No complaint - a compliment!

[morgramen]

Nice work Arjan!

I really like the format! There are a few spots to be polished (I noticed several pages have the main text body in the center of the page/cell instead of at "top" for example) but over all this is allready an amazing site!

Let me know if you need any help with stuff. As you know, I'm not much proficient with databases and PHP, but I'll give it a whirl!

Nice work! Looking forward to an active BR.net once again!

Morg

[Arjan]

Yup i know about the centered texts instead of the top.

these text are in sections that do not have any entries yet.

they will disappear when there are new entries

Arjan

[Perhelion]

Good work Arjan!
I've often been on the old BR.net site and loved it (though i never contributed anything (sorry)).
Nice to see BR ressurected again :)

Sir Perhelion

[Arjan]

It is always nice to hear compliments :) although i dont contribute that much myself either ;) , i am glad i can contribute in a different way.

[Othmaar]

Its fast as hell. And easy on the eyes. Thumbs up! Wish Wizards would have a board this fast.

[Lord Eldred]

Great site. I hope I can contribute with some writers guild stuff!

[Lawgiver]

To use an infamous quote by the man in black: "Impressive... Most impressive..."

Its still in the early stages, but the growth rate has serious potential. I've had fair success in finding what I need... if the database stays up and running.

[Arjan]

In the early stage (two years ago) BRnet had over 450 visits per day, a year later BRnet was "dead" (still 175 visits per day though)

And now BRnet's rebirth is a great succes! over 310 visits per day avarage....and still rising)




Orginally posted by Lawgiver

To use an infamous quote by the man in black: "Impressive... Most impressive..."

Its still in the early stages, but the growth rate has serious potential. I've had fair success in finding what I need... if the database stays up and running.

[geeman]

At 04:43 PM 9/9/2003 +0200, Osprey wrote:



> I agree with most of what was said. Myers-Briggs alignments? Now

> that`s funny! :D



I think the D&D alignment is a goofy game mechanical expression of a not

very clearly defined concept, liberally borrowed from a few fantasy authors

(and badly misunderstood from those sources at that) and then used as the

basis of a lot of silly extrapolation into the game. In my experience it

really does wind up being a sort of short-hand for role-playing. While

there are many permutations of personality types possible under the banner

of "lawful good" characters, I`m sure we`ve all seen the stereotypical

version of that alignment played out with requisite smarm. Similarly, the

number of "chaotic evil" characters that wind up being played out as

utterly psychotic, remorseless murderers with a death wish that makes a

Kamikaze pilot look like Jain monk. That`s not 100% the fault of the

alignment system, since people have a tendency to go "lowest common

denominator" when it comes to both good/evil and characterization. It is,

however, an amazingly simplistic description of morality and IMO lends

itself to shallow interpretation.



I haven`t implemented this yet, but I really like the idea of a point based

"allegiance" system rather than the alignments of D&D. Basically one has a

point value (based on character level) that one assigns to various

DM-outlined concepts, organizations, gods, etc. A character might have (to

continue the M/B analogy) Extrovert 2, Feeling 3, Judging 5 as his

allegiance. I like this better than alignments for BR in particular since

we have all those nice nations and organizations that characters can

dedicate themselves to.



Gary

[geeman]

OK, let me try this again. I managed, somehow, to hit that odd combination

of keys that not only undid several of my points on this subject, but

actually sent the post.... Sneezing and keyboarding don`t mix.



At 04:43 PM 9/9/2003 +0200, Osprey wrote:



> I agree with most of what was said. Myers-Briggs alignments? Now

> that`s funny! :D



I think the D&D alignment is a goofy game mechanical expression of a not

very clearly defined concept, liberally borrowed from a few fantasy authors

(and badly misunderstood from those sources at that) and then used as the

basis of a lot of silly extrapolation into the game. In my experience it

really does wind up being a sort of short-hand for role-playing. While

there are many permutations of personality types possible under the banner

of "lawful good" characters, I`m sure we`ve all seen the stereotypical

version of that alignment played out with requisite smarm. Similarly, the

number of "chaotic evil" characters that wind up being played out as

utterly psychotic, remorseless murderers with a death wish that makes a

Kamikaze pilot look like Jain monk. That`s not 100% the fault of the

alignment system, since people have a tendency to go "lowest common

denominator" when it comes to both good/evil and characterization. It is,

however, an amazingly simplistic description of morality and IMO lends

itself to shallow interpretation.



I haven`t implemented this yet, but I really like the idea of a point based

"allegiance" system rather than the alignments of D&D. Basically one has a

point value (based on character level) that one assigns to various

DM-outlined concepts, organizations, gods, etc. A 10th level character

might have (if one were playing the Meyer`s/Briggs D20 game) Extrovert 2,

Feeling 3, Judging 5 as his allegiance values. I like this better than

alignments for BR in particular since we have all those nice



1. It provides an answer to the question "how evil?" that is occasionally

asked in gaming as it is no where else in the omniverse. That is, with a

point value assigned doing something as ubiquitous as detecting for evil

can be more intelligently done.



2. It allows for more areas of morality than law/chaos and good/evil.



3. It provides a system of loyalty to things like nations, religious

organizations, etc. Many people view "good" or "evil" as what is good or

bad for the organization they support which is, in effect, a

morality. It`s often a twisted and childish morality, but it`s a morality

nonetheless, and an allegiance system would reflect that kind of person.



4. It can be used as the basis of prereqs for prestige classes. A

blackguard might have to have `evil 5` in his allegiances, a "patriarch"

prestige class might have to have points in allegiance to that organization

amongst his allegiances, etc.



5. Using this sort of thing as a shorthand for role-playing is pretty much

inevitable, so a more articulated system at least gives players a broader

range of themes to express.



Gary

[Kzintosh]

In all the methodologies used to "enable" roleplaying (read, alignment) I've found the Palladium concept to be most sound. It identifies ethics, no abstract concepts...for example, aberrant (your raving chaotic evil, if you would), principaled, etc. Personally, I prefer to do away with the concept of alignment and allow the players to just role-play their character concepts as they see fit. Oops...gotta get to work. I'll post more later. ;)

[kgauck]

I think Ruornil has a connection to nature and sponsors rangers to protect

the sacred places.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 5:04 AM





> This could cause problems, IMO, in areas like Vosgaard

> where Erik is all but unknown and they do not have a

> shortage of rangers.



I don`t think there are rangers in Vosgaard. All of the nature and survival

benefits can be had with the barbarian class. I`m not saying that no one

ever takes ranger levels, but I am dubious that that there are characters

who are mostly ranger, or whose character concept is drawn from the ranger

concept. Barbarian meets Vos needs and better fits their culture.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 07:34 AM 4/6/2004 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



>I don`t think there are rangers in Vosgaard. All of the nature and survival

>benefits can be had with the barbarian class. I`m not saying that no one

>ever takes ranger levels, but I am dubious that that there are characters

>who are mostly ranger, or whose character concept is drawn from the ranger

>concept. Barbarian meets Vos needs and better fits their culture.



As a rough guideline it might make sense to contrast the number of

barbarians in Rjurik and Vos cultures. The Rjurik certainly have a few

folks who rage running about, though not as many as the Vos, and the Vos

probably have a number of rangers (specialize in particular opponents) in a

similar way. If the Vos have X rangers and Y barbarians the Rjurik might

have Y rangers and X barbarians--as a percentage of their overall

populations, I mean.



Gary

[kgauck]

It depends on what we mean by "ranger". If we are speaking of a collection

of mechanics, I frankly don`t care who gets what. What the Vos probabaly

have none of are "protector, aiding those who live in or travel though the

woods," "defenders of nature," or "allies of animals and beasts of the

wild."



The Vos are a culture of domination, not of being helpful and protecting

things just because. Protection is offered because service is given in

return. In fact the protection racket is probabaly a better analogy, I

protect you because you serve me, and I am protecting you not only from

outsiders but from myself. Stop serving an I will be first in line to

punish you.



Its the ethos of the ranger that is lacking from Vos culture, not the

mechanics. I think the mechanics of the Barbarian serve pretty well, but as

I wrote before I don`t have a problem with a few ranger levels being taken

to obtain mechanics lacking there.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[kgauck]

Osprey mentions the possibility of an NPC version of the

ranger. Since I mentioned Sages and Specialists yesterday,

I immediatly thought of the 2e guide class presented there.

Looking at that class for a possible 3e conversion, as a mine

for ideas, I see some interesting things.



Rogue style BAB progression

Reflex Save



Evasion as a class feature at low level, Improved Evasion at high level

Track, but probabaly not as soon as the Ranger

A facility with languages which would be useful locally

Some local history bonus



Four, maybe six skill points.



You could build this class based off of an Expert.



The non-spellcasting ranger, which is the standard IMC, seems to have

thoroughly arrived.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[kgauck]

I`d agree with Falcon, rangers (and druids) can be assigned

to many faiths. I`ve used druids of Ruornil and Kriesha,

which Falcon has suggested, and am open to druids of

Nesirie and Avani as well. I use of a bit of re-design for

each of these types.



http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/ruornil.htm

here is my druid of Ruornil, with a familiar instead of a

companion, bonus feats as per a wizard, and lessor

wildshape.



http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/kriesha-d.html

here is my druid of Kriesha, with a arctic adjuested

class features, and at high levels a shadow world emphasis.



Note that each has its own spell list.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 01:01 PM 4/6/2004 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



>Its the ethos of the ranger that is lacking from Vos culture, not the

>mechanics. I think the mechanics of the Barbarian serve pretty well, but as

>I wrote before I don`t have a problem with a few ranger levels being taken

>to obtain mechanics lacking there.



Before 3e rangers certainly had an ethos that would be counter to that of

the Vos, and that ethos was reflected in certain game mechanics for the

class; the "any good" alignment requirement, the list of opponents that

they gained bonuses to attack, etc. In 3e, however, most of that stuff has

been excised and the class itself is pretty much neutral in that

regard. It still lingers, certainly, in text like "Most are good, and they

are protectors of wild areas" in the class description, but it`s not a

requirement any more, and the mechanics of the class itself are pretty much

disconnected to the ethos of the characters themselves. Other D20 products

have used the class as the basis for less noble characters; bounty hunters,

woodland bandits, etc. so on the whole I think it could be used to portray

Vos characters pretty well.



Gary

[the Falcon]

Originally posted by geeman@Apr 7 2004, 10:30 AM
Before 3e rangers certainly had an ethos that would be counter to that of

the Vos, and that ethos was reflected in certain game mechanics for the

class; the "any good" alignment requirement, the list of opponents that

they gained bonuses to attack, etc. In 3e, however, most of that stuff has

been excised and the class itself is pretty much neutral in that

regard. It still lingers, certainly, in text like "Most are good, and they

are protectors of wild areas" in the class description, but it`s not a

requirement any more, and the mechanics of the class itself are pretty much

disconnected to the ethos of the characters themselves. Other D20 products

have used the class as the basis for less noble characters; bounty hunters,

woodland bandits, etc. so on the whole I think it could be used to portray

Vos characters pretty well.
The prime example of this being the gnoll rangers everybody seems to be so fond of these days. ^_^
Yeah, I can picture Vos ranger as being tenacious hunter-trackers without mercy, stopping at nothing to find and kill their prey, for example. mmm... Where have I heard that before? :rolleyes:
In short, a couple of ranger levels never hurt anyone.

[Lawgiver]

I&#39;ve been gone for almost a year (and may not actually be around long. Our Birthright group is as good as dead and there has been little hope of revival. The only players I can peice together are interested in BattleTech so we&#39;ve been playing that.).

Anyway, I like the new look on the forums. One major recommendation however. There is a lot of dead space on the left hand side for the toobar. It worked much better as the dropdown type list at the top.

[Arjan]

the new layout i am working on will have a top-> dropdown again.

Arjan

[Athos69]

Is there any way that we can stop all of the SPAM? While I&#39;m all for finding ways to make my realm grow, increasing the size of the members of my court and increasing the size of my cups (so they can hold more wine), I don&#39;t think that they really have any place on BR.net.

-MIke