Originally posted by Thomas_Percy+Feb 17 2005, 11:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Thomas_Percy @ Feb 17 2005, 11:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-irdeggman@Feb 16 2005, 05:44 PM
I have to ask how familiar you are with the 2nd ed BR rules?* This is important becasue most of my responses assume a knowledge of them.
I think my personal skill at rules does not matter.
As I understand, You are a new rules maker.
You can change everything You want to make Brt better, compact, simple and full of new possibilities for PCs.
If old rules limit Your imagination, ignore them.
I think one of the greatest victories of D&D 3E over AD&D is to eliminate most things incoherent, complicated and everything what limits our imagination.

Imho conversation about "what X wrote on the page Y at the accessory Z" is a waste of time, because it&#39;s a past, and You are the man who makes the future of Brt.

We are thinking Brt is the best campaign ever. But Brt is a bankrupt. So Your task is to answer "why Brt is a bankrupt", remove old mistakes and create new quality. [/b][/quote]
I have to disagree.

It is not my job to convince you something is not bankrupt dince that will always be a matter of opinion, it is only my job to say why something was chosen to be the way it was or to clarify the intent in what was written (BRCS wise). When the sanctioning votes come up is when people say yeah or neigh to the whole.

Check out the thread in the FAQ section where it lays out the goals and philosophy of the BRCS project.

That is what we are trying to keep to.

http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2340

This is not a brand new campaign like Eberron. This is a revision to an existing campaign that most of us loved when it was first introduced and we are here because of that affection. And this is why I brought up the question of how much you knew of the source material since that is what shaped the setting and the "flavor" and "feel" of that shape is what we are trying to maintain. Not all of that made it into the BRCS so some of the history of the setting was missing and that is what needs clarification, IMO.

Now I thought I went through your previous comments with the intent of saying why it was that way not with saying I agreed or not. In fact most of the time I said that the issues you had brought up definitely needed clarification.

There have been a lot of dissenting opinions on whether or not this should be a straight up conversion (ignoring 3.5 mechanics) of the 2nd ed game which is why the development team came up with those design philosophies and have tried to keep true to them.