Blooded animals

[Birthright-L]

At 03:02 PM 8/31/2010, you wrote:

>On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Gary <geeman1984@verizon.net> wrote:
> > That`s true. The table does say "0-10" not "1-10." I don`t think that`s
> > what the game designers meant, though. Technically, if one is reading it
> > that way then commoners will have the same chance at a blood ability as a
> > scion with a bloodline score of 10.
>
>There`s a difference between someone with a bloodline of 0, and
>someone with no bloodline at all, apparently. Commoners wouldn`t have
>a 0, they`d have NA.

I think the "0" is something that got overlooked by the editors. I`m
pretty sure the original idea was that 0 and N/A would be the same
thing. After all, it would have been easy enough to have 1d6 -1 as a
method for rolling up bloodline score, and they didn`t do that....

Gary

[dooley]

<snip>
Nobody to my
knowledge has ever in the history of gaming ever felt the need to
delve into the issues you raise as objections, and we needn`t now.

<snip>
Gary

Well that's me told.
Do I have to wear sackcloth and ashes and beat my breast in supplication over my heresy for daring to have an opinion too?

[Sorontar]

Well that's me told. Do I have to wear sackcloth and ashes and beat my breast in supplication over my heresy for daring to have an opinion too?

[shrugs] If you like doing that sort of thing, go ahead. You are welcome to play your game however you like. The point we are just making is that the issue with blood-based slavery/breeding is
(1) It (in our opinions) doesn't fit with the spirit of the campaign setting
(2) It would require a complex extension to the rules and further explanations of why it hasn't been mentioned in the existing publications
(3) It is not how the majority of us (and we suspect those who normally play RPGs) would like to play

So you are welcome to discuss it as an option for extraordinary NPC circumstances, but we wouldn't regard it as something that we would normally try to fit into the setting.

Sorontar

[Birthright-L]

At 09:18 AM 9/1/2010, dooley wrote:

>Do I have to wear sackcloth and ashes and beat my breast in
>supplication over my heresy for daring to have an opinion too?

Since you ask, that WOULD make about as much sense as the opinion
itself... but, no.

A lot of the time people have their own take on things, and they want
to post their ideas. Sometimes people want to make Birthright a
Judeo-Christian setting. Others want to put killer ninjas in
Cerilia. Some folks want to have the gods return to Aebrynis and
have a second Deismaar. That`s all well and good. Whatever keeps
respective boats afloat is fine. But one shouldn`t present ideas and
not expect other people to point out problems. If all anyone wants
is validation and approval then one shouldn`t really expect to be out
in public much. It may not seem like it, but in the both the long
and short run, criticism of the sort that has been presented here is
going to help you out because if the people around here have
questions or issues of the sort described then so will players. If
you can`t deal with us, how can you expect to deal with them face to face?

So, with that said, what are the merits of making bloodline take
effect at birth rather than upon reaching adulthood? How does it
make anything better? It`s perfectly fine to have an opinion, but
there should be some sort of basis for it, shouldn`t there? Why
bother having an opinion that doesn`t do anything other than
complicate things that already work? It`s fine to make things more
complicated, but one should have a purpose in doing so, right? Is it
worth the potential problems?

What are the merits of including a system of blooded animals? It`s
an interesting idea, and I think most folks (myself included) would
support it in some incarnation, but it needs to be thought through to
prevent it from taking a campaign in an entirely different--and
strange--direction. We already have systems for varsk ranches. The
idea of blooded varsk ranches, however, should give one pause. Does
anyone really want a sort of modernist system of blooded lab rats
born and bred for sacrifice/bloodtheft? That could be a serious
problem for any DM.

Gary

[Mirviriam]

...
Well, first off, "more sensible" isn`t snide. It`s standard, neutral
English. Any emotive response you`ve had to that term is a product
of your own characterization, and I deny any such content in my original post.
...
Gary

The language is mostly contained, applause for no cursing or obviously ignorant language. Point of fact...regardless of definition, judging your argument yourself is not neutral. Your argument's strength should have nothing to do with the other person's words. (Frequency & other quantifiable measuring are neutral)

Some great idea's in this thread though!

Sorontar: The use of majority is very deceptive on the internet...I thought it was said 2,000 visitors on average the past few months...with less than 200 active posters for a month, I don't think you can measure a majority. Even if 60% was bot's ... that's still only 200 of 600 people.

Dooley, great ideas & counter arguments ... don't retreat in to sarcasm. Always respond with positive arguments.

Whoever: The abilities breaking pregnancy are brilliant! I have to ignore the Dune thing though, I read the series last week and loved it - but BR campaign isn't economically/socially advanced enough.

As to the level of detail in human pregnancy ... if you've ever read any historical arguments about BR campaign, you've gone in to way more detail than dooley already did on other subjects. Pass if you want, but don't knock it because you're not comfortable with it.

[dooley]

[shrugs] If you like doing that sort of thing, go ahead. You are welcome to play your game however you like. The point we are just making is that the issue with blood-based slavery/breeding is
(1) It (in our opinions) doesn't fit with the spirit of the campaign setting
(2) It would require a complex extension to the rules and further explanations of why it hasn't been mentioned in the existing publications

I'll answer both of these together by noting that it already is in the campaign setting, or is Blood Spawn p13 -15 not a good enough reference?
You can choose if you wish to opine that it doesn't fit with your version of the settings spirit, but others may disagree since it's only an opinion.

What's the problem with extending the rules anyway? it seems that it's fine for many other things to be reworked.
If you've already worked out the ramifications of things it means that you won't get blindsided by your players, or have to retcon when a year later in the campaign a game breaking situation arises

(3) It is not how the majority of us (and we suspect those who normally play RPGs) would like to play

A. What majority?
B. Your hubris to speak for the multitude is telling.

So you are welcome to discuss it as an option for extraordinary NPC circumstances, but we wouldn't regard it as something that we would normally try to fit into the setting.

Sorontar

It's wonderfully ironic that limitations are being placed om my interpretation of the setting, merely because you've already decided on your interpretation as being the setting.

[dooley]

At 09:18 AM 9/1/2010, dooley wrote:

>Do I have to wear sackcloth and ashes and beat my breast in
>supplication over my heresy for daring to have an opinion too?

Since you ask, that WOULD make about as much sense as the opinion
itself... but, no.

A lot of the time people have their own take on things, and they want
to post their ideas. Sometimes people want to make Birthright a
Judeo-Christian setting. Others want to put killer ninjas in
Cerilia. Some folks want to have the gods return to Aebrynis and
have a second Deismaar. That`s all well and good. Whatever keeps
respective boats afloat is fine. But one shouldn`t present ideas and
not expect other people to point out problems. If all anyone wants
is validation and approval then one shouldn`t really expect to be out
in public much. It may not seem like it, but in the both the long
and short run, criticism of the sort that has been presented here is
going to help you out because if the people around here have
questions or issues of the sort described then so will players. If
you can`t deal with us, how can you expect to deal with them face to face?

It wasn't criticism.
You wandered off into cloud cuckoo land foisting your poor imaginings of how things worked, despite being repeatedly told that wasn't how it was. That's trolling.
You might not know but there is a difference.

So, with that said, what are the merits of making bloodline take
effect at birth rather than upon reaching adulthood? How does it
make anything better? It`s perfectly fine to have an opinion, but
there should be some sort of basis for it, shouldn`t there? Why
bother having an opinion that doesn`t do anything other than
complicate things that already work? It`s fine to make things more
complicated, but one should have a purpose in doing so, right? Is it
worth the potential problems?

Actually why don't you properly defend the position taken by yourself, this is just a side issue to me.

What are the merits of including a system of blooded animals? It`s
an interesting idea, and I think most folks (myself included) would
support it in some incarnation, but it needs to be thought through to
prevent it from taking a campaign in an entirely different--and
strange--direction. We already have systems for varsk ranches. The
idea of blooded varsk ranches, however, should give one pause. Does
anyone really want a sort of modernist system of blooded lab rats
born and bred for sacrifice/bloodtheft? That could be a serious
problem for any DM.

Gary

As mentioned elsewhere it's already there, and AGAIN I refer you back to my first response to Invoker47 in post 3.

[Sorontar]

Sorontar: The use of majority is very deceptive on the internet...I thought it was said 2,000 visitors on average the past few months...with less than 200 active posters for a month, I don't think you can measure a majority. Even if 60% was bot's ... that's still only 200 of 600 people.

Fair enough. I can't put numbers on it as it is just my interpretation of the discussion here in combination with the conversations we have had in this mailing list/forum over the last ten years or so. My opinion is that a large number of players wouldn't want to include it. You Dooley, obviously aren't one of them. I am just asking that you bear that in mind when you consider how people are responding to your posts. In turn, we would like to treat your suggestions as ideas of how the campaign setting can be adapted. We are having trouble seeing how it can be treated as an interpretation of the rules/scenario as they stand.

All criticism should be constructive. We all just have to deal it out and read it in that fashion.

Sorontar

[Mirviriam]

On tanget - I was asked to put links to some of my house rules to the main wiki. I never did because I wasn't sure it was finished & I didn't know if there was a process...Are we compiling a supplement book?

EDIT: Is that why you're looking for more uniformed view? I saw a while back someone had a mighty fortress post & one of the pdf's got permanently linked.

[Birthright-L]

At 09:01 AM 9/6/2010, dooley wrote:

>It wasn`t criticism.
>
>You wandered off into cloud cuckoo land foisting your poor imaginings of how things worked, despite being repeatedly told that wasn`t how it was. That`s trolling.
>
>You might not know but there is a difference.

It`s difficult to convey tone through text, so one should read a neutral or even friendly tone into prose on an email list. Of course, that`s not really possible when one starts using terms like "cloud cuckoo" and "poor imaginings" but still....

For the record, neither of those things ("cloud cuckoo" and "poor imaginings") qualify as trolling. Trolling is willfully attempting to disrupt a community or garner attention and controversy through provocative messages. That`s not the same as "cloud cuckoo" or "poor imaginings" neither of which actually apply to the situation either....

>>So, with that said, what are the merits of making bloodline take effect at birth rather than upon reaching adulthood? How does it
>>make anything better? It`s perfectly fine to have an opinion, but there should be some sort of basis for it, shouldn`t there? Why
>>bother having an opinion that doesn`t do anything other than complicate things that already work? It`s fine to make things more
>>complicated, but one should have a purpose in doing so, right? Is it worth the potential problems?
>
>Actually why don`t you properly defend the position taken by yourself, this is just a side issue to me.

I`ve already posted a numbered list of reasons in a previous post. I`m asking if you have a comparable set of reasons that would benefit the campaign or just a gaming session that would justify your interpretation. What are the benefits?

Since you mentioned it, if this is a side issue, what is the main issue?

>>What are the merits of including a system of blooded animals? It`s an interesting idea, and I think most folks (myself included) would
>>support it in some incarnation, but it needs to be thought through to prevent it from taking a campaign in an entirely different--and
>>strange--direction. We already have systems for varsk ranches. The idea of blooded varsk ranches, however, should give one pause. Does anyone really want a sort of modernist system of blooded lab rats born and bred for sacrifice/bloodtheft? That could be a serious problem for any DM.
>
>As mentioned elsewhere it`s already there, and AGAIN I refer you back to my first response to Invoker47 in post 3.

In that response you wrote that "Characters sewing the seeds of their own destruction through greed, it`s enough to bring a smile to any
DM." That is the one you mean, correct?

Assuming so, I guess that`s true for some folks, though I don`t think I find it as amusing as you do.... At the risk of provoking another defensive post in response, I don`t find that answer to be particularly forthcoming or informative. Please have another look at the questions quoted above. If you can be more specific than "characters (by which you mean players, I think) sewing the seeds of their own destruction..." what are the actual benefits to the campaign for such an interpretation? Sure, a DM might take it as the players sewing the seeds of their own destruction, but my reading of your posts has been more to indicate that you`re proposing such things from the DM`s point of view rather than as a player. Are you saying you DON`T think such a thing is a good idea in the setting and that as the DM you would oppose it?

Gary