posts related to announcements

[Chaos Lord Arioch]

It appears that 2002 is going to be a very good year.
What is the size of the new revision? How many pages are we talking about? (or should I say bytes).

[Birthright-L]

On Thu, 30 May 2002 brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG wrote:
> It would certainly be of great advantage to all of us if we had an
> "official" d20 Birthright as a basis for common discusion. Just as
> with the 2e rules, every game master will clearly have several things
> that they would prefer to have house rules for, but hopefully the core
> of the BRCS will have broad appeal.

Why will it be of great advantage? The current BR rules are pretty much
outside the 2eAD&D system as they stand. They were a complete tack-on, so
in turn they could be completely tacked-on to 3e just as easily. The only
think I can think of that would absolutely NEED to be converted would be
the new proficiencies from the BR box into skills (several of them would
be knowledge or craft skills, or diplomacy specializations), and the game
effects of some blood abilities (those that give you a bonus to a save
that doesn`t really exist in 3e, for example).

So other than fulfilling a desire to tinker, which I respect, what good
will come out of an "ALL-NEW! APPROVED!! OFFICIAL!!!" BR rules
publication?

Is this a straight, true-to-the-original conversion, or is it a rewrite in
the way the current self-selected team thinks the rules should have been
to begin with?
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[irdeggman]

Why will it be of great advantage? The current BR rules are pretty much
outside the 2eAD&D system as they stand. They were a complete tack-on, so
in turn they could be completely tacked-on to 3e just as easily. The only
think I can think of that would absolutely NEED to be converted would be
the new proficiencies from the BR box into skills (several of them would
be knowledge or craft skills, or diplomacy specializations), and the game
effects of some blood abilities (those that give you a bonus to a save
that doesn`t really exist in 3e, for example).

So other than fulfilling a desire to tinker, which I respect, what good
will come out of an "ALL-NEW! APPROVED!! OFFICIAL!!!" BR rules
publication?

Is this a straight, true-to-the-original conversion, or is it a rewrite in
the way the current self-selected team thinks the rules should have been
to begin with?
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

Actually there is a lot more than proficiencies that "needs" to be converted. The classes in Birthright were not "outside of 2nd ed" and needs to be converted.

Anyone is is familiar with my old posts on the "old" birthright.net 3rd ed discussions knows that I have always been an advocate of maintaining the proper feel and flavor of the birthright setting and campaign.

I concur with Doom, IMO this will be "the" revised setting. There will be enough that satisfies most everyone in it. Heck, if you still want to play 2nd ed you can - just ignore the 3rd ed stuff and keep on playing to your own house rules. Nothing prevents anyone from doing that.

[doom]

On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 03:03:10PM -0400, daniel mcsorley wrote:
> So other than fulfilling a desire to tinker, which I respect, what good
> will come out of an "ALL-NEW! APPROVED!! OFFICIAL!!!" BR rules
> publication?

The major advantage, IMHO, is that it allows the development of new
fan-based products that all use the same underlying d20 system rules
for character creation, blood powers, and the like. Everything that
people post now is (by necessity) based on house-rulisms that may not
be easy to apply to someone else`s d20 game. Hopefully the product as
a whole, however, will also allow game masters to spend less time
worrying about conversion issues and more time developing cool house
rules or new stuff to share with the list.

> Is this a straight, true-to-the-original conversion, or is it a rewrite in
> the way the current self-selected team thinks the rules should have been
> to begin with?

Wow! That question is loaded. I think that I`ll first address the
"load" (speaking only for myself, not the development team, in
general). The "self-selected" team was selected by nominations from
folks who had volunteered the time/effort necessary to put together
complete d20 material in the downloads section of birthright.net.
Certainly there are many fans who have excellent ideas and would make
excellent developers (certainly many better than I), but it seemed that
a good way to get a first draft together was to use people that had
already shown that they had the ability and desire to put something
"semi-professional" together. That certainly doesn`t mean that the
team is the absolute "best" team in existance. Clearly it would be
great if we could get Richard Baker to work for free. ;) The team
selection was simply a pragmatic decision to put together a team that
could get work done. Work IS getting done - the decision seems to
have been a good one.

That being said, ideally, the project will be true-to-the-original, but
there will certainly be some changes based upon the new 3e
assumptions/mechanics.

To provide an example: BR bards were limited to illusions, divination,
and enchantments. 3e Bards have a spell list that is VERY similar to
that "idea", but can also cast summoning spells. Should d20 BR Bards be
able to cast summoning spells? One decision (to limit the current 3e
bard spell list) detracts from the 3e bard class without providing
anything in return. The other (to allow d20 BR bards to cast summoning
spells) involves making a change to the game work to incorporate the 3e
way of thinking. There are scores of such points (some obvious, some
difficult), and a decision simply has to be made, one way or the
other. Often times neither way is entirely better than the other, and
both viewpoints are valid.

Hopefully the decisions that the developers come up with will be a good
standard from which all of us rule tinkerers can develop our own house
rules, but use as a standard for discussion (in much the same way that
the 2e rulebook has always been used).

________
/. Doom@cs.wright.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Mark_Aurel]

To add my 2 cents, or whatever the value of my thoughts would be - staying true to the setting of Birthright is essential in creating a good set of 3e rules, otherwise, it simply wouldn't be Birthright. However, the rules must also stay true to the rules set from which they are derived - thus, a direct conversion of some things that existed in 2e that does not exist in 3e is simply impossible; i.e. the proficiency system. Other parts of the 3e system is entirely new - feats and prestige classes, to name two central examples.

The domain system of Birthright was a tacked-on system, so much is true - however, many elements of it also foreshadows some ideas found in the d20 system, and bringing the domain system into line with d20 doesn't make for an earth-shattering difference.

Finally, a concept that is crucial and central to 3e is balance - that characters should be roughly equal in terms of overall power or "playability" - this simply means that there is a need to implement certain things from the Birthright setting in a different fashion than simply a straight porting of 2e rules into 3e rules.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "daniel mcsorley"
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 2:03 PM


> So other than fulfilling a desire to tinker, which I respect, what good
> will come out of an "ALL-NEW! APPROVED!! OFFICIAL!!!" BR rules
> publication?

It just may be possible (though only time will tell) that this project may
win over a large majority of BR fans. If a sufficient number of fans use
enough of the material presented, this new project can become the standard
for play and discussion. Of course we will all tinker at our own gaming
tables, but people tinker with the Monopoly rules. The question is, will
this project attract enough players who want to use the official 3E
conversion to make it a standard. The only way to find out is to put it out
there.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[morgramen]

Well said once again! I must concur with my collegues. This is not a simple conversion manual, but a revised setting for the new 3E system.

I've been on the list serv for several years now (and so have others of the Developer Team), and I can honestly say that (at least from my point of view), many of the 'changes' seem to be to the frequently argued and often debated concepts that fill the shelves of the List serv archive. Ideas and comments that have been posted over the years from the "masses" have been recalled and tossed about, and the sheer level of "cautious triple checking' never ceases to amaze me. These guys are hard to sneak anything "fishy" past! No worries about Drow Dragon Rider Warlocks showing up or anything like that. (No matter how hard I try... they always catch me!) ;)

This is definitely NOT a self centered "my way or the highway" deal. The sheer creativity of the group, coupled with dedication (both to the BR setting and the desire to get a product out) is amazing to me. I've been involved in a few "Online Community Projects" over the years, and this is the first one that has actually produced a consistent product and not fizzled after a month.

I am certain you will all be impressed with the final product, and I have little doubt that it will become the new "standard". Almost certainly there will be snippets and concepts that some people just won't be able to swallow, but that comes with the territory.

The real question (in my mind at least) is not "will it conform to MY idea of Birthright", but rather "Will it conform to the POPULAR concept of Birthright."

In a nutshell, I'd say that the answer is "Yes, definitely".

[Peter Lubke]

On Sat, 2002-06-01 at 06:36, Dr. Travis Doom wrote:

On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 03:03:10PM -0400, daniel mcsorley wrote:
> So other than fulfilling a desire to tinker, which I respect, what good
> will come out of an "ALL-NEW! APPROVED!! OFFICIAL!!!" BR rules
> publication?

The major advantage, IMHO, is that it allows the development of new
fan-based products that all use the same underlying d20 system rules
for character creation, blood powers, and the like. Everything that
people post now is (by necessity) based on house-rulisms that may not
be easy to apply to someone else`s d20 game. Hopefully the product as
a whole, however, will also allow game masters to spend less time
worrying about conversion issues and more time developing cool house
rules or new stuff to share with the list.

Does anyone else think it amusing that there`s a conflict between the
low-magic world of BR and the power-crazed munchkinism of D20 ?


> Is this a straight, true-to-the-original conversion, or is it a rewrite in
> the way the current self-selected team thinks the rules should have been
> to begin with?

Wow! That question is loaded. I think that I`ll first address the
"load" (speaking only for myself, not the development team, in
general). The "self-selected" team was selected by nominations from
folks who had volunteered the time/effort necessary to put together
complete d20 material in the downloads section of birthright.net.
Certainly there are many fans who have excellent ideas and would make
excellent developers (certainly many better than I), but it seemed that
a good way to get a first draft together was to use people that had
already shown that they had the ability and desire to put something
"semi-professional" together. That certainly doesn`t mean that the
team is the absolute "best" team in existance. Clearly it would be
great if we could get Richard Baker to work for free. ;) The team
selection was simply a pragmatic decision to put together a team that
could get work done. Work IS getting done - the decision seems to
have been a good one.

That being said, ideally, the project will be true-to-the-original, but
there will certainly be some changes based upon the new 3e
assumptions/mechanics.

To provide an example: BR bards were limited to illusions, divination,
and enchantments. 3e Bards have a spell list that is VERY similar to
that "idea", but can also cast summoning spells. Should d20 BR Bards be
able to cast summoning spells? One decision (to limit the current 3e
bard spell list) detracts from the 3e bard class without providing
anything in return. The other (to allow d20 BR bards to cast summoning
spells) involves making a change to the game work to incorporate the 3e
way of thinking. There are scores of such points (some obvious, some
difficult), and a decision simply has to be made, one way or the
other. Often times neither way is entirely better than the other, and
both viewpoints are valid.

Hopefully the decisions that the developers come up with will be a good
standard from which all of us rule tinkerers can develop our own house
rules, but use as a standard for discussion (in much the same way that
the 2e rulebook has always been used).

________
/. Doom@cs.wright.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

Quoth Peter Lubke
>
>Does anyone else think it amusing that there`s a conflict between the
>low-magic world of BR and the power-crazed munchkinism of D20 ?

What is intrinsic about d20 that effects the distrubution of magik?

Hieronymus Agricola
wizard, alchemist, bibliophile


__________________________________________________ _______________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Sun, 2002-06-02 at 05:10, Hieronymus Agricola wrote:

Quoth Peter Lubke
>
>Does anyone else think it amusing that there`s a conflict between the
>low-magic world of BR and the power-crazed munchkinism of D20 ?

What is intrinsic about d20 that effects the distrubution of magik?


You know I wonder about that. Why ? Perhaps it`s the name - the
fascination with roll-playing and the focus on the dice brought about
more rules for combat than ever before - thus a focus on power gaming -
which of course must be matched with an appropriate equivalent of magic.

Intrinsically it shouldn`t have mattered of course - but it did. Even
with the alleged official trend away from FR I feel 3e has been a great
loss to the role-playing genre (but a successful marketing exercise).
Don`t get me all wrong, 2e failed to impress too.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.