Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 88
  1. #71
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Knight View Post
    Ok, but this doesn't help the fact that I find the 2E random system for generating bloodlines too random.
    That's certainly true, but we're not using the random tables to generate bloodlines, were using the spot we place them in (are they province level, sub-province level, realm officials?) what families are they connected to, and stuff like that. Its more like DM fiat given the expectations created by the PS material and the logic of genealogy.

  2. #72
    Administrator Green Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,018
    Downloads
    20
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    That's certainly true, but we're not using the random tables to generate bloodlines, were using the spot we place them in (are they province level, sub-province level, realm officials?) what families are they connected to, and stuff like that. Its more like DM fiat given the expectations created by the PS material and the logic of genealogy.
    So then there actually is an (unspoken) system used to provide consistency, but one that isn't visible to the average reader/contributor...
    Cheers
    Bjørn
    DM of Ruins of Empire II PbeM

  3. #73
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Victoria BC Canada
    Posts
    38
    Downloads
    37
    Uploads
    0
    Wow. Threads like these are the reason I think there are less and less BR players. Unpleasant reading.

    I nearly never post on BR net but I really feel a need to say that I absolutely disagree that the BRCS is a piece of trash. (This would be what made me read all the pages in the thread to address) In fact I think it is the most useful and cohesive fan written document for Birthright there is. Its far better than I could do on my own and far better than any other moderization of the original 2e rules that I have read and I have collected every one I have seen online since I started playing BR online over 10 years ago.

    I think that having a wiki that is organized for all the fan material, including the BRCS is a great idea but having it unlabeled makes it more difficult to use and so, I too, have stopped using it.

    For example on this page at the bottom it compares the Cold Rider to Randal Flagg...
    http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/Shadow_World This is a composite of fan fiction, the Book of Priestcraft and a random reference to Stephen King's novels that is entirely subjective. Yet none of it is marked in any way to differentiate it from true "source material". I have no problem with people taking inspiration from this (though I certainly think that this comparison is really more of an idea that would be part of an individual campaign background than really to do with the Cold Rider, if you see my meaning)

    Lastly I would like to say that phrasing things politely has nothing to do with dishonesty or honesty. It is simply courtesy.
    Last edited by Vallariel; 10-29-2008 at 08:52 PM.
    O hark, O hear! How thin and clear,
    And thinner, clearer, farther going!
    O sweet and far from cliff and scar
    The Horns of Sielwode faintly blowing!

  4. #74
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Vallariel View Post
    I think that having a wiki that is organized for all the fan material, including the BRCS is a great idea but having it unlabeled makes it more difficult to use and so, I too, have stopped using it.
    Labels can easily be added, surely what is usuable is what fits your campaign regardless of where it comes from? Am I missing something here? Are people really expecting the wiki to be uploads of the books only?

    Some things people are ignoring:

    1. We cannot copy and paste RoE, PS's etc onto the wiki - they are copyrighted and still up for sale so we'd get tromped.

    2. That means that any thing posted on the wiki MUST be a re-write

    3. As such EVERYTHING is by definition fan made.

    4. BRCS pages - i.e. the uploaded BRCS - have mostly been labelled and locked by Sorontar so shouldn't be confusing anyone.

    5. If you read something and think 'hey, this isn't anodyne extrapolation, its really far out' - the idea is that you say 'oi! put an interpretation banner on' to a mod, or put it on yourself - that way the wiki is constantly edited for the better as it gets edited towards a consensus. Similarly with any other label - hit the discussion tab and say 'what the heck?' We will fix it in very short order.

    6. I really really struggle to see how anyone gets confused on 'official'. Sorry, but I do. BRCS is in uneditable pages, and can be downloaded if you want the real McCoy. Everything else is an extrapolation of varying quality, if you read it and think 'that sounds good' then you use it, if you read and think 'that's funny' then you smile, if you read it and think 'this is crap' you ignore it, or preferably post something better.

    Nothing whatsoever - including BRCS, Rich Baker's comments of the cold Rider as a Randall Flagg figure, or anything else - is canon unless it is an extract copied from one of the books - which the reader probably already has and is presumably reading the wiki to expand on. If they came to the wiki without reading the original books then 'official' is irrelevant to them anyway.

    Unless we can convince Rich Baker, Ed Stark, et al to write a wiki for us then what we have is what we write and share, if you are reading thinking 'Andy, Ken, Thelandrin, etc wrote this so it must be great' then you are a wonderful lovely person but probably clinically insane - so please do expect that you will be reading what someone else thinks is a reasonable extrapolation and not simply expect a cut and paste job from a player's secrets of a boxed set - we could do that without a wiki by filling the downloads section of br.net.

    Courtesy
    Would I prefer that everyone was nice and understanding? Yes. Do I expect irdeggman to defend BRCs to the death vs all comers and Ken to have zero interest in sugar coating his arguments? Yes to both counts - but I like and respect them both and have learned a lot from reading them. Personally I prefer to try and see the other persons viewpoint and then explain why I believe the underlying logic is flawed or why I simply come to a different conclusion, but then that's me.

  5. #75
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    ok my example page. I couldn't upload excel, and was posting at midnight, so the background was a tad unclear. My apologies.

    I started by copying the 2e rulebook bloodline table.

    I made a 'best roll' and 'worst roll' outcome to see how variable it was (a lot)

    I made an 'average roll' table to identify how many powers of each kind should be expected to be gained.

    I converted to a 3e non-random mechanic of 'gain power A at point B' in the last table by assuming that the extra power in each band was gained at the half way point.

    The BRCS presumably expanded from this to even things out, but Ken's point was that it actually ended up deferring the gains and thus made many existing NPC's require a major re-write. In that respect BRCS could be considered to have 'failed', although that would be to ignore the fact that the BRCS was not necessarily intended to be a literal translation but rather update the underlying mechanics from 2e to 3e including design philosophy changes with inevitable disjunctions.

    By sticking to the same progression in 3e to 2e - or close enough to it that feats can even out discrepancies - we should be able to hack a '3e patch' to label as 'OGL build' together with labels for 'BRCS build', 'Greenknight build', etc.

    Personally I'd least use the power descriptions from BRCS but that is personal choice. I'd add a series of extra powers to the 'standard brcs mix' if building a campaign - but I'd try to link the 'new' powers to another page which explained them, said why they were used, and suggested a brcs alternative for those not wanting to use them if posting on the wiki.

  6. #76
    Ehrshegh of Spelling Thelandrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,086
    Downloads
    68
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewTall View Post
    ...if you are reading thinking 'Andy, Ken, Thelandrin, etc wrote this so it must be great' then you are a wonderful lovely person but probably clinically insane...
    Everyone is also fully entitled to bow down and worship my ehr/awnsheghlien progressions whenever they feel like it :P

    I too was raised to believe that courtesy costs nothing. As opposed to saying "this sucks", you can say, "this doesn't fit the purpose at all and here's why".

    That said, while we probably do need a lot more identification labels on the wiki, if you want pure, unvarnished canon material, pick up printed or electronic copies of the various BR books and be done with that. The wiki can only provide collaborative material to extend your campaigns at your option. Whether or not you feel that the wiki extensions are worthwhile, they are there and some others may find many of them useful.

    Ius Hibernicum, in nomine juris. Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

  7. #77
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Something seriously to consider when looking at how NPCs are converted from 2nd ed to 3.5 is the entire class levels issue as well as the ability score increase allowance in 3.5 that didn't exist in 2nd ed.

    I don't have it within ready access but IIRC the "official" 2nd ed to 3.0 conversion booklet from WotC had you drop at least 1 class level for all multiclass characters when doing the conversion. Hence it is impossible to make a straight up conversion of 2nd ed to 3.5 for any NPC (since the comparison with the ones with multiclasses makes it not quite accurate anymore).

    I have pretty much always been in favor of making a "conversion" of the 2nd ed NPC to match the flavor and intent of the 2nd ed NPC. This could mean keeping the same number of character levels (perhaps redistributing classes as fitting), making slight adjustments to actual blood score, even "adding" levels in the case of great bloodlines (using the BRCS you'd add 2 scion class levels).

    It is, IMO, important to maintain a relative power comparison between NPCs (most of those with low bloodline scores who beat the "odds" of getting an ability didn't really end up with one that really had a major effect on the character's "theme", well not in my opinion anyway.

    IMO all of this is actually necessary because of the lack of an actual direct conversion process that accounts for everything.

    Heck when WotC issued 4th ed they said don't bother with conversions it is too difficult just rebuild according to "theme" and "intent". IMO they learned greatly by their mistake in trying to make a simple character conversion booklet from 2nd ed to 3.0.
    Duane Eggert

  8. #78
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewTall View Post
    5. If you read something and think 'hey, this isn't anodyne extrapolation, its really far out' - the idea is that you say 'oi! put an interpretation banner on' to a mod, or put it on yourself - that way the wiki is constantly edited for the better as it gets edited towards a consensus. Similarly with any other label - hit the discussion tab and say 'what the heck?' We will fix it in very short order.
    See this "idea" is what was lost on the masses. That is what I've been trying to say - it is a guideline that should be made as clear as possible and not assuming that those posting know what it is.

    If those who posted knew this then it would make things a whole lot easier for the wiki editors (thanks guys by the way I know it is a daunting task - never let it be infered that I don't appreciate the amount of effort you are putting in to it). It will also make it easier for viewers to deceipher how to best use the material posted.

    6. I really really struggle to see how anyone gets confused on 'official'. Sorry, but I do.
    And yet it is obvious that they do.

    I believe that those closest to the project have the hardest time stepping back and looking at it with the eyes of the ignorant. In general this is a fact of life in all aspects so it is nothing specific to the wiki.

    Nothing whatsoever - including BRCS, Rich Baker's comments of the cold Rider as a Randall Flagg figure, or anything else - is canon unless it is an extract copied from one of the books - which the reader probably already has and is presumably reading the wiki to expand on. If they came to the wiki without reading the original books then 'official' is irrelevant to them anyway.
    I would not make this assumption with "new" players.

    Many people's first exposure to BR was from the BRCS-playtest (and the subsequent posts here verify that). So they do not have the history of the setting nor do they have the actual 2nd ed rules. In fact the only way to "buy" the 2nd ed rules is via pdf (which many have said is wrong - like wrong war cards for the boxed set) or to get "lucky" and find some who is getting rid of his/her old collection of 2nd ed material on e-bay (or the like).

    This, IMO, is also true of the wiki - which is the next extension of the BRCS-playtest concept of getting new players to the setting.

    Remember the key is "new players" not the old timers, who in all likelihood already have all of the 2nd ed material, have read most things posted on this site (including the BRCS) and come up with their own version of how to use the information in their game.
    Duane Eggert

  9. #79
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    There is no doubt that many people appreciate the BRCS. Just as their is no doubt that I am not one of them. Reading through the Houses of the Blooded, with its anti-D&D sentiments has no doubt, stoked my dislike of something I have never appreciated, the gamist concerns of D&D for balance, instead of world-building and story. I've also been reading the Gygax pdf series on worldbuidling (they were published as books, but I prefer pdfs). Returning what originally drew me to D&D, Gygax's world building sensibility.

    This leads me further and further to the opinion that the BRCS went in the wrong direction originally, and in light of 4e, concerns with precisely balancing 3x is a lost cause. The direction for BR to remain vital is in the genius of its original inspiration - a political RPG in which the PC's are regents of domains. Story and setting.

    I am no doubt more committed to this proposition that I was, before 4e, before some of the recent reading, and so on.

    That doesn't mean that the BRCS made a product that was bad because they were not capable of quality work. In its own way (making a conversion document focused on balancing characters) the product achieves its own goals. On its own terms, the BRCS is a success. I think as an approach to the domain rules, its entirely successful. My concern is that the very goals and purposes of the BRCS was only really useful in a limited moment when 3e was new, and converting from 2e to 3e was a reasonable preoccupation. To persist in this preoccupation today is to be trapped in amber.

    The BRCS team and its fans should not presume that I believe the work failed because it failed on its own terms (a bad conversion), but because its a document whose purpose (translation of BR into a new system) was concerned with the formal processes of translation, and that we should not place our emphasis on maintaining balance. Who would describe the game as follows?

    "Birthright is about measuring the power levels of various rival NPC's, awnsheghlien, and monsters, making sure that encounters are balanced, and that proper experience is awarded for these encounters."

    Yet, that is what the BRCS is concerned with and what it suggests the whole business of BR is about. When 3e was new, and still a mysterious system, unexplored and untested (by we players) a new translation and a conversion, an interpretation of the mechanics for 3e was a proper and appropriate thing to obsess about. That time has passed. I have come to believe that its not only long passed, but that its concerns with balance are a bad place to focus on when what we should be doing is thinking about stories and under-described parts of the setting.

    Ultimatly, the BRCS is a formalist document, when formalism is not an approach that will serve Birthright well going forward.

    Sorry. I have two modes. Passionate and direct, or academic and dense. Friendly and chatty is unnatural to me.

  10. #80
    Senior Member Elton Robb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    588
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    I have to agree with Ken. The spirit of Birthright is a setting where we can play nobles and "power play" politics. Like the premise in Houses of the Blooded, the spirit of Birthright games were we roleplay Regents; or Scions, or commoners in a world where everything can change from one moment to the next.

    Cerilia is a dynamic setting, more dynamic than any other Wizards' setting. The BRCS was a noble effort in bringing Birthright up to date. But it failed by mechanizing the setting and not preserving the spirit of the Setting. When I play BR, I play a regent with an army, one or two magic items, and ten extra hit points. A regent has different adventures than your average player character in other settings. Legends of the Hero Kings proved that. The adventures in LotHK are all based around the domain action.

    Reading through Houses of the Blooded, John Wick came up with some adventure ideas that seem perfectly suited for BR. They are adventures that are totally different from the regular D&D adventure. Murders, saving others from bad marriages (i.e. The prince of Avan had married his daughter to your brother, and your brother is in a BAD marriage, instantly), weddings, becoming a Seneschal to an NPC (like Aeric Boeruine or Gavin Taele), lots of plots can be taken from Houses of the Blooded and imported into a Birthright campaign. Almost like Birthright and Houses of the Blooded are kissing cousins.

    The BRCS doesn't address the other intricate plots that seem perfectly suited to BR. It doesn't provide rules for running adventures of intrigue. Yet, LotHK has a lot of them.

    Elton.
    Regent of Medoere

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. 2nd/3rd edition
    By NaMaN in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 06-17-2008, 08:56 AM
  2. 4th edition
    By Blastin in forum BRCS 4th Edition
    Replies: 127
    Last Post: 06-05-2008, 07:57 AM
  3. D&D 4th Edition
    By RaspK_FOG in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-04-2004, 07:52 PM
  4. BR 3rd edition
    By Shade in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 02-05-2003, 05:43 PM

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.