Ok, this might be considered a bit off topic, so those of you who's not
interested in our little discussion may very well skip it. On the other
hand, personally I believe it to be one of the most interesting threads to
appear. ;)

Nuff said, back to our little argument:

Gregoire Alexandre Seguin wrote:
> - Ruins of Undermountain was a dungeon crawl. I will give you that.
I've
> played And I say again Played, the "Temple of Elemental Evil" at least 10
> times. I am currently doing it again with my GreyHawk DM.

(Stuff about the Temple of Elemental Evil snipped)

Well, my only encounter with the TEE made the scenario seem extraordinarily
lousy, but then I had an extraordinarily lousy DM. ;) I haven't read it, so
I can't really discuss it with you.

> - A good adventure is one wher you can go into more than once, knowing
the
> plot and still find new twists and traps.

Now, here I disagree with you completely. IMHO, a good _computer_ RPG is
one where you can go into more than once, knowing the plot and still find
new twists and traps. A good adventure is one where the characters are
truly motivated, where the plot is based around the specific character
backgrounds, where playing it several times would be no fun due to the
information-based plot structure, and where the world/setting around it
still plays a major part.

From your earlier postings it seems like you stress the _game_ part of
RPGs, while I focus on the _roleplaying_ part, including building a good,
realistic (withing the boundaries of the setting) story together with my
players.

Then, I believe we have varying definitions of the word "roleplaying" as
well, so you'll probably disagree with me. ;)

> >If the Creative Folks at TSR could publish a scenario built around
> >pre-generated characters (with about 5000 words of background and
> >personality each), with realistic character motivation to drive the plot
> >forward, and a loose, non-railroaded structure, Birthright could REALLY
> >show what it's good for.

> - Well, Birthright being good for every aspect of the game I truly
> disagree. I have played a D&D game with pre-made characters. It was
fun,
> but I couldn't then built it into a campain because the players could not
> develop the same love for their characters as one they have invented
> themselves.

A scenario with pre-generated charachters should be extensive enough to
_be_ a campaign in itself. As for developing love for characters - OK, you
have a point, but I find playing a detailed (and, above all, well-written!)
character once in a while MOST entertaining. It's more of a challenge,
really, to role-play a character written by someone else, since the writer
does not know your (the player's) roleplaying strengths and weaknesses.
There are too many people out there who stick to their favorite stereotypes
("What? You killed Balin, my dwarf fighter! Ok, my next one is named
Dwalin. Pass me the PHB"), so publishing a few challenging characters
wouldn't hurt... :)

I love playing characters I have made myself, but creating a character
takes a lot of time, and doing it properly requires a GM with a lot of time
on his/her hands (merging the ton of background threads into the campaign's
plot, etc)...

(If all adventures fit all PCs)
> - As for most of the adventures being like that, I disagree. It's up to
> the DM to buy a good scenario that fits around their PC group, or have
the
> PCs built characters around the scenario. BR has enough described people
> to last me a lifetime. How am I supposed to remember their names and
where
> to find them.

Regarding characters and scenarios, I agree. But from my experience, it
takes more time to adapt the scenario to your characters than it takes to
make one from scratch. :)

Regarding "described people," why should you? It's _your_ Cerillia,
populated with whomever you please. If you wish the ruler of Osoerde to be
called "John the Black," so be it! Improvising isn't a crime (at least not
in Norway). ;)

> - Mabe an index of described places and characters would be more useful.

True. When you have improvised a lot of NPCs and locations, it's a good
idea to write them down for future reference. Concistency is a must in any
serious campaign...

> - I don't think (again, no offence) that you will find any authors of
> Birthright that will put in that someone bought a 20GB horse.... wether
> it's a boxed set, or an epic quest.

;D

> >To those who run published scenarios because they do not have time to
make
> >their own: A scenario with finished, detailed characters would both save
> >time in adapting the scenario to the PCs, and give a much better
> >roleplaying experience (not to mention challenge - what is more fun than
to
> >play a complete character that you haven't made yourself?).
>
> - I partially agree with your comment. I like playing ready made
> adventures because they easily cast characters in a given direction.
Then
> again, they tend to still limit the roleplay because the players aren't
> playing the same style as the characters were intended.

Well, that's a problem with poor players, not a poor scenario, eh?

> - Many adventures expect players to sit and think, or to go forward and
> attack. Many adventures do not expect characters to sit and wait or to
> hide and, not attracting suspicion, sneek up to information, burglar
their
> way to knowledge. Any way you look at it, you'll need to modify the
> adventure and know how to improvise.

Oh, yes. Definately. A scenario should ideally leave all options open -
railroad adventures are rather uninspiring to play. Improvisation is alpha
and omega in roleplaying...

> >Birthright is such an excellent and revolutionary setting, that wasting
it
> >on old-fashioned scenarios is a real waste. With BR, TSR has taken the
step
> >into the future regarding setting. But is TSR ready for modernization
> >regarding adventures and scenarios as well?
>
> - I don't quite agree. BR is revolutionary by the fact that you can play
> "Wide Scale" campains and battles AS WELL as "short scale" dungeon
crawls.
> I think that TSR doesn't really need many other worlds anymore.
Birthright
> is ok for anyone to play wether you like the old style of adventure or
want
> to play a war game style game.

Ah, my dear Watson, I see the nature of our little disagreement. As I've
said above, we focus on different aspects of roleplaying. Sure, I respect
your gaming style, but there are more than one way to fry a hen. What I see
as revolutionary about the Birthright setting isn't the new rules for
realm-governing or warfare - it's the world itself. You have five distinct
cultures with tons of roleplaying challenges, you have a functioning
economic life, well-defined social structures, and intriguing, realistic
(within the setting) politics. They have changed the "I cast a
fireball"-nature of standard AD&D magic to something new and inspireing,
have a consistent history, and even a theological frame.

I don't want to play either the "old style of adventure" or a "war game
style game." Sure, I might want to include elements of these, but the main
point of my roleplaying is *simulation*. I want to be a different person
living in a different culture, with a different wold-view, different
ethics, morals, and religion. If I, for just a few moments, really can
_think_ like a Cerillian, be he Sidhe, Anuirean or Khinasi, and know that
everyone else around the gaming table is too, I know why I roleplay.

As a GM, I want my players to experience this. When I start up a campaign
in a new setting, I usually write cultural compendiums (let's say 25 pages)
for each player, to give him or her a foundation to base their roleplaying
on. Now, if I could go into a store and buy a scenario where the characters
included all this information, as well as a unique personality and
background story filled with plot threads, it would lessen the amount of
work both I and my players would have to go through to start something
worthwhile.

> - IMHO, TSR (or WotC) should continue to make all sort of different
> adventures for Birthright.

Yes, I agree. There's a lot of gamers out there, playing in a multitude of
different ways. If TSR would publish scenarios where the "for 4-6
characters of levels 1-3" was replaced with "for 5-6 experienced players
who enjoy advanced, realistic roleplaying" or "for 4-5 novice players who
enjoy wide-scale campaigns and battles," the number of customers would
probably grow... :)

They've already published "normal" scenarios, so an extensive one based
around a cast of, let's say, six well-written characters, would be due...


- --
Niels E. Wisth - Nudis Verbis