Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34
  1. #21
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    If the game allows for decisive, first strike total victory, players are fools not to take it. The problem is that the domain system as written fundamentally works that way. Unfortunately, this is the opposite of the setting material, in which all of the duchies go way back to before Deismaar, and aside from the combination of Ghieste and Bhalaene, are pretty much all still kicking.

    First PBeM I played, I was the Eastern Temple of Nesirie, and a friend was playing the Spider River Traders, and we were planning to either bring the Arenewe player into our group, or considering what we would so if it didn't have that idea. Suddenly Avanil and allies knock out Boeruine entirely, defeat their army and start investing provinces. Boeruine only has nine, and with all the regents investing, it wasn't going to be too long before the Archduchy was a memory.

    So you spend all of his time steeping yourself in the history, flavor, and mythology of the setting, and then when you actually play the game, all of that is out the window, and you find the domain rules as used in PBeM's have no relationship to all that setting.

    If you think the domain rules are Birthright, and the setting is so much fluff, then that is just fine. If you think that Birthright is the setting and the domain rules are just a way to track progress, power, and mediate interactions, then its not so fine.

    This is the heart of the matter. The domain rules are simply not suitable for reflecting the setting without heavy intervention by the DM. Using NPC realms, DM plots, and "random" events, the DM can railroad the action so that it looks like Birthright. But I won't pin the blame on DM's who don't heavily use NPC realms, or other DM interventions, when the real problem is that you can't play with the domain rules alone and expect any other outcome.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    439
    Downloads
    31
    Uploads
    0
    This is the heart of the matter. The domain rules are simply not suitable for reflecting the setting without heavy intervention by the DM. Using NPC realms, DM plots, and "random" events, the DM can railroad the action so that it looks like Birthright. But I won't pin the blame on DM's who don't heavily use NPC realms, or other DM interventions, when the real problem is that you can't play with the domain rules alone and expect any other outcome.
    I agree that the role of a mediator is important, but as I've said before, a good rules system makes it easier to play out the story the way you want to, not harder. The less you have to fight against the system the better. That's why I've been trying to identify weaknesses in the system and figure out ways of improving them.

    You've identified that the system doesn't support the story. Yet I've been fighting on many threads to say something similar, and usually I get the answer--including from Irdeggman and you here on this thread--that there's nothing wrong with the system and we shouldn't look at tweaking it. Which is it?

    As for wars of conquest and maintaining the status of ancient lands, I've advocated in PBEMs for a set of Anuirean Rules of War. This got most developed in Julian's Shadows of Empire, but it was only discussed (OOC and IC) and never really tested. It relies on a common agreement by players to a certain set of norms, that the entrenched powers of Anuire established customs of gentlemanly warfare that limited its destructiveness and tended to preserve them in power, so that their dynasties would not fall easily even if a weak ruler came about. It centered on the idea of limited conquest--the most you could hope to gain under the right conditions was a province or two and lesser concessions. If you tried complete conquest of another Anuirean power, the other realms would band together to stop your abhorrent behavior and show proper respect and dignity to ancient lineages and dynasties, allowing them to keep most of their ancestral lands. It protects them all from constant aggression, and from fearing that their ancestral lands could be lost utterly by a weak descendant.

  3. #23
    Administrator Green Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,018
    Downloads
    20
    Uploads
    0
    I have to agree with Kenneth on this one - the domain rules (2E or BRCS, doesn't matter) absolutely suck* if you're trying to create a game that even remotely maintains the "fluff" that is the BIRTHRIGHT setting. The rules are not bad as such, I'm sure they work well enough for a pure board-game that doesn't care for the setting. But as Kenneth pointed out - if the rules encourage a certain way of acting, a good player would be fool not to act in what is essentially his own best interest!

    Which is why I made an entirely different system.

    * For example - there are almost no roads in Anuire, yet often players will build immense numbers of highways in a few turns. And why should they not? Its good for movement and its good for trade...
    Cheers
    Bjørn
    DM of Ruins of Empire II PbeM

  4. #24
    Administrator Green Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,018
    Downloads
    20
    Uploads
    0
    The other part is of course respect for the setting and a desire to work to enhance the game world, and not break it. And to get that you need skilled and dedicated players who can both play a role and enjoy the BR world. And a DM who does the same.

    When you add that to rules that actually encourage this play style and also go for a PbeM type that is part strategy and part role-playing, it can be a grand experience. You're simply not going to get 10-20 friends to sit down and play out years and years of domain turns while also engaging in very memorable role-playing.
    Cheers
    Bjørn
    DM of Ruins of Empire II PbeM

  5. #25
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Rowan View Post
    You've identified that the system doesn't support the story. Yet I've been fighting on many threads to say something similar, and usually I get the answer--including from Irdeggman and you here on this thread--that there's nothing wrong with the system and we shouldn't look at tweaking it. Which is it?
    I said there's nothing wrong with the system? I wouldn't do that, they'd kick me out of the League of Gadflies. I went back and re-read the thread. I'm pretty sure I've stuck with the tough love approach.

    I'm happy to work with the system as is, but that's because I see it as a way to describe the setting and the role playing in a way that is measurable and comparable. When it comes to playing a domain only situation, my recommendation is to make a map of Cerilia and play an established table top game.

  6. #26
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Rowan View Post
    I agree that the role of a mediator is important, but as I've said before, a good rules system makes it easier to play out the story the way you want to, not harder. The less you have to fight against the system the better. That's why I've been trying to identify weaknesses in the system and figure out ways of improving them.

    You've identified that the system doesn't support the story. Yet I've been fighting on many threads to say something similar, and usually I get the answer--including from Irdeggman and you here on this thread--that there's nothing wrong with the system and we shouldn't look at tweaking it. Which is it?
    Something I have noticed is that Kenneth's opinion is that the rules as written support a quick resolution style of play and not the long and drawn out way of doing things.

    Green Knight also pointed out that certain aspects are "encouraged" by the abstract system that it is - like quickly progressing to highways.

    You have gone the other route and said that the system is too slow and not specific enough.

    This is the quandry.

    It is pretty much impossible to come up with a system that is faster and slower with specific rules. I believe that the BRCS works in a middle ground of abstractness (which is the core of all of D&D). It leaves a lot to the DM.

    IMO any sytem that gives specific rules that if you do this then this happens like this (as in very clear and specific action and results) will actually make a game less enjoyable. D&D at its core is about adaptability - even though 3.5 progressed much farther down the path of the video game style of mechanical results for every action. Systems that are very heavy on the action/result formality tend to progress towards rules-heavy games and thus lead to much rules-lawyering (and bickering). This is probably the core reason that 3.x has had so very much "discussion" on rules.
    Duane Eggert

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    439
    Downloads
    31
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    I'm happy to work with the system as is, but that's because I see it as a way to describe the setting and the role playing in a way that is measurable and comparable.
    That's what I was pointing out--that while you agree that the system works against the game play, you're willing to work with it as is.

    GK, I agree with you and Kgauck. My point has been that I'm trying to find ways of tweaking the system itself so that it works with the story and desired type of play better, so that DMs and players don't have to fight the system as much. No system will ever be perfect, but it can be more in harmony with the desired type of game play.

    Irdeggman, you're actually identifying two different goals of mine. One is to make game play simpler and faster, primarily for the mass scale of PBEMs (where with 10-30 players, a system needs to be simple enough to be resolved quickly). The other is to improve the quality of the system to encourage a desired type of game play that is true to the setting, rather than having to work against the system with extensive case-by-case DM fiats or through elaborate gymnastics to explain the rules.

    I agree with you that prescribing only a specific description for what a given domain action looks like in the story is perversely limiting. I like leaving actions abstract enough to allow for many different methods of carrying them out. I don't think specific 4e Attack Power-like descriptions are at all necessary.

    The Highway problem, for instance, would diminish considerably if the rules reflected a few things that they currently, in practice, don't seem to: they are expensive to create and maintain; it takes trade to really support them and make them worthwhile; trade fluctuates frequently; and sea trade should ultimately be at least as profitable as land trade (currently there are considerable disincentives to sea trade in comparison to land trade).

    How do rules take care of those problems without become much more specific or complicated? The full explanation would take some time, but what I've currently worked up involves 1. Increasing the cost of roads and highways in a way that reflects their capacity just like all other assets, including ships; 2. having Trade holdings limited by resources and Guild holdings; 3. having Contest actions be cheaper than Rule actions, which should result in fewer overall trade holdings; 4. having Rule actions scale with level right along with Rule Province actions to create a system of diminishing returns (creating a disincentive to consolidation of power), so that it is generally easier and a better return on investment for players to spread their holdings around in a wider network of lower-level holdings, thus bringing them into conflict more often with competitors and encouraging that competition due to the relative disparity of Contest and Rule costs.
    Last edited by Rowan; 12-12-2008 at 08:41 PM.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Malden, MA
    Posts
    761
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    My favorite Cerilian, Birthright conversions, Machiavelli and Kingmaker, require other players who know those games.
    You have a Cerilia conversion for Kingmaker? GIMME!

    That said, the entire reason I bought the BR game in the first place was in the hopes of obtaining a better rule set for running fantasy kingdoms than the one provided in the (non-A)D&D Companion Set. That is still what I want BR to be, so I still tinker with the domain rules. I also like Cerilia as a game setting, and agree that there is no way to explain how the domains can possibly be set up as they are if the NPCs are actually playing the same game described in the rules. House rules are a must if you don't want massive, immediate change: there must be a *game reason* for the state of the system presented in the atlases to be stable. There's also balance of power politics -- if Avanil starts to seriously conquer Boeruine, Ghoere and Mhoried have to team up to stop it; but if they go too far and start to carve up Avanil, then Roesone and Aerenwe and Cariele... but that's really not stable, as it gets too big too fast, and eventually someone just wins. Perhaps the problem is the Investiture action? Caesar conquered Gaul in a few campaigns, but it took generations to assimilate the inhabitants into the Empire (one can also argue that even after 400 years, they really *never* became "good Romans"). What one wants, perhaps, is a notion of uninvesting that is much easier than investing was: Avan has to permanently garrison Boeruine for decades or centuries, or else if ever a garrison falls too low, Boeruine spontaneously recreates itself?

  9. #29
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    The issue, as you say, is that conquests become loyal immediately.

    I'd build a fix into the morale mechanics. Basically there should be a whacking morale penalty to any conquered land that isn't settled by expulsion/extermination and then immigration (i.e. if you drive out the natives you can ignore the penalty, if you keep them you suffer it).

    This morale penalty should amortise over a ridiculous period - decades or centuries. It could be reduced by specific actions (i.e. the people will follow a real hero who inspires them or bow down to a true fiend who terrifies them) but that reduction would be for the specific regent only - not their heirs.

    From a game mechanic perspective conquered realms would thus be less productive and rebel more easily. Additional mechanics could be modifiers to domain actions and the like, DM-wise I'd suggest that they have very high frequency of great captain events and rebels declare themselves the old nation.

    You could avoid the penalties - or at least reduce them - by having the conquest a vassal realm with the appropriate 'puppet' ruler.

    In the game the aim would then be to take control of the conquest as a vassal realm and hope that the local puppet doesn't GC.

    To prevent mega-alliances some penalty for kneeling to someone other than the emperor might be used - what good is our duke if he bows to a mere baron?

    As this would all be fairly complicated - basically a long list of morale modifiers, I'd keep it for 'tournament play' i.e. bits to be added on if they suit the specific game.

  10. #30
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ryancaveney View Post
    You have a Cerilia conversion for Kingmaker? GIMME!
    I should make a pdf for the thing. The version I have worked out is the Dhoeosne version. You play one of four factions (Haelynite, Rjurik, Seramite, Sidhe) and try and get control of Dhoesone.

    I have ideas on an Anuirean version in which you try and get your faction to install an Emperor.



    Perhaps the problem is the Investiture action? Caesar conquered Gaul in a few campaigns, but it took generations to assimilate the inhabitants into the Empire (one can also argue that even after 400 years, they really *never* became "good Romans"). What one wants, perhaps, is a notion of uninvesting that is much easier than investing was: Avan has to permanently garrison Boeruine for decades or centuries, or else if ever a garrison falls too low, Boeruine spontaneously recreates itself?
    I have the notion of an ancestral rebellion. A scion with a tie to the land can spend a domain action and the old lands rise up and hail him as their true regent. As long as William Moergan lives, Jaison Rainech will never control Osoerde safely. Why did Mheallie Bireon kill all of the house of Cariele? To prevent this problem. Opps she missed a few. The new regent needs to develop a new tie to the land to hold it, and this requires a minimum of a generation, and then a second successful investiture.

    One of the pronounced effects is that you can only acquire small bits of territory directly. The best way to conquer new stuff is to find a claimant to a throne, conquer it, invest your claimant, he swears to be your vassal. The old house can still run around throwing up ancestral rebellions, but the claimant house gets better bonuses than the conqueror would.

    Slowing the game down by making actions involve more steps works nicely. In the same way that single roll skill checks can be replaced by extended skill checks, since result domain actions can be replaced by say, four or five domain actions dedicated toward the same purpose. Even if I could totally defeat my enemy, I couldn't pay for an army big enough to occupy it long enough to perform all of the hundreds of investiture checks necessary to actually absorb the whole thing. So instead, wars are fought for more limited aims, like spending 50 GB to force him to spend 100 GB making it much easier to do this all again in five years. Take a province here. Release a province there (after much preparation, the Count of Rivien has been convinced he can go it alone). Demand the cessation of other vassalage agreements (release Talinie, release Brosengae, &c). Demand recognition of the law holding you established during occupation, so that his moving against it carries an especially heavy burden. Demand a cash reparation.

    So that, unless the results of several wars favor one side, the status quo prevails. And even real progress is more of the "two steps forward, one step back" variety.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Play any realm?
    By Alakad in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-09-2007, 02:16 PM
  2. New Play by email?
    By Droene in forum Birthright play-by-post
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-29-2005, 08:55 PM
  3. Would Like To Play...
    By Mikal in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-02-2003, 05:10 PM
  4. Looking for a Campaign to Play
    By Merador in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-30-2002, 08:30 AM
  5. Play by EMail
    By Allen in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-25-2001, 03:53 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.