Using BR Adventures for a norma

[Harri Kemppainen]

On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Glenn Robb wrote:

> I still don't think that the players should act like Captain Kirk, although
> Sepsis' arguments are sound. Normal adventures can't support that kind of level
[huge cut]

At the bottom line player regents are supreme rulers of country. It's not
what they should or shouldn't do. If regent want's to go adventuring there
is nobody to tell him no, except GM. Another point is that how GM presents
the world etc. It might make adventuring impossible, but after all this is
fantasy roleplaying, not a historical simulation.


- ---
Harri Kemppainen cshake@kastanja.uta.fi
Java-programmer Attila B288b
Information Studies, University of Tampere +358 3 215 7632

[John Rickards]

There are other real-life and fictional examples. Henry V, for
example, spent much of his youth in bars (if you believe the play)
and much of his reign fighting wars in France.
Many Roman emperors spent a great deal of time away from home in one
war or another, trusting the rule of the Empire to regional governors
or the Roman Senate (although my memory for the details is sketchy.
It's been an awfully long time since I did history at school).
In classical fiction, people like Odysseus, who was the ruler of one
of the Greek states spent some time at Troy before spending 10 years
making his way home through all sorts of trouble. All the time, his
wife ruled for him.
And let's not forget Machiavelli's observation that:

"The only sound, sure and enduring methods of defence
are those based on your own actions and prowess."

John Rickards


"Once I was a lamb, playing in a green field. Then
the wolves came. Now I am an eagle and I fly in a
different universe."
"And now you kill the lambs," whispered Dardalion.
"No, priest. No one pays for lambs."
- David Gemmel, Waylander

[Sepsis]

At 12:42 PM 10/5/97 -0600, Glenn Robb(GLENNROBB@prodigy.net)wrote:
>
> Anyway, back to the subject of using BR adventures this way. If I had
the
>Birthright Setting, I would not allow my PCs to be "Captain Kirk." That is,
>Regents who travel all over Creation battling evil, leaving others to do
the work
>of ruling their provinces for them. The incidence of trechery is too
great. But
>this is the problem in the Birthright Adventures.
>

Not so much a problem, just the nature of the beast. BR is a setting where
PC Regents can't afford to do too much of one thing, and not enough of the
other(the "things" being Domain administration, and real-world actions). A
PC must find a balance, or they risk losing their nation to someone who
steps in. Either a Lt. who undermines their rule, or a valiant Knight who
rescues the populace all the time. Although you can still have a great
campaign with the PCs all being Lts. in service of a Regent, or perhaps
different Regents. But you shouldn't miss out on the Domain stuff, IMC my
PCs are all Regents in the same country but only one of them is the
nation's Ruler(she controls the LHs of the country). Its true Regents don't
have the "freedom" afforded non-royals, but again thats part of their role.


Sepsis, richt@metrolink.net (ICQ:3777956)

"War is a matter of vital importance to the State;
the province of life or death;
the road to survival or ruin.
It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied."
-Sun Tzu,(The Art of War)-

BR Netbook: http://webpages.metrolink.net/~veleda/birth.html

[Ed Stark]

At 12:42 PM 10/5/97 -0600, you wrote:
>"normal" as in the PCs are special agents of a regent.
>
> Okay, think an introduction is in order. My name is Elton Robb and
I'm a
>newbie to this list, but can get around mailing lists like a pro. I am
what you
>call a "budding liberal Gamemaster." And I enjoy using the adventures
from other
>worlds in my campaigns.
>
> Anyway, back to the subject of using BR adventures this way. If I had
the
>Birthright Setting, I would not allow my PCs to be "Captain Kirk." That is,
>Regents who travel all over Creation battling evil, leaving others to do
the work
>of ruling their provinces for them. The incidence of trechery is too
great. But
>this is the problem in the Birthright Adventures.
>
> I have found a way to get around this. Especially in the first adventure
>"Sword and Crown." The PCs are the agents of the Local lord, Earl, or
Baron or
>what have you. They have the ear of the Regent, but act as retainers on
hand for
>dangerous (re: adventurous) missions. Thus the PCs would have the greatest
>amount of freedom as well as have the privledge of hob-nobbing with Anuire's
>Elite.
>
> What do you think of this approach?
>

I like it very much. I've always been more comfortable having only a few
(if any) regent PCs in my around-the-office games and playtests. However,
the game is built to handle everyone being a regent who wants to--as long
as the DM can handle it as well.

Ed Stark
Game Designer, Wizards of the Coast/TSR Division
Asst. Brand Manager, BIRTHRIGHT/GREYHAWK/MARVEL Group
TSR Website: http://www.tsrinc.com

[Neil Barnes]

Elton Robb wrote:
> Anyway, back to the subject of using BR adventures this way. If I had the
> Birthright Setting, I would not allow my PCs to be "Captain Kirk." That is,
> Regents who travel all over Creation battling evil,
> leaving others to do the work of ruling their provinces for them. The
> incidence of trechery is too great. But
> this is the problem in the Birthright Adventures.
>
> I have found a way to get around this. Especially in the first adventure
> "Sword and Crown." The PCs are the agents of the Local lord, Earl,
> or Baron or what have you. They have the ear of the Regent, but act
> as retainers on hand for dangerous (re: adventurous) missions. Thus
> the PCs would have the greatest amount of freedom as well as have the
> privledge of hob-nobbing with Anuire's Elite.

As a player I've found that the most interesting part of the game to me is
the running of a country - the domain turn stuff, but more importantly the
diplomacy which makes the roleplaying much more interesting - there's more
at stake when you meet other regents.

Example: My character, Aubrae Rosesone worries about her older brother,
who seems oblivious to the fact that as a regent he needs to get married
and secure both alliances and produce an heir to secure the succession, so
she's busy approaching various people behind his back. At the same time
she's torn between the prospect of marrying for love or political
advantage.

Or: As regent of Ilien trying to support the (weak) ruler of Medoere
without risking my own neck.

It's the politics that makes Bvirthright distinct from a better written
version of the Realms or Greyhawk, and by falling back to the traditional
patron sending people on adventures paradigm you loose a lot of the
flavour.

However you end up with a campaign where players spend much less time
acting as a coherent group, instead being a loose group of friends who
meet at noble weddings, funerals and the like. It's a different sort of
game.

What's the list's feelings on the subject?

neil

ps I'd just like to express my awe at the person who mentioned earlier
that they run a campaign where the province rulers are scattered all over
Cerillia. Wow!

[James Abbiati]

Hey all,

Having just started BR, I see first level characters hopping from dungeons to the
dias as a little awkward. I use the term "dungeon" as any adventure a normal AD&D
character would go on, but a Baron of a Realm probably would not. I am not the DM
for this campaign, but he is experiencing the same feelings. When and if I start
another campaign, I would run the characters as normal AD&D characters for the first
7 or 8 levels. Then, as the characters have built up reputations and may be tiring
of adventureing, I would open up the whole "Regent" aspect of the game. The first 7
or 8 levels would be linked in terms of getting characters built up, and having them
aquire their first holdings. That way, the adventures after level 7 or 8 would be
less frequent, and could center more around the diplomacy aspect, as apposed to
having realm leaders dungeon delving.

Jim Abbiati

[Brian Stoner]

I think another possibility is cultural pressure. Perhaps, unlike earth
and other places, it expected by the culture that rulers will go
adventuring. That is, they will take an active roll in dealing with
dangers and threats. Of course not everyone lives up to this, and it's
not always expected. but it is a strong enough idea that most
characters will adventure. It is cultural, if not practical. Of course
actually developing an adventure that several rulers will all go on
together is another matter...

Brian

James Abbiati wrote:

> I think that is true in the "real world". But there is a problem for
> characters
> who still wish to go out and adventure in "typical" dungeons. I don't
> think
> King Tut was out adventureing as a "boy ruler". I see the answer lying
> in 2
> areas. First, the types of adventures change dramatically, and are
> limited to
> what types of adventures would make sense for a Ruler to go on.
> Political
> envoys, War, etc. The second answer is to delay the assention to the
> "throne"
> until the characters have had a chance to go on the "typical"
> adventure.
>
> The second area would lend well to having a set of rules for the
> "realm rulers"
> that are not specific to Birthright, but could be used to breath new
> life in
> other campaigns, such as Greyhawk and The Forgotten Realms. In other
> words,
> make a book similar to "Skills and Powers" that is a rules suppliment
> for using
> "holdings" and such in other worlds.
>
> Jim Abbiati
>
> Bill Seurer wrote:
>
> > Actually, I think that BirthRight is correct in handling rulers.
> Rulers
> > are not those with the highest "level", but those who have the
> Divine
> > Right to be the ruler. In the "real world" the kings and such went
> > around claiming to have this right, but in BR they literally do have
> the
> > Divine Right to be king. There's nothing special about 6th-8th
> level
> > characters that suddenly they can become kings.
> >
> > Now that's not to say that some high level thug isn't going to come
> > along, knock off the rightful ruler, and take over.
> >
> > - Bill Seurer ID Tools and Compiler Development IBM Rochester,
> MN
> > Business: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com Home:
> BillSeurer@aol.com
> > [work page]
> > Home page: http://members.aol.com/BillSeurer/
> >
> >
> ************************************************** *************************
>
> > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with
> the line
> > 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>
> ************************************************** ****
> ********************
> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
> line
>

[Bill Seurer]

> Excerpts from mail: 7-Oct-97 birthright-digest V1996 #316
> birthright-digest@lists. (32732)

> I think another possibility is cultural pressure. Perhaps, unlike
> earth
> and other places, it expected by the culture that rulers will go
> adventuring. That is, they will take an active roll in dealing
> with
> dangers and threats. Of course not everyone lives up to this, and
> it's
> not always expected. but it is a strong enough idea that most
> characters will adventure. It is cultural, if not practical. Of
> course
> actually developing an adventure that several rulers will all go
> on
> together is another matter...

It is also a staple of the fantasy genre in literature that the
kings/court wizards/thieve's guild leaders run off on adventures. Think
of the Conan books, the books set in Krondor, even the Lord of the
Rings. And it's not without example in the real world either.


- - Bill Seurer ID Tools and Compiler Development IBM Rochester, MN
Business: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com Home: BillSeurer@aol.com
[work page]
Home page: http://members.aol.com/BillSeurer/

[Sepsis]

At 12:14 PM 10/7/97 -0700, Brian Stoner(bstoner@efn.org)wrote:
>
>I think another possibility is cultural pressure. Perhaps, unlike earth
>and other places, it expected by the culture that rulers will go
>adventuring. That is, they will take an active roll in dealing with
>dangers and threats. Of course not everyone lives up to this, and it's
>not always expected. but it is a strong enough idea that most
>characters will adventure. It is cultural, if not practical. Of course
>actually developing an adventure that several rulers will all go on
>together is another matter...
>

Actually there are examples of true-life rulers, in the past, who were very
active outside of their palaces. Although many were sit-at-home rulers.
Still it would be better to compare BR Regents with mythical rulers from
our world. Most of them took the time to get off their thrones and handle
maurading monsters, bandits, witches, or even go on a quest or two. Few, if
any, great mythical rulers would have allowed thier lackys to handle all of
these problems. It was truley an era of "hands-on" rulership. Don't compare
rulers and goverments of *today* with the rulers, and goverments, of BR.
Its not the same. IN BR Regents have the "birthright" to be leaders but
they must constantly prove this to those around them, and to those they rule.


Sepsis, richt@metrolink.net (ICQ:3777956)

"War is a matter of vital importance to the State;
the province of life or death;
the road to survival or ruin.
It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied."
-Sun Tzu,(The Art of War)-

BR Netbook: http://webpages.metrolink.net/~veleda/birth.html

[James Abbiati]

> It is also a staple of the fantasy genre in literature that the
> kings/court wizards/thieve's guild leaders run off on adventures. Think
> of the Conan books, the books set in Krondor, even the Lord of the
> Rings. And it's not without example in the real world either.

Actually, in the Lord of the Rings, none of the established rulers went on the
adventure. Aragorn was "becomming" the king, but he wasn't yet.

>
>
> - Bill Seurer ID Tools and Compiler Development IBM Rochester, MN
> Business: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com Home: BillSeurer@aol.com
> [work page]
> Home page: http://members.aol.com/BillSeurer/
>
> ************************************************** *************************
> >

[Glenn Robb]

I still don't think that the players should act like Captain Kirk, althou=
gh
Sepsis' arguments are sound. Normal adventures can't support that kind o=
f level
without a price. But a `Henry V' type adventure would work wonders.

In that type, the PC regent leads entire armies to War. Certain things g=
et to be
roleplayed like the initial insult, the call to War, finding traitors in =
the
midst, and the forging of treaties at the Meeting Table. Even a wedding =
between
the Regent and the crown princess of the other realm would be wonderful.

That's the basic plot of 'Henry V.' In 'Henry V' not only King Harry (He=
nry the
Fifth) went to war because of his Pedigree, but because he could prove to=
be a
just and good ruler. Although he didn't want War with France in the first=
place.
And he was loved by his subjects and soldiers because of it.

But the usual Adventures are just to mundane for the Regent to go on. Be=
sides
that, there are problems for the DM. The DM has to work to keep the Gods=
out of
the Story because the player is playing a Character that is on the second=
level of
acutual Scope.

What makes you think that a player is going to deal with criminals in his=
kingdom
personally, having already dealt with other King/Queen Regents? For my i=
deas, I
would watch Shakespeare's stories about England's Kings and Queens before=
I would
even allow the Regents to go on adventures. That way, I could tailor eac=
h
adventure for the Regent, without forcing the scope from getting too high
(bringing the Gods into the story) or too low (mundane, mainstream advent=
ures).

But I have only seen one of Shakespeare's royal plays, `Henry V,' and doz=
ens of
Classic Trek episodes (I've seen every one at least twice). And I know w=
hich
adventures are appropriate for the main characters and which are just pla=
in. So
until I see Richard I, II, III, IV and Henry VI, VII, and VIII; I'll just=
tell my
PCs that the Regent option is out.

Or, if they really want to do it, then I'll just have to read them. But =
it's not
the same. . .

=97 Elton Robb
"Your Generously Liberal GM.
I break all the rules."

[RMoraza@aol.co]

Elton Robb
In a message dated 97-10-08 22:14:09 EDT, you write:

>

It states in the Atlas of Cerilia (I think) that after the Battle of
Deismaar, the new gods made a pact of uninvolvement with the people of the
land. Now, granted, you can run your campaign anyway you want to, but I think
most people don't run Birthright like Forgotten Realms, where the gods show
up every day.

There are lots of reasons for a PC regent to decide to personally handle a
matter -
all it takes is a little creativity and imagination. Maybe you should expand
your horizons a little. There's a lot more to life than Star trek.

Alison
RMoraza@aol.com

[Neil Barnes]

Ed wrote:
> I would also like to point out a large number of the Knights of the Round
> Table were kings or at least "landed knights" who, while responsible for
> domains of their own, still spent the vast majority of their time going on
> adventures on behalf of their High King, Arthur Pendragon. Arthur himself
> (especially in the older legends, before the creation of Lancelot) went on
> adventures quite often as well (mostly before his marriage to
> Guinevere--which signified his transition from hero to caretaker ... oops,
> starting to discuss my master's thesis here ;-)).

Don't forget Richard Coeur de Leon, who spent about a total of three weeks
in his entire life in his kingdom of England, instead spending most of his
time campaigning in France, committing an interesting variety of
atrocities in the middle east and languishing in a German cell. He was in
fact incapable of speaking English.

John Lackland gets a bad rap thanks to Robin Hood, but the excessive taxes
were being raised to finance Richard's little hobbies, and he was
otherwise an excellent king.

neil

[Glenn Robb]

Okay guys, I'm convinced. Thanks. Oh by the way, my life doesn't revol=
ve
around Star Trek. I was just alluding to a book called, "How to Write Sc=
ience
Fiction and Fantasy" by Orson Scott Card. In it he says that Novels that
revolve around Kings and Queens are doomed to failure because they don't =
have
any freedom to act.

=97 Elton Robb
"Your Liberal Gamemaster.
I break all the rules."

Neil Barnes wrote:

> Ed wrote:
> > I would also like to point out a large number of the Knights of the R=
ound
> > Table were kings or at least "landed knights" who, while responsible =
for
> > domains of their own, still spent the vast majority of their time goi=
ng on
> > adventures on behalf of their High King, Arthur Pendragon. Arthur him=
self
> > (especially in the older legends, before the creation of Lancelot) we=
nt on
> > adventures quite often as well (mostly before his marriage to
> > Guinevere--which signified his transition from hero to caretaker ... =
oops,
> > starting to discuss my master's thesis here ;-)).
>
> Don't forget Richard Coeur de Leon, who spent about a total of three we=
eks
> in his entire life in his kingdom of England, instead spending most of =
his
> time campaigning in France, committing an interesting variety of
> atrocities in the middle east and languishing in a German cell. He was =
in
> fact incapable of speaking English.
>
> John Lackland gets a bad rap thanks to Robin Hood, but the excessive ta=
xes
> were being raised to finance Richard's little hobbies, and he was
> otherwise an excellent king.
>
> neil
> ************************************************** *********************=
****
> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the =
line
>

[Tripp Elliott]

Ed Stark wrote:
>
> At 03:32 PM 10/8/97 -0400, you wrote:
> >> It is also a staple of the fantasy genre in literature that the
> >> kings/court wizards/thieve's guild leaders run off on adventures. Think
> >> of the Conan books, the books set in Krondor, even the Lord of the
> >> Rings. And it's not without example in the real world either.
> >
> >Actually, in the Lord of the Rings, none of the established rulers went on
> the
> >adventure. Aragorn was "becomming" the king, but he wasn't yet.
> >
> I find this line of discussion very interesting, as it's one I have to
> explain almost daily ... ;-)
>
> I would point out that Boromir and Faramir, heir-apparents to Gondor (in
> turn) and rulers in their own right (they were, in BR terms, vassals to
> Denethor, ruling selected parts of their domains) both adventured as part
> of their duties. Legolas was the son of Thranduil the Elvenking (while it
> doesn't say whether or not he ruled part of Mirkwood, he was certainly a
> prince), and Theoden, at the end, rode off to war with his heir Eomer at
> his side.
>
> I would also like to point out a large number of the Knights of the Round
> Table were kings or at least "landed knights" who, while responsible for
> domains of their own, still spent the vast majority of their time going on
> adventures on behalf of their High King, Arthur Pendragon. Arthur himself
> (especially in the older legends, before the creation of Lancelot) went on
> adventures quite often as well (mostly before his marriage to
> Guinevere--which signified his transition from hero to caretaker ... oops,
> starting to discuss my master's thesis here ;-)).

Possibly a better example of this would be Thorin Oakenshield who was
soo blessed as to have 12 Lieutenants.

Tripp

[Ed Stark]

At 08:31 AM 10/10/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Possibly a better example of this would be Thorin Oakenshield who was
>soo blessed as to have 12 Lieutenants.

Good point!

Ed Stark
Game Designer, Wizards of the Coast/TSR Division
Asst. Brand Manager, BIRTHRIGHT/GREYHAWK/MARVEL Group
TSR Website: http://www.tsrinc.com

[FrenzyK2@aol.co]

In a message dated 97-10-09 02:12:21 EDT, you write:

>
>Actually, in the Lord of the Rings, none of the established rulers went on
>the
>adventure. Aragorn was "becomming" the king, but he wasn't yet.
>
>

A great piece of fantasy dealing with rulers and their adventures, whether
war campaigns or other is the "Game of Thrones" by George R.R. Martin. This
novel has been a great inspiration to me for running a BR game. Before I
read the book I wondered what to do, but as I read the book I got some wild
ideas.
The number of adventures that you can run without ever using "Dungeons" is
phenomenal. Going to other kingdoms, intrigue in your own and other
kingdoms, and sure every now and then throw in a good dungeon crawl for the
Hack and Slashers. Just so long as they can trust their non PC lieutenants.
(which the usually cannot).

Thanks,

Christian Johnson