation, not necessarily anything at all to do with alignment.

    I would be perfectly happy to abandon alignment of any kind (2e, 3e, 4e) in favor of descriptions of the gods and their ethical views on things. A Vorynnian worldview is something that is fundamental to the game. Its manifest in bloodlines, in the temples and teachings of Ruornil, the life ways of the old Vos, in the use of sources, the casting of spells, and all sorts of secret lore.

    But apparently upholding the ways of Vorynn and Ruornil are too limiting, even though you get to choose of Vorynn is your guy, or not, or match him with a current god for a little hybid philosophy? Still to limiting?

    Inside the game, sure derivations are proscriptive, they proscribe behavior.

    But as a player, you picked this derivation, you described it as a way you wanted to act. It doesn't control action any more than any other decision. You can't be armored and unarmored at the same time, but you do get pick which one you want. Even derivations can change if the DM is willing to throw the right scion in your path.

    But all of these concerns about things impinging on the character seem very un-Brithright to me. Birthright is about obligations and looking out for those who have sworn obedience to you. Its about embracing the super-ego, not the id.

  6. #56
    Special Guest (Donor)
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    417
    Downloads
    25
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Thelandrin View Post
    In cases where these clash, either the prime source (usually Ruins of Empire) takes precedence or you go with either common sense or personal preference.
    Actually, you are wrong. The first published books serve as a starting point. As other books get published, they take the precedence because they are newer and possibly better worked out, revised and expanded.

    You'd compare, for example, one tribe in Rjurik Highlands campaing expansion with the same one in, let's say, Player's secrets of Stjordvik and see that if it holds no other entry than "As described in Rjurik Highlands CE", you'd go for that book as reference. Otherwise, you'd stick to the new one, if it suits you. That's your first line of common sense.

    Why would anyone want to use the scarce info in RoE for Tuarhievel when they have a whole PS on it where the prince "left ages ago" to have a cup of tea with the G.?
    Rey M. - court wizard of Tuarhievel

  7. #57
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Rey View Post
    Why would anyone want to use the scarce info in RoE for Tuarhievel when they have a whole PS on it where the prince "left ages ago" to have a cup of tea with the G.?
    Because the RoE was written by the setting designer whereas PSoT was written by a hackjob author who had no input on anything before or since and made glaring setting errors? If the gheallie sidhe wouldn't tolerate Ibelcoris as queen for being to friendly with humans just how long would Savane last on the throne? Not to mention the bizarrity of Fhileraene, an independent sidhe of a powerful elven realm meekly walking off to Kal Saitharak because the Gorgon demanded his attendance...

  8. #58
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    It is a vast mistake to confuse behavior and alignment. Bloodline draws one towards the values and behaviors associated with the god of its derivation, not necessarily anything at all to do with alignment.

    I would be perfectly happy to abandon alignment of any kind (2e, 3e, 4e) in favor of descriptions of the gods and their ethical views on things. A Vorynnian worldview is something that is fundamental to the game. Its manifest in bloodlines, in the temples and teachings of Ruornil, the life ways of the old Vos, in the use of sources, the casting of spells, and all sorts of secret lore.

    But apparently upholding the ways of Vorynn and Ruornil are too limiting, even though you get to choose of Vorynn is your guy, or not, or match him with a current god for a little hybid philosophy? Still to limiting?

    Inside the game, sure derivations are proscriptive, they proscribe behavior.

    But as a player, you picked this derivation, you described it as a way you wanted to act. It doesn't control action any more than any other decision. You can't be armored and unarmored at the same time, but you do get pick which one you want. Even derivations can change if the DM is willing to throw the right scion in your path.

    But all of these concerns about things impinging on the character seem very un-Brithright to me. Birthright is about obligations and looking out for those who have sworn obedience to you. Its about embracing the super-ego, not the id.

    Here is one of the few times where Kenneth and I agree almost completely.

    Vicente,

    First, the "bloodlines should be tied to an alignment" thing. . .
    I never said that bloodline derivation was tied to alignment only that they drew a scion to a certain behaviour - which is in BoR. Azrai is the one exception because behaviour is equated to alignment there. Pretty much in 2nd ed alignment was connected to behavior, also it was in 3.5, in 4th ed the connection is lessoned but the abstractions are still there.

    It is possible for a scion to go against his nature, but it is supposed to be difficult. There are plenty of written examples of this in the Br 2nd ed literature.
    Duane Eggert

  9. #59
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Vicente View Post
    Sigh...

    First, the "bloodlines should be tied to an alignment" thing is not something that would be needed to be converted from 2e to 4e. It's rules-invariant so I don't see why it should appear in a conversion as nothing needs to be converted. So no matter who is right or wrong here, it won't be a problem for the conversion.

    Second, Cities of the Sun is a Campaign Expansion (official and cannon) and The Book of Regency is an accessory (official and as cannon as you want it to be). It's not the same.

    But better see one example of this "accessory (flavor) = cannon" behavior: The Book of Magecraft and the BRCS 3e Conversion

    There's some cool flavor text on The Book of Magecraft about caerbhaighlien. I suppose it has to be really important because if you check the BRCS 3e Conversion you can find it in chapter 7. It's puzzling why flavor text should be converted, but it's more puzzling why someone invented a rule for it in the conversion process: caerbhaighlien sources aren't counted in the sources levels for the province. I have no idea why this was added but there it is.

    Now let's advance a little more in The Book of Magecraft. You will find an action called Ley Link who allows people to share sources and ley lines. It's a very simple action so I suppose it's official and cannon too. Let's go to the BRCS 3e Conversion: you won't find it in the actions (chapter 5). Let's check chapter 7: here comes the big WTF.



    I could have understood (to some degree) not translating the action as it's pretty simple. But contradicting it? There's no ground on the Campaign Setting or The Book of Magecraft for that. Also I haven't found the level 7+ source equals a level 0 guild holding to create trade routes is on the conversion (I haven't searched much, could be somewhere).

    So much for accessory = cannon...

    And no, this is not an attack to the impressive work done in the BRCS 3e Conversion. It's just an example that the "accessory = cannon" thing has not been followed on previous work, so do not try to sell it now.

    Bad example.

    This is one of the places where it has been pointed out before that there were "errors" in the BRCS. Another one was the number of trade routes that a port can have (Havens of the Great Bay pointed out that they get twice as many as normal, although the increase is for sea trade routes alone) while the BRCS says they count towards to total (which is clearly in error).

    So do not assume this was an intentional interpretation of how to combine "canon" material there are quite a few "accidents" in the BRCs that need to be corrected and then try to use them as basis for a point to be made is a discussion.
    Duane Eggert

  10. #60
    Special Guest (Donor)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    532
    Downloads
    11
    Uploads
    0
    irdeggman, your explanation and AndrewTall explanation about the points I remarked from the BRCS 3e Conversion clash completely. And I think his post explains much better what happened on those three examples (adding/explaining a rule, going against a rule and making a rule optional). Maybe the three of them were mistakes as you say, feel free to post links who talk about that subject and support the mistake argument.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Are blood abilities magical (in 2nd Ed.)?
    By Aba in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-24-2003, 07:56 AM
  2. Level dependant Blood abilities
    By oximoron in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-18-2003, 06:13 AM
  3. New Blood Abilities, anyone?
    By Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-15-2002, 01:24 PM
  4. Blood Abilities
    By Dienekes in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-24-2001, 05:45 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.