Chapter 2 - Blood Score Proposals [Archive]

irdeggman

04-30-2003, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Azazel

I started a tabletop game about 3 weeks ago using the playtest
version. Several of my players were a bit relunctant at first because
they had always played Birthright using 2nd edition rules. After a short
adjustment period they started to find the template system even
better then the 2nd ed. rules on bloodlines. The emplate system,
while being different, still keeps the "flavor" of the original game.

After a suggestion from a player we did make a slight adjustment,
we introduced a Tainted scion template (no blood abilities and + 0 ECL).
This gave that player the potential to enventually develop is bloodline,
while not requiring 5000xp + for is 1st level character to gain a level.

Azazel

A "minor" template would require no ECL and allow a character to have only "minor" blood abilities but not the other benefits associated with the ECL templates (e.g., bonus hit points, starting equipment). In essence a "tainted" blood line is a minor template with a blood score of less than 12 (no associated blood abilites). In order to have the "minor" template a charater must use one of his 7 initial ability scores for a blood line.

You need to ensure that you are not allowing a player to take the best six scores, assign them to his standard ability scores and then essentially "reroll" the 7th score at a later time so that he can have a higher blood score. The point of this trade off was to have the player make a choice as to what he wants his character to be good at, similarly to assigning the highest standard ability scores to the abilities that the player wants his character to be better at.

Lysander

04-30-2003, 07:55 PM

I don't remember who's post I saw this in, but I remember someone had converted the standard 3-18 ability score range to a "dice determiner" - e.g. rather than rolling d% to determine bloodline strength and dice for determining score, the d% range was tied to an "ability score" range. If someone could point this out to me, I'd appreciate it! ([_]

Lysander

irdeggman

05-09-2003, 09:41 AM

Any comments on these proposals yet? Its been almost 2 weeks and the only posts have not really been comments/questions on the proposals.

I don't want to go more than another couple of weeks before a new vote or else this process will drag out forever - we need to work towards the goal of getting an "official baseline" ruleset.:)

irdeggman

05-13-2003, 11:23 PM

All right, sorry for this but I just received a "late entry" for blood score proposals. Here's the link to the updated file, it's a zip file now instead of a .pdf. I figured people might have had a hard time downloading it due to size before. Please look these over and comment so that we can move on towards getting this project progressed. Thanks.:)

http://www.tuarhievel.org/Blood%20Score%20...sals%205-15.zip (http://www.tuarhievel.org/Blood%20Score%20Proposals%205-15.zip)

Keovar

06-03-2003, 04:47 AM

Repost from the "ranting" thread... I would vote for something similar to the following:

***

I like the idea of having Bloodline as an ability score. With 4d6/drop lowest, it doesn't cost you anything, and with 32 point buy, you should be able to spend a few on raising it along with your other stats. If you want to play a commoner, the points you save by leaving your bloodline at 8 are a nice little compensation bonus, like the 10% experience bonus was in 2e. Spending alot on bloodline gets you powers there, but it mean you are less powerful in other areas, so it should balance alright. ECL templates that increase the bloodline score could be added to this as well.

*******
My rough draft take on the system...
---

9 and lower are unblooded, and for the most part there is no difference between 1 or 9, except when determining the chance for a commoner to absorb a bloodline through bloodtheft, to be successfully invested with a bloodline, or other ways to become a scion later in life. It's possible for someone to actually absorb some divine bloodline but not get enough to count as blooded (10 and over)

10 = 0 (just barely qualifying as a scion)

11 = 0.5 points to buy a tainted blood power

12 - 13 = 1 point to buy minor or lesser blood power(s)

14 - 15 = 2 points to buy major or lesser blood power(s)

16 - 17 = 3 points to buy major or lesser blood power(s)

18 - 19 = 4 points to buy great or lesser blood power(s)

20 - 21 = 5 points to buy great or lesser blood power(s)

22 - 23 = 6 points to buy great or lesser blood power(s)

24 - 25 = 7 points to buy great or lesser blood power(s)

26 -27 = 8 points to buy true or lesser blood power(s)

Etc...

---

Blood power levels

Tainted - cost: 0.5 - Bloodmark is the only one I can think of that should be demoted to this level, though there may be other ones that should be dropped as well, or new ones could be created.

Minor - cost 1 - most minor abilities would remain here, but should be reviewed for balance, since randomness will not be used as a balancing factor (it's a damn poor balance in the first place).

Major - cost 2 - Again, review needed. Since Ability increases would need to be +2, they should be moved to major.

Great - cost 4 - review for balance...

True - cost 8 - Invulnerability should be moved here, perhaps a couple others.

---

When converting NPCs, simply ignore the old 2e bloodline strength score, and give them a bloodline ability score that allows them to have all the appropriate powers in their description.

Kalien

06-04-2003, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Keovar
I like the idea of having Bloodline as an ability score. With 4d6/drop lowest, it doesn't cost you anything, and with 32 point buy, you should be able to spend a few on raising it along with your other stats. ...

Personally, I dislike treating Bloodline as another ability score. Here are a few of my reasons why:

1. I like to develop a character concept first and then determine things like ability scores that fit that character concept. Rolling 4d6 six times (even if I drop the lowest and arrange them as I want) does not mean I will get the character I want to play. Therefore, I prefer point buy systems so that everyone in the game starts on an even playing field as far as ability scores (or Bloodline) are concerned while I retain control over the shaping on my character. (This point applies to my preferences concerning rolling dice to shape a character - it obviously doesn't just concern Bloodline determination)

2. I feel that using a point buy system to determine ability scores *and* Bloodline is counter-intuitive and makes very little sense from an "in-game" perspective - and I like my games to make sense. (I can see reasons purely for game balance - but I'll deal with that in my next point). If we take the idea that I have 32 points to spend on six ability scores and a bloodline score, then we end up with what seems to me the non-sensical result that, in general terms, the more divine essense I have running through my veins and bestowing mighty powers, the weaker, more clumsy, less robust, stupider, more weak-willed, and more unimpressive I am. Or conversely, the more ordinary I am in a world surrounded by near godlike beings, the stronger, faster, more robust, more intelligence, wiser, and more impressive I will be compared to those near godlike beings. To me, this just doesn't make sense.

The rules of character creation should be applied to game NPCs as well as PCs. Yet, by treating bloodline as another ability score under a point buy system, we cannot create almost any of the NPCs from Ruins of Empire. Now while Darien Avan is an exceptional character we should be able to at least play scions with major bloodlines in domain games without ending up with the result that someone with a bloodline (in RoE) in the 40s such as Heirl Diem, Carilon Alam, the Mhor, etc, can hardly get out of bed because their character ability scores are so low due to the fact that they have a close connection to the old gods.

3. While treating bloodline as another ability score with a point buy system makes sense to me from a purely game balance perspective, I like my game mechanics to make sense - not be counter-intuitive. This very reasoning was one of the major reasons why WotC developed 3rd edition - to replace the counter-intuitive game mechanics of 2nd edition where a bonus was sometimes a negative number, but sometimes not, where a penalty was sometimes a positive number, and sometimes not, etc. Creating a game mechanic that does not make sense (to me at least) purely for the purpose of game balance strikes me as a step backwards.

4. I also dislike the idea of Bloodlines having a divine modifier, just as Ability Scores have modifiers. In order to get a positive modifier with your bloodline you need a bloodline of at least 12 - and as some blood abilities in Doom's work use half your divine modifier you really want at least a 14. Anything below these limits means that you are blooded and yet many of the blooded abilities cannot be used. But in order to get a score at least this high means you exacerbate the problem I mentioned in point 2.

These are my major objections to treating Bloodline as another ability score. There was no need for it in 2nd edition and I don't see any need for it now in 3rd edition besides game balance. I would prefer to simply tell players that their bloodlines will be determined in conjunction with the DM to fit their character concept and the power level of the current game. Trusting the DM to maintain a little balance in their own game doesn't strike me as necessarily a bad thing - especially if it means I get to play in a game that, to me anyway, makes sense.

Tempest

06-05-2003, 07:26 AM

2. I feel that using a point buy system to determine ability scores *and* Bloodline is counter-intuitive and makes very little sense from an "in-game" perspective - and I like my games to make sense. (I can see reasons purely for game balance - but I'll deal with that in my next point). If we take the idea that I have 32 points to spend on six ability scores and a bloodline score, then we end up with what seems to me the non-sensical result that, in general terms, the more divine essense I have running through my veins and bestowing mighty powers, the weaker, more clumsy, less robust, stupider, more weak-willed, and more unimpressive I am. Or conversely, the more ordinary I am in a world surrounded by near godlike beings, the stronger, faster, more robust, more intelligence, wiser, and more impressive I will be compared to those near godlike beings. To me, this just doesn't make sense.

Having bloodline doesn't _make_ character more clumsy etc etc... It is matter of choice. Minor template gives bloodline of 8 (or was it 6), major templater give +4 bonus to bl strength, great template gives +8 and true +12. If player chooses to buy lot of bloodline in beginning of game, it is up to him. It same with all the abilities, if you choose to have high intelligence, rest of your abilities will be lower. I don't remember if those template bonusses were cumulative, but if they were, character with great template has blooline strenght of 8(6) + 4 + 8 = 20(18) where to begin. I don't think there is big need to add bl with your stat points, but if you wan't, it is up to you.

irdeggman

06-05-2003, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Tempest

2. I feel that using a point buy system to determine ability scores *and* Bloodline is counter-intuitive and makes very little sense from an "in-game" perspective - and I like my games to make sense. (I can see reasons purely for game balance - but I'll deal with that in my next point). If we take the idea that I have 32 points to spend on six ability scores and a bloodline score, then we end up with what seems to me the non-sensical result that, in general terms, the more divine essense I have running through my veins and bestowing mighty powers, the weaker, more clumsy, less robust, stupider, more weak-willed, and more unimpressive I am. Or conversely, the more ordinary I am in a world surrounded by near godlike beings, the stronger, faster, more robust, more intelligence, wiser, and more impressive I will be compared to those near godlike beings. To me, this just doesn't make sense.

Having bloodline doesn't _make_ character more clumsy etc etc... It is matter of choice. Minor template gives bloodline of 8 (or was it 6), major templater give +4 bonus to bl strength, great template gives +8 and true +12. If player chooses to buy lot of bloodline in beginning of game, it is up to him. It same with all the abilities, if you choose to have high intelligence, rest of your abilities will be lower. I don't remember if those template bonusses were cumulative, but if they were, character with great template has blooline strenght of 8(6) + 4 + 8 = 20(18) where to begin. I don't think there is big need to add bl with your stat points, but if you wan't, it is up to you.

The template bonuses were not cumulative, that would make the ECLs cumulative too.

Kalien

06-05-2003, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Tempest
Having bloodline doesn't _make_ character more clumsy etc etc... It is matter of choice. ... If player chooses to buy lot of bloodline in beginning of game, it is up to him. It same with all the abilities, if you choose to have high intelligence, rest of your abilities will be lower. I don't remember if those template bonusses were cumulative, but if they were, character with great template has blooline strenght of 8(6) + 4 + 8 = 20(18) where to begin. I don't think there is big need to add bl with your stat points, but if you wan't, it is up to you.

There is a direct line of causation between choosing to have a high bloodline and being more clumsy (or weaker, less impressive, etc) in the current playtest version of the BRCS. If a character chooses to have a high bloodline then the direct result is lower ability scores.

The same applies if a player chooses to have a high intelligence in a standard D&D game - they will, on average, have lower stats in their other abilities This makes sense, all that time spent studying and developing their intellect means less time in physical pursuits and hence lower physical ability scores. The chain of causation in this case is understandable, it makes sense 'in game'.

The same cannot be said for bloodlines which are innate and granted at birth (assuming we're leaving out bloodtheft and investiture). Training makes no difference. A wizard's bloodline does not become weaker because they choose to spend time studying arcane texts, nor does a warrior's bloodline become weaker because they choose to spend time training for war. You might possibly even be able to argue that a warrior with an Anduiras bloodline who spends all their time training for war and therefore has high strength, dexterity, and constitution would increase their bloodline because they are channelling their energies into activities related to their bloodline. (I wouldn't argue this, but I have seen it argued).

There is no chain of causation between vocation and bloodline, one is a matter of training and the other inborn. Therefore I don't think there should be a direct link between the two at character creation.

(As I said earlier, I can understand it from a game balance perspective but to me it doesn't make sense 'in game'. And I like my game to make sense.)

irdeggman

06-05-2003, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by Kalien

Originally posted by Tempest
Having bloodline doesn't _make_ character more clumsy etc etc... It is matter of choice. ... If player chooses to buy lot of bloodline in beginning of game, it is up to him. It same with all the abilities, if you choose to have high intelligence, rest of your abilities will be lower. I don't remember if those template bonusses were cumulative, but if they were, character with great template has blooline strenght of 8(6) + 4 + 8 = 20(18) where to begin. I don't think there is big need to add bl with your stat points, but if you wan't, it is up to you.

There is a direct line of causation between choosing to have a high bloodline and being more clumsy (or weaker, less impressive, etc) in the current playtest version of the BRCS. If a character chooses to have a high bloodline then the direct result is lower ability scores.

The same applies if a player chooses to have a high intelligence in a standard D&D game - they will, on average, have lower stats in their other abilities This makes sense, all that time spent studying and developing their intellect means less time in physical pursuits and hence lower physical ability scores. The chain of causation in this case is understandable, it makes sense 'in game'.

The same cannot be said for bloodlines which are innate and granted at birth (assuming we're leaving out bloodtheft and investiture). Training makes no difference. A wizard's bloodline does not become weaker because they choose to spend time studying arcane texts, nor does a warrior's bloodline become weaker because they choose to spend time training for war. You might possibly even be able to argue that a warrior with an Anduiras bloodline who spends all their time training for war and therefore has high strength, dexterity, and constitution would increase their bloodline because they are channelling their energies into activities related to their bloodline. (I wouldn't argue this, but I have seen it argued).

There is no chain of causation between vocation and bloodline, one is a matter of training and the other inborn. Therefore I don't think there should be a direct link between the two at character creation.

(As I said earlier, I can understand it from a game balance perspective but to me it doesn't make sense 'in game'. And I like my game to make sense.)

No more so than the "sudden awakening" of a bloodline or the manifestation of blood abilities at puberty. While not specifically stated in the 2nd rules most on the boards have adopted a system that most blood abilities are manifested at puberty when other physical changes occur. These don't really make much sense either, but sense it is a fantasy game reason must sometimes be suspended. Why does a fireball work? That puts us back into the physics of a fireball discussion. Sometimes "it just does" is the only reason. But I see your point, I just don't know how to address it.:)

kgauck

06-06-2003, 10:01 PM

> Kalien wrote:
> The same applies if a player chooses to have a high intelligence in
> a standard D&D game - they will, on average, have lower stats in their
> other abilities. This makes sense, all that time spent studying and
> developing their intellect means less time in physical pursuits and hence
> lower physical ability scores. The chain of causation in this case is
> understandable, it makes sense `in game`.

This example explains why if I spend skill ranks to improve my Knowledge
(History), I may not have skill points to spend on further ranks of Jump.
Ability scores are much more biological inheritance (though not exclusively).
Real world evidence strong suggests that good scores (14`s) highly correlate
with other good scores. People with good social skills tend to have more
intelligence and more health. I think the ability scores are balanced for
reasons of balance. Balance is a an end, not a means to depict real choices.
For the most part, balance prevents a player from being left out of the action
because his character is pathetic, or conversely, one player stealing all the
fun because his character is so much better than all the others. People, as
our daily experience should confirm, are not well balanced as individuals.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

kgauck

06-06-2003, 10:01 PM

Not quite sure whether I am replying to Tempest or irdeggman, but here goes:

[I think this is Tempest]
> There is no chain of causation between vocation and bloodline, one is
> a matter of training and the other inborn. Therefore I don`t think
> there should be a direct link between the two at character creation.
>
> (As I said earlier, I can understand it from a game balance perspective
> but to me it doesn`t make sense `in game`. And I like my game to
> make sense.)

I disagree, but not on the basis of ability scores balancing with a bloodline
score. In what may be unrelated, I think derivation does strongly influence
vocation. So that a scion with Vorynn`s derivation will be more likely to be a
wizard than a random selection of scions. I will hedge exactly how
deterministic this is. IMC, sorcerers must be scions of Vorynn, but that`s
because I used sorcerer to fill a niche.

[irdeggman, I believe]
> These don`t really make much sense either, but sense it is a fantasy
> game reason must sometimes be suspended. Why does a fireball work? That
> puts us back into the physics of a fireball discussion. Sometimes "it
> just does" is the only reason. But I see your
> point, I just don`t know how to address it.:)

This is never a satisfactory explanation. Sometimes we have no other choice,
but our goal should always be sensible. BTW, a fireball works by extracting
phlogiston (a volitile liquid)from nearby sources rapdly at one central point.
QED.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
>
> No more so than the "sudden awakening" of a bloodline or the manifestation of
> blood abilities at puberty. While not specifically stated in the 2nd rules most
> on the boards have adopted a system that most blood abilities are manifested at
> puberty when other physical changes occur.
>
> ************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> 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
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

06-06-2003, 11:10 PM

At 09:42 PM 6/6/2003 +0000, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>This example explains why if I spend skill ranks to improve my Knowledge
>(History), I may not have skill points to spend on further ranks of Jump.
>Ability scores are much more biological inheritance (though not exclusively).
>Real world evidence strong suggests that good scores (14`s) highly correlate
>with other good scores. People with good social skills tend to have more
>intelligence and more health.

I keep hearing from psychologists and various educational sources that this
is true, but then I go out into the real world and see how inaccurate those
assessments are. In practice, I don`t think the correlations are as strong
in the field as they are in the lab (or the office) where most of these
studies and papers are written. Whether or not it`s true as a matter of
gross statistics, however, I don`t think it has much bearing on the
individual basis, so such things shouldn`t be given much weight for the
purpose of describing characters and their ability scores. If one wanted
to characterize that sort of thing in D&D or some other game it would
probably be much better expressed by class levels than ability scores since
one gains much more positive benefits from levelling up than one does from
scores.

Gary

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

kgauck

06-09-2003, 03:26 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 5:52 PM

> I keep hearing from psychologists and various educational sources that
this
> is true, but then I go out into the real world and see how inaccurate
those
> assessments are.

This is typically because we notice when someone is uneven (16 Str, 8 Con)
and tend to ignore the many times we see someone with 10`s across the board.
Since people with even once exceptional skill (above or below) are
themselves rare, they almost by default are exceptions to the rule. My main
point is that people are not well balanced against each other. Balance is
an external game imposition.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

ryancaveney

06-09-2003, 07:16 PM

On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> My main point is that people are not well balanced against each other.
> Balance is an external game imposition.

This is most certainly true! It`s part of the reason some people say
scions are *supposed* to be unbalanced -- the whole concept of such people
is that they are divinely chosen to rule, and as such are often superior
specimens of their species as an important part of that inherent fitness
to lead. The world simply isn`t balanced -- compare the gods-given might
of Darien Avan to the base scrounging of his lowliest subject. This
distinction is IMO more clearly expressed in the language of a system like
Champions or GURPS: the sort of people who end up managing to be
successful regents tend to be built on lots more points than the average
peasant in the fields. This is natural and only to be expected, because
there is an immense amount of competition for the job! Some regents are
also far superior to others, and those tend (naturally) to be the leaders
of the most important realms -- because if their leaders weren`t the
strongest, neither would those realms stay strongest for long. Thus I
think that even though BR is a more nitty-gritty kind of place than most
other D&D campaign settings, when playing a regents` campaign, one should
generate quite powerful heroic characters to be the natural leaders of
their realms.

This goes to one of the central problems of RPG design: making the
construct a good game is in part opposed to making it a good simulation.
I support point-buy systems for making PCs because IMO the most important
kind of balance in any RPG is balance between the players in a single
gaming group, so every person playing feels they are making a roughly
equal contribution to the group. This concern affects my campaign design,
and both the advice I give players and the feedback I get from them about
the sort of characters to generate, as well as the rules for doing so.
However, I most certainly do not believe that all people in the campaign
world are created in this same balanced way! I think real people (in
Cerilia, and everywhere else) are in effect produced by the rolling of
bucketfuls of dice, and the markings on each of those dice differ
(sometimes greatly) from person to person. However, given that as a
background for the setting, I then decide that in any given campaign, for
purposes of intra-party fairness the played characters themselves will be
chosen only from a very narrow band of this underlying ability
distribution. Realism and playability often vary inversely. =)

This dichotomy is at the heart of my ambivalent feelings about scion as a
character class. It is clearly not a profession as such, like wizard and
fighter and rogue are, so it should not be a class. On the other hand,
for purposes of balancing characters against each other within the party,
it can be a big source of additional power, and therefore some game
construct is needed to quantify and balance that in game-play terms; of
the various options presented, character class seems to work sort of OK
and is IMO the most straightforward in terms of compatibility with the
rest of the system. So I like it and I hate it, all at the same time.
Part of my problem is probably just that I find the whole idea of classes
increasingly confining and over-restrictive, and yet the core of the whole
D&D paradigm. I probably just need a whole new RPG engine, but I don`t
really want to bother with the work of conversion.

Ryan Caveney

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

geeman

06-09-2003, 10:24 PM

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>This is typically because we notice when someone is uneven (16 Str, 8 Con)
>and tend to ignore the many times we see someone with 10`s across the board.

We`re somewhat talking around each other here, addressing different angles
on a topic that isn`t particularly clearly defined to begin with, but since
it`s going that way I should note that I don`t think I really run into that
many people with 10`s across the board. More rare than the unicorn is the
truly "average person" whatever that means.

I still think the best way to reflect the "unbalanced" nature of human
capacities is by differences in experience levels in a level based system
rather than trying to reflect ability scores as a sort of quasi-IQ/AAA
baseball league/band camp kind of way. The ranges of capacity among
characters in D&D is best described by skill ranks (tied to max ranks) or
health (fortitude) agility (reflex) or vigor (hit points) are all best
reflected by character levels. Trying to reflect the range of human
variation in ability scores makes that range a set of modifiers from -4 to
+4 (maybe +5) which in a system that uses a d20 to resolve actions makes
for a total range of human variation of about 33%. Experience levels
reflect an endless range of capacity--and also address something that is
oft ignored when it comes to assessing things like skillfulness or ability.

Ability scores are, of course, a factor but since levels have so much
greater an influence would one want to reflect Albert Einstein as a
character with an 18 intelligence or as a 20th level Scholar with levels in
the Theoretical Scientist prestige class? He`d be both--the same way
characters are portrayed as both--but I`m posing a hypothetical here for
the sake of illustrating the difference. He could get +4, +5 or +6 to his
intelligence based skills from his ability score, but he could get the same
bonus by 2nd or 3rd level in a character class. What`s more, if one used
his intelligence score to reflect his capabilities then the stat that gave
him great skill at knowledge, physics would also make him an excellent
forger, able to search rooms extraordinarily well and read lips like a
silent film addict. Isn`t it more interesting and useful to portray
Einstein as a person of maybe average intelligence (as his teachers and
family originally thought him to be) who later through grit and hard work
levelled himself up to a point of great ability and knowledge?

Aside from which, most of the stuff people are talking about when they talk
about IQ or whatever, are in reality a set of learned skills. Nobody
springs from the womb able to do any of the things that they are late paid
for, tested on or trained to do. (It`ll be a few years before we can crank
out people at full capacity.) They learn by experiencing, and in a game
like D&D such things are portrayed using character levels.

Gary

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

ryancaveney

06-09-2003, 11:42 PM

On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Gary wrote:

> it`s going that way I should note that I don`t think I really run into
> that many people with 10`s across the board.

If people are really rolling 3d6 six times, such a person is one per
quarter million. =) If you mean "has no 3e stat bonus", i.e. 10s and 11s
across the board, such people are 1 in 4096 on six 3d6. I know I`ve often
said I think 3d6 is too variable for the "common folk", but just for the
sake of argument...

> Trying to reflect the range of human variation in ability scores makes
> that range a set of modifiers from -4 to +4 (maybe +5) which in a
> system that uses a d20 to resolve actions makes for a total range of
> human variation of about 33%.

Agreed, this is much too small. Option: resolve everything on 3d6!

> Experience levels reflect an endless range of capacity--and also
> address something that is oft ignored when it comes to assessing
> things like skillfulness or ability.

You can`t be truly great without *both* talent and training. The amount
of "total ability" gained from "each unit" of practice depends on the
"number of units" of talent, and vice-versa. In fact, I`d argue that what
this observation really means is that instead of making *no* stat bonuses
multiplicative, the better approach is to make them *all* multiplicative.

> He`d be both--the same way characters are portrayed as both--but I`m
> posing a hypothetical here for the sake of illustrating the
> difference.

When achievement equals aptitude times effort (as some of the psychometric
models I`ve seen do in fact state), this makes much more game-rules sense.

> He could get +4, +5 or +6 to his intelligence based skills from his
> ability score, but he could get the same bonus by 2nd or 3rd level in
> a character class.

To me, this means ability scores are grossly undervalued in game
mechanics, further convinving me that all total scores should be
multiplicative. Or, alternately, that class levels should be immensely
bigger deals than 3e has made them. Yes, this makes people who practice
to their talents really gross, but ISTM that`s a perfectly valid way to
represent the true range of human skill on a d20. But then, the 3e Str to
bench-press chart makes things expressly logarithmic, so maybe the
"actual" multiplication is best represented by addition after all? But
that makes "actual" addition much harder to implement... *sigh*

> What`s more, if one used his intelligence score to reflect his
> capabilities then the stat that gave him great skill at knowledge,
> physics would also make him an excellent forger, able to search rooms
> extraordinarily well and read lips like a silent film addict.

So the famous theoretical physicist you`re actually describing is Richard
Feynman, internationally-reknowned conga drum player and safecracker as
well as Nobel Laureate. =) Yes Virginia, there really are people who are
playing Champions and have bought General Skill Levels. ;)

> Isn`t it more interesting and useful to portray Einstein as a person
> of maybe average intelligence (as his teachers and family originally
> thought him to be) who later through grit and hard work levelled
> himself up to a point of great ability and knowledge?

Not to me. To me that *devalues* the sort of stories I want to tell.
Beethoven`s father wanted him to be Mozart, but for all Ludwig`s gifts and
all his father`s practice (and beatings?), he just couldn`t be Wolfgang --
only Wolfgang was born with the gift to be what he was. Still, if either
of them had never been allowed to play a musical instrument, that
potential would never have been developed. You need both nature and
nurture to have anything at all. Among other things, I think it is
entirely the opposite of, and therefore rather inappropriate in, the
Divine Right of Kings attitude basic to Birthright.

IMO, a 20th level wizard with an Int 11 should be at least as useless as a
1st level wizard with an Int 20, if not moreso. In fact, I`d probably cap
not only the first guy`s max spell level, but also max *class* level by
his "prime requisite" (to use the ancient language of our tribe), and thus
not have allowed him to take more than one level of wizard in the first
place.

> Aside from which, most of the stuff people are talking about when they
> talk about IQ or whatever, are in reality a set of learned skills.
> Nobody springs from the womb able to do any of the things that they
> are late paid for, tested on or trained to do. (It`ll be a few years
> before we can crank out people at full capacity.) They learn by
> experiencing, and in a game like D&D such things are portrayed using
> character levels.

And the amount of skill learned from a given amount of experience is
determined almost entirely by inborn talents. You simply cannot have an
exemplar of any field without innate ability honed by extensive practice.
All measurable characteristics are phenotypes -- to produce them, you need
both a genotype and an environment. Talking about "nature vs. nurture" as
a 100% either-or pure dichotomy is nonsense. You always need both, and
each influences the other.

Ryan Caveney

(Who sometimes seems "100% naturist", but really isn`t, and only looks
that way in relation to people who seem "100% nurturist".)

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

geeman

06-10-2003, 02:06 AM

At 07:36 PM 6/9/2003 -0400, you wrote:

> > Experience levels reflect an endless range of capacity--and also
> > address something that is oft ignored when it comes to assessing
> > things like skillfulness or ability.
>
>You can`t be truly great without *both* talent and training. The amount
>of "total ability" gained from "each unit" of practice depends on the
>"number of units" of talent, and vice-versa. In fact, I`d argue that what
>this observation really means is that instead of making *no* stat bonuses
>multiplicative, the better approach is to make them *all* multiplicative.

I not exactly sure what "truly great" means in real life. (It`s kind of
like the word "genius" which I`ve always considered a verb, but most people
think is a noun.) I suspect it`s just a descriptor some people put on the
combination of success and recognition in order to attempt to quantify
something that is in many ways random or the result of cunning
marketing. Many people are just as talented and capable as those that are
lauded as "truly great" or whatever, but are overlooked for reasons having
little to do with their work or productivity. Others are described as
"truly great" who are objectively less talented than others. It`s a crap
shoot. (When feeling cynical I sometimes suspect that what history does
can be described as "retroactive cunning marketing.")

Aside from that I don`t think it means anything at all in a gaming sense
since everything is so open ended. A character who gains +15 bonuses from
one set of class features or ability scores is 3 more "truly great" at that
thing than another who got +12 from a different set of them. The
particulars of where they come from are incidental. If we were to go back
and look at the list of human characteristics that you posted a few weeks
back that included all the characteristics of "intelligence" I think we
would find just about every aspect of D&D characters; all ability scores,
character classes, feats and levels. That said, does it matter if the
"ability" in question comes from an intelligence ability score or from
ranks purposefully spent on a particular skill, BAB gained from levels or a
capacity earned by using a feat? In effect, those things are incidental to
the highly simplified system of modifiers for gaming.

You could, however, make all ability score modifiers "multipliers" rather
than "flat bonuses" if you really wanted to make ability scores more
important than the features of character class. I considered expanding the
list of multipliers rather than reducing it so that there would be one for
each ability score and the system would then be "balanced" that way. (It
wouldn`t really be balanced, but it would at least be
symmetrical.) Instead I found it easier to do away with the multipliers
than to add more. If one wanted to add more, though, I`d suggest that
things like strength modifier could be made a multiplier on top of BAB (or
multiply BAB x Str) and use a similar method to assign values for saves,
skill points, etc. It`d probably make the levelling up system approach the
point of absurdity much more quickly, but the "epic" level of play and the
superhero type games are perfectly workable.

In general, the point is that the unbalanced/unsymmetrical nature of the
multipliers vs flat bonuses that come from ability scores is something that
makes D&D`s rules rather lopsided.

> > Isn`t it more interesting and useful to portray Einstein as a person
> > of maybe average intelligence (as his teachers and family originally
> > thought him to be) who later through grit and hard work levelled
> > himself up to a point of great ability and knowledge?
>
>Not to me. To me that *devalues* the sort of stories I want to tell.
>Beethoven`s father wanted him to be Mozart, but for all Ludwig`s gifts and
>all his father`s practice (and beatings?), he just couldn`t be Wolfgang --
>only Wolfgang was born with the gift to be what he was. Still, if either
>of them had never been allowed to play a musical instrument, that
>potential would never have been developed. You need both nature and
>nurture to have anything at all. Among other things, I think it is
>entirely the opposite of, and therefore rather inappropriate in, the
>Divine Right of Kings attitude basic to Birthright.

From a game mechanical standpoint the difference between Beethoven and
Mozart is pretty slim. In fact, it`s a matter of style and emphasis not
skill and ability (productivity and exposure to so the comparison between
the two doesn`t strike me as very apt.

>IMO, a 20th level wizard with an Int 11 should be at least as useless as a
>1st level wizard with an Int 20, if not moreso. In fact, I`d probably cap
>not only the first guy`s max spell level, but also max *class* level by
>his "prime requisite" (to use the ancient language of our tribe), and thus
>not have allowed him to take more than one level of wizard in the first
>place.

Given the way the rules work at present (note that intelligence modifiers
to spells are flat or prohibitive) that`s how it would work. The 20th
level guy, of course, would have more of the ancillary effects of level at
his disposal (hit points, BAB, etc.) but their relative access to magic is
pretty nearly the same. A 20th level wizard with an 11 Int would have four
0th level spells and four 1st level spells per day, while a 1st level
wizard with 20 intelligence would have three 0th level spells and three 1st
level spells.

Gary

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

kgauck

06-10-2003, 04:22 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:59 PM

> It`s kind of like the word "genius" which I`ve always considered a
> verb, but most people think is a noun.) I suspect it`s just a descriptor
> some people put on the combination of success and recognition in
> order to attempt to quantify something that is in many ways random
> or the result of cunning marketing. Many people are just as talented
> and capable as those that are lauded as "truly great" or whatever, but
> are overlooked for reasons having little to do with their work or
> productivity.

For the purposes of fantasy gaming, I am willing to follow the lead of those
medieval admirers, the Romantics, who had very clear ideas about what genius
was and whose ideas greatly influence the current age. So the kinds of
things you see in the works of Shelley, Wordsworth, Keats, and Coleridge
about what constitutes genius, the heroic figure who struggles against
impossible odds, who understands things on a level unknown to common men.
This both suits the heroic tone of fantasy gaming (especially in BR) and is
quite compatable with our sources of the mediaval world in literature.

While I do not generally take Romanticism seriously, and certainly not in
historical analysis, the genius in history is a Hegalian construction in
which the hero in history is the one who advances the inevitable cause,
Napoleon being the archtypical example, both for Hegal and for those who
employed his ideas of heroicism in history. One would like to think that
figures like Hitler and Stalin would have purged the idea of the hero in
history, but alas, it is not so.

In fantasy gaming, I`m willing to indulge in the most heroic notions of
character, whether Romantic or Homeric.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

irdeggman

06-10-2003, 09:01 AM

Ryan, Kenneth, Gary,
Before this discussion goes too far along the line of the thread on Intelligence as an ability score let's try to real it in some. The original topic was a discussion of the 4 blood score proposals. What is the opinion of those?:)

ryancaveney

06-10-2003, 04:08 PM

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, irdeggman wrote:

> The original topic was a discussion of the 4 blood score proposals.
> What is the opinion of those?:)

I thought I`d made my feelings on those clear months ago. =)

Bloodline is not an ability score. It just isn`t.

I think ECLs are terrible, especially compared to actual class levels.

I am moderately fond of the idea of buying blood abilites with XP, at
least relative to all the other stuff.

I think scion isn`t a class, but that could perhaps be the least bad way
of modeling it -- or perhaps not.

I like Gary`s idea of making all blood powers variable in strength, but I
think the overhead of his method is a little high.

Honestly, even given all the silly problems of the original rulebook`s
random tables, I don`t see that any of the options in the draft are
actually superior to it.

I think my personal choice for the method I`ll be using IMC is a
combination of things Kenneth and Starfox have said which aren`t in "the
proposals ™" -- the DM assigns the blood scores he wants you to have,
and then you pick blood abilities based on your assigned score. The end.

If I have to vote for one of the options presented, I choose B. However,
given that all abilities in that system have to be bought with XP anyway,
I just don`t see the need to have XP-penalizing templates also. Even if
the templates are kept, too, the ECL ought to be based on the bloodline
*score* (which determines access to blood abilities), not the bloodline
strength class.

I think part of the problem is that, whether or not there is a fair way to
balance scions vs. non-scions in terms of spell-or-feat-like blood
abilities, there just isn`t any fair way to balance *regents* vs.
non-regents -- that level of resources to command is just much too big to
represent sensibly on the adventure scale. Trying to balance realm and
character against each other means you end up with a party of 20th-level
commoners and Rogr Aglondier, which doesn`t play well at all. Therefore,
since domains can be balanced against each other, and adventurers can be
balanced against each other, but domains can`t really be balanced against
adventurers without producing results too lopsided to play, we should just
give up on that point. Scions should not be penalized for their ability
to become regents, because regency blows apart attempts at character power
balance. Rather, if scions must be penalized, it should be only for the
exact amount of adventure-scale power their blood abilities provide. Any
domain rulership basically needs to be handled entirely separately.

Ryan Caveney

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

Mark_Aurel

06-10-2003, 04:44 PM

I think part of the problem is that, whether or not there is a fair way to
balance scions vs. non-scions in terms of spell-or-feat-like blood
abilities, there just isn`t any fair way to balance *regents* vs.
non-regents -- that level of resources to command is just much too big to
represent sensibly on the adventure scale. Trying to balance realm and
character against each other means you end up with a party of 20th-level
commoners and Rogr Aglondier, which doesn`t play well at all. Therefore,
since domains can be balanced against each other, and adventurers can be
balanced against each other, but domains can`t really be balanced against
adventurers without producing results too lopsided to play, we should just
give up on that point. Scions should not be penalized for their ability
to become regents, because regency blows apart attempts at character power
balance. Rather, if scions must be penalized, it should be only for the
exact amount of adventure-scale power their blood abilities provide. Any
domain rulership basically needs to be handled entirely separately.

I agree. The only thing that really requires balancing on a character scale is the blood abilities. The ability to rule a domain falls into the social aspects of the game, generally speaking - and those aren't part of character balancing per se, with a couple of exceptions. You don't penalize a character in terms of mechanics for obtaining role-playing benefits any more than you grant mechanic bonuses for role-playing penalties. The main thing to remember is that if a regent uses the resources at his disposal liberally in his adventuring career, he's likely to face less actual challenges, and thus probably wind up advancing slower. On the other hand, it's a foolish or metagaming regent who rides out of his castle bereft of bodyguards in order to rack up XPs by slaying monsters. In a way, this dynamic can be used to slow down advancement in BR by quite a bit, even if you play D&D by the book.

Of course, I think I would penalize the type of player who grossly abuses his domain somehow for character benefit - like starting with a domain, and then liquidating it for cash, or simply running away with the treasury. Such a player would probably be subject to more burglars than most.

In terms of game mechanic balancing, though, the only aspect of scions that should need to be balanced out are the blood abilities. This can be done in a variety of ways; finding the best way to do so is what we're really after here.

DanMcSorley

06-10-2003, 05:14 PM

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
> Honestly, even given all the silly problems of the original rulebook`s
> random tables, I don`t see that any of the options in the draft are
> actually superior to it.

Indeed. The basis of the system is that bloodline is used to rule a
domain, and correllates to RP income on a 1-to-1 basis. This should not
be changed.

The blood abilities are not effective on a domain level, nor should they
be. They work on the adventuring level, and that`s where the balance
needs to be. There are effectively two levels of game going on.

> If I have to vote for one of the options presented, I choose B. However,
> given that all abilities in that system have to be bought with XP anyway,
> I just don`t see the need to have XP-penalizing templates also. Even if
> the templates are kept, too, the ECL ought to be based on the bloodline
> *score* (which determines access to blood abilities), not the bloodline
> strength class.

The ECL should be based on the score/blood abilities, yes.

> I think part of the problem is that, whether or not there is a fair way to
> balance scions vs. non-scions in terms of spell-or-feat-like blood
> abilities, there just isn`t any fair way to balance *regents* vs.
> non-regents

There doesn`t need to be. Balance applies at the adventurer level.
Balancing a regent versus an adventurer is like trying to balance the
spellcasting of a wizard versus the spellcasting of a fighter- it just
doesn`t apply. Luckily, all the proposals seem to attempt to do the right
thing, which is to balance an adventuring scion with blood abilities
versus an adventuring non-scion. They all agree with you here, so what
is your complaint exactly?
--
Daniel McSorley

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

kgauck

06-10-2003, 06:02 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark_Aurel" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 11:44 AM

> there just isn`t any fair way to balance *regents* vs. non-regents

I think the way to properly balance rulers and non-rulers is to apply the
heavy crown principle. Realms should be a serious responsibility, demanding
two-thirds of a rulers time, at a mnimum. Realms should come with natural
rivals and threats, ready from the start to pose a danger. Realms have
those great resources because the social order has agreed to make that
particular kind of ruler (be he ruler of market, temple, court, or fortress)
because of a social need. Rulers must meet these needs, mostly in the form
of providing protection, or lose their realms. A realm is the classic
example of the gilded cage. The suggestion that being a ruler should come
with aging effects strikes me as about right.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

ryancaveney

06-10-2003, 06:02 PM

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Daniel McSorley wrote:

> Indeed. The basis of the system is that bloodline is used to rule a
> domain, and correllates to RP income on a 1-to-1 basis. This should
> not be changed.

Absolutely!

> The blood abilities are not effective on a domain level, nor should
> they be.

I agree they mostly aren`t (Battlewise is a counterexample), but I`m not
convinced they shouldn`t be -- if for no other reason than I play almost
only on the domain level, and would like the "flavor" of blood abilities
there, too.

> There are effectively two levels of game going on.

There certainly can be, but some of us here favor one or the other almost
to exclusivity.

> Luckily, all the proposals seem to attempt to do the right thing,
> which is to balance an adventuring scion with blood abilities versus
> an adventuring non-scion. They all agree with you here, so what is
> your complaint exactly?

This has to do with, among other things, "Option B"`s decision to charge
XP for blood abilities, and then on top of that charge ECL for just being
a scion irrespective of blood abilities. This charging scions just for
being scions looks to me like an attempt to account for the other thing
scions can do besides blood abilities (namely regency), which seems wrong.

Ryan Caveney

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

Eosin the Red

06-10-2003, 06:09 PM

MIDNIGHT has a problem similar to BR - Low magic world; balance versus
Standard D&D.

Player are assumed to have Heoric Paths (a set of special powers - different
but in the same vein as Blood Powers). The designers limited these powers to
Player Characters. No ECL or template applied. The rational they used was
that in order to keep the players balanced against traditional source books
the players needed something extra. The additional powers merely off-set the
low magic nature of the world. They considered it a wash. No need for any
fancy foot work.

Personally, this harmonizes with my own thoughts on Birthright.

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

irdeggman

06-10-2003, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by kgauck

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark_Aurel" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 11:44 AM

> there just isn`t any fair way to balance *regents* vs. non-regents

I think the way to properly balance rulers and non-rulers is to apply the
heavy crown principle. Realms should be a serious responsibility, demanding
two-thirds of a rulers time, at a mnimum. Realms should come with natural
rivals and threats, ready from the start to pose a danger. Realms have
those great resources because the social order has agreed to make that
particular kind of ruler (be he ruler of market, temple, court, or fortress)
because of a social need. Rulers must meet these needs, mostly in the form
of providing protection, or lose their realms. A realm is the classic
example of the gilded cage. The suggestion that being a ruler should come
with aging effects strikes me as about right.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

I think the way that Mark_Aurel had expressed it earlier is probably best. Character level is a measure of power, not just learning. Learning will by default grant more power but a character can be very powerful without "learning" much of anything. I think this is were you've confused me with the reference to suggestions that being a ruler should come from aging has me confused. I don't believe that I've seen a proposal that being a ruler comes with aging (not directly at least). I'm assuming that this was in relation to the scion class levels discussions.

irdeggman

06-10-2003, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by ryancaveney

I think my personal choice for the method I`ll be using IMC is a
combination of things Kenneth and Starfox have said which aren`t in "the
proposals ™" -- the DM assigns the blood scores he wants you to have,
and then you pick blood abilities based on your assigned score. The end.
Ryan Caveney

Their info wasn't included because no one sent me anything to include. I had asked repeatedly for proposals so that I could put them together in one document for ease of comparison, but only Shade, Gary, Mark V and Mark_Aurel bothered to send me anything.:)

geeman

06-10-2003, 09:50 PM

At 01:02 PM 6/10/2003 -0400, Daniel McSorley wrote:

>The blood abilities are not effective on a domain level, nor should they
>be. They work on the adventuring level, and that`s where the balance
>needs to be. There are effectively two levels of game going on.

A couple blood abilities are effective at the domain level. Most notably
Battlewise and Courage, but other blood abilities could have an effect at
the domain level. Detect Lie and Character Reading, for instance, could be
useful as might just about any of the other blood abilities. I`ve fiddled
around with using modifiers on domain actions from such blood abilities,
and it makes pretty good sense when one has an articulated system of domain
actions to combine them with effects from blood abilities.

> > I think part of the problem is that, whether or not there is a fair way to
> > balance scions vs. non-scions in terms of spell-or-feat-like blood
> > abilities, there just isn`t any fair way to balance *regents* vs.
> > non-regents
>
>There doesn`t need to be. Balance applies at the adventurer level.
>Balancing a regent versus an adventurer is like trying to balance the
>spellcasting of a wizard versus the spellcasting of a fighter- it just
>doesn`t apply. Luckily, all the proposals seem to attempt to do the right
>thing, which is to balance an adventuring scion with blood abilities
>versus an adventuring non-scion. They all agree with you here, so what
>is your complaint exactly?

I`ve argued in the past that having access to a domain is very similar to
having an inventory that contains gp value above and beyond that of a
"typical" character of the level of the character. Adventure level events
have less of an effect on the domain level (though I don`t think they are
entirely divorced as has been suggested) but domain level effects can
certainly have an effect at the adventure level. Regents engaging in
adventures can literally call upon armies. They can quickly circumvent the
local authorities--even call upon them to do as they are bid. Regents have
access to real estate, personnel, wealth, not to mention the reputation and
respect of the common citizenry. Normally an adventure contains aspects of
investigation or preparation that involve such people and regents have
access to things, or by their status a substantial advantage, that makes
those aspects of play at the adventure level easier. They can also call
upon experts and professionals to fight with, bring along siege equipment
or sailing ships. These things are significant and should be at least
noted by the DM when designing encounters and adventures.

Now none of that means a regent`s domain is worth an ECL because that
requires an XP expenditure for characters to level up, but it should be
factored in when determining EL and CR awards since those factors relate to
the difficulty of the encounter and the reward for that encounter. In
fact, if one were to go by the basis of the DMG an "average" encounter
would use up 25% of the character`s resources. A domain is a significant
resource. In the past, I`ve fiddled around with such numbers and found
that I could borrow a bit from the thinking of how to balance the EL of
characters with too much or too little equipment. Basically if one goes by
the chart of standard inventory gp values one can average the value of the
character`s inventory with his character level in order to get a number for
EL or CR awards. When it comes to a domain I`ve been fiddling around with
the assumption that 2 levels of a holding or province population level
equates to about 1 character level`s worth of equipment. That is a
character who controls a Law(4) in a province would have 2 character levels
worth of domain in his "inventory."

Gary

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

kgauck

06-10-2003, 10:09 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 2:45 PM

> I think this is were you`ve confused me with the reference to suggestions
> that being a ruler should come from aging has me confused. I don`t
believe
> that I`ve seen a proposal that being a ruler comes with aging (not
directly
> at least). I`m assuming that this was in relation to the scion class
levels
> discussions.

Aging doesn`t cause rulership, its a consequence of it. Looking at real
life executives of historical countries, many experience crises that seem to
age them. This was a tossed off aside, I`m not going to work up mechanics
for actually aging characters because they are rulers, I`m suggesting that
the job in itself is really hard, look at how these historical guys were
spent by the challenges of their rule.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

geeman

06-10-2003, 11:29 PM

At 11:03 PM 6/9/2003 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > It`s kind of like the word "genius" which I`ve always considered a
> > verb, but most people think is a noun.) I suspect it`s just a descriptor
> > some people put on the combination of success and recognition in
> > order to attempt to quantify something that is in many ways random
> > or the result of cunning marketing. Many people are just as talented
> > and capable as those that are lauded as "truly great" or whatever, but
> > are overlooked for reasons having little to do with their work or
> > productivity.
>
>For the purposes of fantasy gaming, I am willing to follow the lead of those
>medieval admirers, the Romantics, who had very clear ideas about what genius
>was and whose ideas greatly influence the current age. So the kinds of
>things you see in the works of Shelley, Wordsworth, Keats, and Coleridge
>about what constitutes genius, the heroic figure who struggles against
>impossible odds, who understands things on a level unknown to common men.
>This both suits the heroic tone of fantasy gaming (especially in BR) and is
>quite compatable with our sources of the mediaval world in literature.
>
>While I do not generally take Romanticism seriously, and certainly not in
>historical analysis, the genius in history is a Hegalian construction in
>which the hero in history is the one who advances the inevitable cause,
>Napoleon being the archtypical example, both for Hegal and for those who
>employed his ideas of heroicism in history. One would like to think that
>figures like Hitler and Stalin would have purged the idea of the hero in
>history, but alas, it is not so.
>
>In fantasy gaming, I`m willing to indulge in the most heroic notions of
>character, whether Romantic or Homeric.

Well, we`re somewhat off topic here, but I`d like to scribble a few lines
on this subject so I will. I`ll try to bring it back into some sort of BR
relevance just so we have some sort of payoff for those who get that far....

I do take Romanticism seriously, and would note that one really should
throw Byron in there amongst the list of them since any roll call of the
Romantics that doesn`t include him seems lacking somehow.

However, in the case of the word "genius" I tend to harken back further
than the 18th or 19th centuries to the origins of the word. The genesis of
the word genius (if I can use that term without being too linguistically
incestuous--genius and genesis have the same linguistic roots) is from the
Greek concept of a personal tutelary deity. In many societies everything
is attributed a spirit force. There are river gods, mountain gods, and
along with them gods for every tributary and stream, hill and
stone. Likewise, everyone has a personal god that grants knowledge and
inspires creativity, and it is getting in touch with this genius that is
amongst the highest of human activities. Think back to a time when you`ve
been particularly creative or inspired. You know how it feels as if
whatever it was you were creating didn`t really originate with you? That
it somehow was implanted in your mind? That is your genius at work. It is
the force that connected one to the divine capacity for learning and
creation that seems outside the self. So if I can risk a bit more
linguistic incest the genus of a person is the self, while the species of
that person is his genius. A human is that person (genus) who gets in
touch with his genius (species.)

In modern parlance, of course, genius is used to describe someone who has a
particular talent or is generally talented. "Bob is a genius." To me,
however, that`s a misuse of the term. Genius is that force outside the
self that inspires Bob and allows him to perform certain things with
extraordinary, almost effortless grace, ability and aplomb. His skill
seems magical. He seems touched by a divine, omnipotence that guides his
movements and allows him to do things beyond the capabilities of
humans. The concept of genius is that all that is true. It`s NOT Bob at
work. It IS his genius gifting him with those abilities. Some people are
more able to get in touch with their genius than others, but on the whole
when someone does something that other people find extraordinary or
inexplicable that`s their genius. When someone says "Bob is a genius" what
that means to me is that "Bob is in touch with his genius" or "Bob`s genius
is communicating with him." It`s an action, not a descriptive noun.

Now, just for the sake of clarifying my take on this sort of thing and
making sure everyone out there doesn`t think I`m an animist freak out
trying to promote some flaky pagan agenda--I don`t think there`s a personal
god of creativity. "Genius" is the term the ancient Greeks in their
spiritist worldview put on the process of getting in touch with our own
deep seated intellectual capacity. Our brains have vast, untapped
resources, most of which are buzzing along in our subconscious minds
24/7. An external genius does not exist any more than the Tooth
Fairy. The process of getting in touch with our subconscious, however,
very definitely does exist and that`s what I`m getting at here.

When it comes to the Romantics, I`d definitely borrow from them their take
on the heroic figure, their rather rosy view of the medieval period and
their rather view of life as high drama, but I`d draw a distinction between
genius and those things, and would suggest that in many cases the term
genius was for them the same as that of the Greeks rather than an actual
person.

What`s all this got to do with anything Birthright related? Well, here it
is: Genius = bloodline. What better analogy for a personal deity do we
need than a bit of divine power actually connecting a character to the gods?

In gaming terms one could embody this in many ways. The one that strikes
me as being the most useful is some fairly recent discussion about the use
of action points. Action points are used in certain settings/systems to
allow characters to perform extraordinarily well on particular rolls or to
access extraordinary powers. Generally, they allow a player to roll an
additional d6 on any d20 check, or to activate a power that has magical
effects. In BR one could give characters action points to spend--scions
could get bonus action points based upon their bloodline strength or
score. The recent discussion (actually it`s a perennial discussion) on how
to handle bloodline in 3e/d20 could include such a factor as the basis for
determining ECL since bloodline itself seems to be so difficult to
quantify. If it grants action points then it`s easier to put a point value
on it. Similarly, regents might spend RP in order to gain Action Points
(the exchange rate might be 1:2 or higher) and thus effects of the domain
upon EL and CR might similarly be quantified.

Gary

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

Birthright-L

06-11-2003, 07:55 AM

I`m sorry about not submitting a proposeal. I had
origivally intended to make an official propoposal out
of my ideas - but I`ve simply not had the time and
inclination. Since my Birthright camaign is now
basically finished, and I don`t really expect to go
back to the setting in a while, my focus now lies
elsewhere.

If many people think it would be worthwhile, I could
make a full proposal out of my ideas - though it would
be very late. [My! Was that ever a blatant plug!]

I`ll try to give another summing-up of my 1 1/2 year
campaign, that ended with the death and (probaly -
there is still a chance to stop it) deification of the
Gorgon, after it is wholy finished - which I think
will be tonight.

The last session may involve a momentous lie told by a
paladin of Avanale (godess of truth) or the fall of
the empire just as it is about to rise from the ashes
- a tough choice to make! The question: "Did you kill
the Gorgon?" Full, true answer: "Yes. He allowed me to
do so as a part of his personal deification plan and
in order to make room for his son to re-create the
empire".

> irdeggman wrote:
>
> Their info wasn`t included because no one sent me
> anything to include. I had asked repeatedly for
> proposals so that I could put them together in one
> document for ease of comparison, but only Shade,
> Gary, Mark V and Mark_Aurel bothered to send me
> anything.:)
>
>
> Originally posted by ryancaveney[/i]
>
>> I think my personal choice for the method I`ll be
>> using IMC is a
>> combination of things Kenneth and Starfox have said
>> which aren`t in "the
>> proposals ™

__________________________________________________ ___
Gå före i kön och få din sajt värderad på nolltid med Yahoo! Express
Se mer på: http://se.docs.yahoo.com/info/express/help/index.html

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

irdeggman

06-11-2003, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by kgauck

----- Original Message -----
From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 2:45 PM

> I think this is were you`ve confused me with the reference to suggestions
> that being a ruler should come from aging has me confused. I don`t
believe
> that I`ve seen a proposal that being a ruler comes with aging (not
directly
> at least). I`m assuming that this was in relation to the scion class
levels
> discussions.

Aging doesn`t cause rulership, its a consequence of it. Looking at real
life executives of historical countries, many experience crises that seem to
age them. This was a tossed off aside, I`m not going to work up mechanics
for actually aging characters because they are rulers, I`m suggesting that
the job in itself is really hard, look at how these historical guys were
spent by the challenges of their rule.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

To quote from the comics "With great power comes great responsibility." That pretty much sums it up I beleive.

irdeggman

06-11-2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Birthright-L

I`m sorry about not submitting a proposeal. I had
origivally intended to make an official propoposal out
of my ideas - but I`ve simply not had the time and
inclination. Since my Birthright camaign is now
basically finished, and I don`t really expect to go
back to the setting in a while, my focus now lies
elsewhere.

If many people think it would be worthwhile, I could
make a full proposal out of my ideas - though it would
be very late. [My! Was that ever a blatant plug!]

I am not opposed to adding more proposals - but I don't want to have to "beg" for them. I do want this to proceed, the polls were started in March and the solicitation for proposals promptly followed in March/April with the posting of the combined proposal in late April. We need to have a committment (as a group) to get this project completed. One thing that all the proposals should have are variants to allow both a random and non-random generated system (see the most recent polls). If you (or anyone else) has any specific questions you can e-mail me - I'm just trying to help. If there are questions over that last statement then ask Shade/Mark V/or Geeman whether or not I tried (or was successful) to be helpful.

My e-mail, again, is irdeggman@cox.net

ryancaveney

06-11-2003, 04:15 PM

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Carl Cramér wrote:

> If many people think it would be worthwhile, I could
> make a full proposal out of my ideas - though it would
> be very late. [My! Was that ever a blatant plug!]

Yes! Gimme gimme. =)

Ryan Caveney

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

ecliptic

06-18-2003, 08:28 AM

I am back all. :)

I really like the B. one. It can be balanced and they must sacrafice exp to gain power.

The only people who don't want it to be balanced with everything else are power gamers hiding as roleplayers.

CMonkey

06-20-2003, 11:03 PM

Kalien

06-21-2003, 01:25 AM

I didn't send in a proposal simply because I was away from the internet for quite a while and simply didn't know they were being asked for. ;)

For the game which I'm currently developing I'm using a very simple method:

If the regent has a bloodline score listed in RoE, then use that.
If the regent does not have a bloodline score listed in RoE, then the DM will assign one together with derivation and strength (this was something else I'd done, but lost with all my other files recently).

Blood abilities:
Rolled randomly using the tables from the Book of Regency (though players can write family histories if they wish and based on that I might assign a specific blood ability as one that crops up every generation or two).

Changes:
The only change from the 2nd ed. BR Boxed Set I was going to introduce for my PBEM concerned rolling for blood abilities upon raising bloodline score. According to the 2nd ed. Rulebook you roll once per category / group. I am going to allow players who raise their bloodline score again at a later date a chance to roll again if they missed out the first time. For example, a regent with a bloodline score of just 8 and no blood abilities spends RP to raise it to 9. They roll 36%, meaning they gain no new blood ability. If later in the game they spend more RP to raise their bloodline score to 10 they can have another roll to see if they acquire a blood ability. They can keep doing this (after raising their bloodline score) until they succeed or pass into a new category / group on the table. So, if they keep rolling badly they at least know that eventually they might get lucky.

Hopefully, this might also have the spin-off of regents being less likely to hoard RP during gameplay ...

Mark_Aurel

06-21-2003, 04:03 AM

Actually, what were the final numbers for or against the blood stat? The only poll I found had more for than against, but as you seem to be going ahead with scrapping the blood-stat (the original treatment of it anyway), I'm assuming there was another poll, yes?

CM.

Not that I'm aware of. The most important thing aren't the polls themselves, but the arguments presented. Simply put, using an ability score for a bloodline isn't really an elegant or good 3e mechanic, and it's got an element of bad or redundant balancing.

irdeggman

06-21-2003, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by CMonkey

Actually, what were the final numbers for or against the blood stat? The only poll I found had more for than against, but as you seem to be going ahead with scrapping the blood-stat (the original treatment of it anyway), I'm assuming there was another poll, yes?

CM.

The results were posted
http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1449

To sum them up:

Final Chapter 2 poll results are (I've closed them, as I said I would):

Should the blood ability score be treated as a 7th ability type score?

Yes, I like the concept and treatment. 58% (18)
No, I object! 42% (13)

Should scion templates be used to represent the strength of bloodline derivation?

Yes, I agree 56% (19)
No, I object! 44% (15)

Should ECLs be used for the different bloodline strengths?

Yes, I agree 65% (24)
No, I object! 35% (13)

How I read the poll results (the line I drew for a clear majority was to be close to twice as many in favor as opposed, roughly 66% of the vote in the polls given):

A majority likes the 7th ability score use to treat the blood ability score. This is only a simple majority and not a clear majority so the proposal needs to be revamped, an alternate needs to be developed or 2 separate systems need to be presented, one as a variant.

To proceed along the path of developing another viable system the following are points that need to be addressed by any system developed:

(1) It has to be simple. At least no more complicated than the 3rd edition standard systems used, e.g., skills and feats, class advancement, spell casting, etc.

(2) The system has to be compatible with both a random based system and a planned development system (a point buy system is an example of a planned development system).

(3) The system has to mesh with 3rd edition mechanics.

(4) This one is mine and not necessarily a set in stone precept from a rule standpoint, it just makes things easier game mechanics-wise. The system should lend itself to adaptation to increasing the DCs of blood abilities that require them (similar to spell DCs).

A majority likes the scion as a template concept to represent the strength of a bloodline, again only a simple majority. The same actions as needed for the blood score above need to be taken.

A clear majority, almost 2 to 1 for like the use of ECLs for different bloodline strengths.
This is something to maintain in our minds as we pursue the above two tasks. This clearly can’t be totally addressed until the previous two issues are addressed.
Last edited by: irdeggman on 03-23-03 13:47:05

The bottom line was that a "simple majority" was determined to not be sufficient to reflect the majority. The basis used was roughly twice as many for as against a proposal. A simple majority is too fluid a basis for such a wide-spread adaptation which is why the "clear majority" was used.:)

irdeggman

06-21-2003, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Mark_Aurel

Actually, what were the final numbers for or against the blood stat? The only poll I found had more for than against, but as you seem to be going ahead with scrapping the blood-stat (the original treatment of it anyway), I'm assuming there was another poll, yes?

CM.

Not that I'm aware of. The most important thing aren't the polls themselves, but the arguments presented. Simply put, using an ability score for a bloodline isn't really an elegant or good 3e mechanic, and it's got an element of bad or redundant balancing.

I actually disagree with Jan on whether or not the polls were important. They were important in deciding which way to proceed. This is why the 4 proposals were put together (in response to the polls). It is now time to discuss what we should do with "them" and hence the "arguments presented" phase has begun.

CMonkey

06-21-2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Mark_Aurel
The most important thing aren't the polls themselves, but the arguments presented.
I'm sorry, but that reads to me as "My opinion is more important because I'm shouting louder and refuse to sit down."

Originally posted by Mark_Aurel
Simply put, using an ability score for a bloodline isn't really an elegant or good 3e mechanic, and it's got an element of bad or redundant balancing.
Opinion.

Originally posted by irdeggman
The bottom line was that a "simple majority" was determined to not be sufficient to reflect the majority.
But a "simple minority" demanding change is sufficient?

I know, I know, ultimately the active board members will never properly reflect the opinions of the actual users of the system - the sample size is just too small and do not reflect accurately. It just seems the team is being bullied here with "More ranting against the Blood Stat" et al.

CM.

Mark_Aurel

06-21-2003, 08:51 PM

I'm sorry, but that reads to me as "My opinion is more important because I'm shouting louder and refuse to sit down."

What I said has very little to do with shouting the loudest and very much with the quality of the arguments. You could put it another way - not all votes are necessarily equal; those votes that are given with an explanation for why that vote fell that way should by rights weigh heavier - it's a much more valuable form of feedback, really.

Opinion.

Really? Point me to a similar mechanic, then. In terms of 3e mechanics, there are some things that work well, and some things that do not - tying bloodlines to ability scores will accomplish some things that aren't really desirable. The way it's been implemented, it's the equivalent of a hidden stat bonus for commoners, for instance. It's inelegant, because bloodline isn't a character attribute in the way the other ability scores are. It's also a mechanic that needlessly breaks with the original system in terms of score ranges.

But a "simple minority" demanding change is sufficient?

I know, I know, ultimately the active board members will never properly reflect the opinions of the actual users of the system - the sample size is just too small and do not reflect accurately. It just seems the team is being bullied here with "More ranting against the Blood Stat" et al.

I really don't think so. Primarily, negative feedback is often better than positive feedback, because it tends to point out weak areas better. Having a bunch of yes-men around doesn't really amount to the same as getting good, reasoned feedback. The issue at stake here is pretty much this: I don't think I've seen many (if anyone at all) really argue convincingly around here that the connection made is really a good or elegant one.

I actually disagree with Jan on whether or not the polls were important. They were important in deciding which way to proceed. This is why the 4 proposals were put together (in response to the polls). It is now time to discuss what we should do with "them" and hence the "arguments presented" phase has begun.

I'm not saying the polls aren't important - just that the discussion and the arguments presented is more important. They're both useful forms of feedback.

CMonkey

06-21-2003, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by Mark_Aurel
[..] desirable [..] inelegant [..] needlessly [..]
Opinion.

CM.

kgauck

06-22-2003, 12:07 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "CMonkey" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 5:59 PM

>
Originally posted by Mark_Aurel
> [..] desirable [..] inelegant [..] needlessly [..]
> Opinion.

Alternativly these words may be conclusions. Conlusions supported by the
text you removed.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

irdeggman

06-22-2003, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by CMonkey

Originally posted by irdeggman
The bottom line was that a "simple majority" was determined to not be sufficient to reflect the majority.
But a "simple minority" demanding change is sufficient?

I know, I know, ultimately the active board members will never properly reflect the opinions of the actual users of the system - the sample size is just too small and do not reflect accurately. It just seems the team is being bullied here with "More ranting against the Blood Stat" et al.

CM.

Actually the reasoning was that if only a slight majority (i.e., simple majority) likes it then there are a lot of people who don't and that other systems should be looked at so that more people can "agree". This was why the conclusion that another system (or one and an alternate) would be necessary to attempt to come up with something that the "clear majority" could agree with (or at least agree that it was a good base that individuals could tailor to their own campaigns more readily).

This "clear majority" concept was how the development team put together the playtest document, we took votes and tried to get a "twice as many for than against it". This defineitely made the "final" product better.:)

Kalien

06-22-2003, 01:58 AM

For what it's worth, I'm one of those people that think the blood stat isn't the best way of dealing with bloodline scores and the effect of blood abilities. I won't go over all the reasons why here, suffice it to say that I agree with Mark that it is not a good (or elegant) game mechanic. Some may feel that there are a few 'ranting' against it, but in all honesty I only ever see a few loudly defending it at the same time. A matter of perspective perhaps?

One thing I do know is that not one single person I know here in NZ who has played BR likes it - and I'm talking about people who aren't posters on these boards (with the exception of John Machin, of course). I have heard people who have downloaded the BRCS and read through it say that if it becomes the standard for PBEM games then they will no longer play in such games, simply because they dislike the game mechanics in it so much (and one of the things that they dislike the most is the blood stat and how bloodlines are handled).

Whether you like the blood stat or not, the fact that such mechanics are potentially driving players away from a setting they enjoy must in itself raise questions about how good or elegant some of the mechanics are.

Unfortunately, I don't have any easy answers about how we should deal with the issue and what system we should adopt as a community. In truth, I don't think we will ever get one system that everybody approves of - but the only way we will get close is too listen to opinions and not dismiss them as lacking in substance (whether you agree with them or not).

Mark_Aurel

06-22-2003, 02:40 AM

Opinion.

The earth is round.

Space is big.

Stars are hot.

CMonkey

06-23-2003, 11:24 AM

Ok, my last post was terse to the point of rude. I over-reacted to being branded a "yes-man" for liking (my opinion) something. Sorry.

CM.

PS.

The earth is round.
Space is big.
Stars are hot.

vs.

The earth is good.
Space is boring.
Stars are elegant.

See it yet?

irdeggman

06-27-2003, 10:07 AM

All righty then,

It's time to get down with serious discussion and another vote or two.

There are currently 4 proposals out there.
We (as a community) need to look at them, do the final discussions of them, have the authors perform the "final" rewrites and then a final "vote" on the "revised" proposals. Until the last week or so there had not been any substantial discussion on this topic and I, for one, found the recent discussion refreshing as far as people actually showing interest in the product.

So lets take the next week to 10 days to "fine tune" the discussion and then I will go to the "authors" for a "final" revision prior to posting for a vote.

I am holding firm to the guidelines I posted on content/structure for this, especially seeing how the recently generated polls confirm my assumption that people "preferred" having variants to accomofate both random and planned development systems.

So the "bar" is open. Pull up a chair, have a ([_] and start typing. Well structured and thought out comments generally carry more "weight" with the community than do comments like "I like it", "It sucks", "I use my own system", etc.

Trithemius

06-27-2003, 03:07 PM

Irdeggman sez:
> So the "bar" is open. Pull up a chair, have a ([_] and
> start typing. Well structured and thought out comments
> generally carry more "weight" with the community than do
> comments like "I like it", "It sucks", "I use my own
> system", etc.

What about well structured and thought out comments about why I use my
own system? ;)

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

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

irdeggman

06-27-2003, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Trithemius

Irdeggman sez:
> So the "bar" is open. Pull up a chair, have a ([_] and
> start typing. Well structured and thought out comments
> generally carry more "weight" with the community than do
> comments like "I like it", "It sucks", "I use my own
> system", etc.

What about well structured and thought out comments about why I use my
own system? ;)

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

Use the non-playtest comment forum. ;) They are usually very interesting discussions, although I have yet to have seen anyone's "complete" home rules. I've only seen portions and snippets, which makes it very hard to really understand what people are talking about or how how things work together in their home-brewed systems.

And yes, I got the humor in your message - so please read the humor in mine too.

Trithemius

06-28-2003, 04:09 AM

Irdeggman sez:
> Use the non-playtest comment forum. ;) They are usually
> very interesting discussions, although I have yet to have
> seen anyone`s "complete" home rules. I`ve only seen
> portions and snippets, which makes it very hard to really
> understand what people are talking about or how how things
> work together in their home-brewed systems.

I do not post using the forums, but using email. I am not entirely sure
which forums I am inadvertantly "posting" on by replying to messages I
see in my inbox.

Perhaps I`ll just avoid rule discussions entirely to be safe.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

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

irdeggman

06-28-2003, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Trithemius

Irdeggman sez:
> Use the non-playtest comment forum. ;) They are usually
> very interesting discussions, although I have yet to have
> seen anyone`s "complete" home rules. I`ve only seen
> portions and snippets, which makes it very hard to really
> understand what people are talking about or how how things
> work together in their home-brewed systems.

I do not post using the forums, but using email. I am not entirely sure
which forums I am inadvertantly "posting" on by replying to messages I
see in my inbox.

Perhaps I`ll just avoid rule discussions entirely to be safe.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

That's one of the reasons I suggested using the topic title. If it's got a topic of playtest version along with a chapter number it makes it a little easier to see if it is in application to the BRCS or is a general discussion topic. We can move threads around on the net but can't move specific posts to match the more appropriate thread currently though so no matter what there will be some confusion introduced. I think if we try to use the topic titles it will greatly help on this one.

Please don't stop discussions of home-rules since they are very interesting to many people. They just may not be related to the generation of the BRCS.:)