Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 88
  1. #61
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by irdeggman View Post
    If you will do a search of any posts I have made in the past (go back as far you like) you will never find that I labeled anything you wrote or propses as total trash. Nor have I have states (or insiuated you ego was part of the issue). I have disagreed with you plenty of times, but disagreeing should be fine and part of good dialog.
    My view of the BRCS is that it makes utterly wrong choices, harms the setting, and reduces the value of the setting. I can express that politely as I just have, or I can call it trash. I also think that the very idea of a standard version is dubious to begin with, and harmful when it doesn't have a broad consensus.

    I don't think that the time period between the cancellation of the line and creation of the BRCS was a dark age, I think it was a golden age when people put forth their ideas without someone saying that that their ideas might confuse someone because they were inconsistent with the "official" interpretation, even though that document shreds the original rulebook. I think the BRCS is a shadow that darkens the setting, and constant attacks on new ideas because they conflict with officialdom strangle the setting.

    the wiki does not have guidelines telling people that is what they should do (but I think you have overlooked that aspect totally).
    Guidelines that tell other people what to do should not be decided by one person, and not in a thread like this one. I have overlooked this issue because until this issue is addressed and some decisions made, its simply inappropriate to suggest that the wiki policy should by x or y.

    However, I will say that most people do not read the guidelines that do exist, they simply post material. I prefer that people simply post, and that moderators bring the new material into line with the policy. Obstacles to adding material should be as low as possible.

    I did say that the BRCS should be the default 3.5 rules since it is the "official" 3.5 rules from this site (whether or not you agree has no basis in fact on this one).
    I have pointed out that the official status was a statement that wizards would not support a rival conversion produced elsewhere. That's all.

    I never said that other sets couldn't (or shouldn't be presented) only that their basis should be clear to avoid confusion
    This is not entirely the matter at issue. Its whether guidelines should precede contributions. You have expressed anxiety about the freewheeling nature of the wiki, and concern that anyone can just post anything. You have criticized the dynamic, complex messiness of of the wiki as if it is a problem, a source of confusion, while in fact it is a virtue, the source of its creativity.

    The process behind wikis in particular and creativity in general is a decentralized trial and error. Attempts to combat "confusion" by creating rules comes with a considerable cost. No one should ever decide not to post because they don't know all the rules and are concerned that they might be criticized for violating the rules.

    Instead, guidelines should come after the fact, once a clear problem has revealed itself, and then adopted in as limited as was as possible.

    Much of the guidelines written in the early days of the wiki make no sense now, because the wiki has evolved into directions that were unforeseen when they were written. Its bee-hive hairdo and the Sassoon bob cut all over again.

    but again you seem to want to focus on attacking me for some reason.
    When have I attacked you, rather than your ideas or the BRCS? I write a lot of words, most of them arguing for a dynamic approach to creativity. That's my focus. You must be overlooking all of this and then mistaking the BRCS for yourself to arrive at this conclusion.

    In fact if the post hadn't stated that the BRCS was a useless piece of trash it wouldn't ahve stirred me up at all - but that starting post set the tone for the entire discussion.
    I think it is a useless piece of trash. In fact, that might be an understatement.

  2. #62
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Knight View Post
    The NPC is useful anyway, but it would be even more useful if I knew if followed some sort of standard system.
    Nearly all NPC's use the exact same system, because they are simply copied out of the published materials, and have the score, and abilities that were published. The new characters I have made and that Elton has made follow the system in the rulebook. Exceptions would be hard to find.

  3. #63
    Junior Member Capricia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    24
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post

    I think it is a useless piece of trash. In fact, that might be an understatement.
    Wow,

    I'm frankly appalled that this has been allowed to degrade to this level of posting. Last time I checked, the average age of posters on this forum was well above 12, so can we please act like it?

    My two bits? The BRCS is needed. Period. It alarms me that a wiki moderator has such an antagonistic attitude towards the single piece of "cannon" documentation this community uses. No matter what your personal opinion of the baseline rules, if BR is to continue something is needed as a reference point.

    Personally I have found that the wiki is peppered with land mines of misinformation, unlabled fan fiction, and creative whimsy. I find the entire wiki misleading and I have actually stopped using it for the most part. I simply cannot trust what is there because I don't know which is BRCS and which was the product of someone else's creativity. Also, no wiki can be used as a baseline, because by its very nature it is a changeable thing.

  4. #64
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Canon refers to facts of the setting established in published sources. An example would be the facts that Arlando el-Adaba has a Reynir bloodline of 15 with Alertness and Poison Sense. BRCS is not canon, it is a set of rules. A set of rules that makes the canon for 40% of characters impossible. If you respect canon, you cannot support the BRCS. Using the BRCS requires that you shrug (at most) at such serious revisions of canon characters.

    Personally I have found that the wiki is peppered with land mines of misinformation, unlabled fan fiction, and creative whimsy.
    That's actually the point of the wiki. Every new piece of information must be created by fans. There is no other source of information from which to fill out the other characters, locations, and situations that were never described in canon. Its the purpose of the wiki to attract and present creative whimsy.

    It is not meant to be an authority, a standard, or to be official.

  5. #65
    Administrator Green Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,018
    Downloads
    20
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    Canon refers to facts of the setting established in published sources. An example would be the facts that Arlando el-Adaba has a Reynir bloodline of 15 with Alertness and Poison Sense. BRCS is not canon, it is a set of rules. A set of rules that makes the canon for 40% of characters impossible. If you respect canon, you cannot support the BRCS. Using the BRCS requires that you shrug (at most) at such serious revisions of canon characters.

    That's actually the point of the wiki. Every new piece of information must be created by fans. There is no other source of information from which to fill out the other characters, locations, and situations that were never described in canon. Its the purpose of the wiki to attract and present creative whimsy.

    It is not meant to be an authority, a standard, or to be official.
    IMO canonism always kills creativity, but that's just me. The BRCS I think tried to be more 3E in that it removed some randomness - a good thing IMO - but perhaps it put the 'gain-blood-abilities-threshold' a bit too high.

    I like the wiki more and more - as a source of many wonderful bits and pieces of information...you can call me old-fashioned if you'd like, but I still think it's a mess that could benefit from a bit more structure (be it the BRCS rules or whatnot)...a beautiful mess, but a mess none the less

    Seriously, the BRwiki suffers more from a lack of labeling than many other wiki's I've seen. I think that's a mistake. I know next to nothing about how to make wiki pages (I still can't figure out how to make a new one - maybe I lazy or just plain stupid!) but a few labels like "Canon", "BRCS" and "Fanmade" would have been very nice.
    Cheers
    Bjørn
    DM of Ruins of Empire II PbeM

  6. #66
    Administrator Green Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,018
    Downloads
    20
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    Nearly all NPC's use the exact same system, because they are simply copied out of the published materials, and have the score, and abilities that were published. The new characters I have made and that Elton has made follow the system in the rulebook. Exceptions would be hard to find.
    Ok, but this doesn't help the fact that I find the 2E random system for generating bloodlines too random. Maybe that's just me, but I'd like something a little bit more standardized. Not saying that the BRCS has the perfect system (because that would be wrong - MY home-brew system is clearly the BEST!!!) but at least it is a system.

    Hmm, maybe I'll try to figure out how to make a new wiki page and publish some alternate bloodline rules?
    Cheers
    Bjørn
    DM of Ruins of Empire II PbeM

  7. #67
    Junior Member Capricia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    24
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Knight View Post

    Seriously, the BRwiki suffers more from a lack of labeling than many other wiki's I've seen. I think that's a mistake. I know next to nothing about how to make wiki pages (I still can't figure out how to make a new one - maybe I lazy or just plain stupid!) but a few labels like "Canon", "BRCS" and "Fanmade" would have been very nice.
    Nicely put .

    And I'm not against creativity, I just want to know when I've wandered from "what is" into "what might be in a universe of infinite possibility".

  8. #68
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Capricia View Post
    Last time I checked, the average age of posters on this forum was well above 12, so can we please act like it?
    If you think the difference between adults and children is a false (dishonest) politeness, I think you are mistaken. Adults should be able to hear and express their honest opinions without having their feelings hurt because someone on the internet disagrees with them. The purpose of communication is not to maintain a polite decorum, but to directly and clearly express views.

  9. #69
    Junior Member Capricia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    24
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    If you think the difference between adults and children is a false (dishonest) politeness, I think you are mistaken. Adults should be able to hear and express their honest opinions without having their feelings hurt because someone on the internet disagrees with them. The purpose of communication is not to maintain a polite decorum, but to directly and clearly express views.
    Sorry, I'm Canadian. We are raised to be polite and respectful in our communications. It comes with the "eh".

    And I apologize for the apparent derailment of this thread. Back to bloodlines!

  10. #70
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Sorontar View Post
    Umm, guys, just a reminder that the key thing about wikis is that they generally exist to be editted. What is stuff from a WOTC Player's Secret publication one minute can very quickly change to fan-work. The idea of segregating the two is nice to talk about, but hard to enforce. Just getting the BRCS all protected on the wiki has been a slow enough process since we have to make sure it hasn't been editted inadvertently.

    And I, as a moderator, would have no idea what is and isn't in any of the PS.

    Sorontar.
    We had a conversation about this kind of labeling in July.

    Green Knight may appreciate my more ambivalent approach to canon then (which I still hold to, as I said then, "canon is up for revision".)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. 2nd/3rd edition
    By NaMaN in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 06-17-2008, 08:56 AM
  2. 4th edition
    By Blastin in forum BRCS 4th Edition
    Replies: 127
    Last Post: 06-05-2008, 07:57 AM
  3. D&D 4th Edition
    By RaspK_FOG in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-04-2004, 07:52 PM
  4. BR 3rd edition
    By Shade in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 02-05-2003, 05:43 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.