multiple group BR campaigns

[Matthew M. Colville]

l.braslow@genie.com wrote:

> On TSR and its supposed lack of support for Birthright --
>
> I don't know how many of you are "in the know," but TSR is in SERIOUS
> financial doo-doo right now.

My frustration with TSR comes from a very simple fact. In the message
Sean Reynolds put up on the TSR Web Site, he mentions Dark Sun fans
sending letters mentioning how much they spend on gaming materials in a
month.
This bugs me. Here's why: I will spend as much a month as it costs to
buy every Birthright product they put out (with the possibly excpetion
of more Player's Secrets.) A friend who is running a Forgotten Realms
campaign is the same way.
This should make TSR dance a jig! If they put out 8 modules and 8
Campaign expansions next month, I'd buy them all! I'm sure this isn't
true of everyone, but I can only speak of what bugs me.
If it's done, release the damn thing so I can buy it. If it ain't
done, finish it, so I can buy it.


-Matthew

-

[l.braslow@genie.co]

Hey, all. :) This is my first post, but this discussion of multiple groups
interacting interested me, so I thought I'd de-lurk for a bit.

Jonathan, Matthew, et al. --

I think that it would be really cool/interesting to have multiple PC
groups operating in the same "reality," for one very important reason. It
would make the "NPCs" more realistic. It's very difficult for a DM to look
out for the interests of all the NPCs involved, especially if many of them
are regents. If they are controlled by other players, however, they start
to act more like real people than characters in a scenario.

I'm playing in a campaign where the PCs are scattered over a rather wide
area, and none of us begin with any connections. It takes place in
Brechtur, in the Rohrmarch area, and three of the four PCs are Wizards.
Several also have guild holdings, and one is playing one of the rival
Princes. None of us are really involved with each other, as of yet -- but
we will be, once we start trying to build our power and our domains. Some
of us might ally, but others might become enemies. Although this is a
microcosm of what you're talking about, Jonathan, I think it would be just
as interesting on a larger scale.

On TSR and its supposed lack of support for Birthright --

I don't know how many of you are "in the know," but TSR is in SERIOUS
financial doo-doo right now. As in, they just fired more than twenty
employees as of December 20th. As far as I know, several months' worth of
releases have been held up. Basically, what I'm saying is that this is NOT
the time to pressure TSR -- in fact, we should try to be as supportive as
possible, as fans of their games. I have no problem with a nice letter sent
to Sean, requesting more support for birthright, and of course anyone is
free to say whatever they want. THIS IS NOT A FLAME, AND I DON'T PRESUME
THAT I CAN TELL ANY OF YOU WHAT TO DO. Take this as a suggestion, as a
perspective, whatever you like -- but I doubt that there will be a very
favorable response to posts which harshly criticise TSR, especially now.

Also, seeing as Birthright is, at only two years old, the newest AD&D
line TSR produces, having ONE product less than worlds like Ravenloft
doesn't seem like very much of a slight to me. Even though BR is my
favorite world and I wish they would publish more for it.

On a different note --

I've been thinking it might be interesting to have an e-mail or IRC
birthright game. If anyone is currently running or playing in one, or is
interested in starting one, let me know.

Laura

[Robert Harper]

At 01:05 AM 1/7/97 GMT, you wrote:
>Hey, all. :) This is my first post, but this discussion of multiple groups
>interacting interested me, so I thought I'd de-lurk for a bit.
>
>Jonathan, Matthew, et al. --
>
> I think that it would be really cool/interesting to have multiple PC
>groups operating in the same "reality," for one very important reason. It
>would make the "NPCs" more realistic. It's very difficult for a DM to look
>out for the interests of all the NPCs involved, especially if many of them
>are regents. If they are controlled by other players, however, they start
>to act more like real people than characters in a scenario.
>
>snip<
>On a different note --
>
> I've been thinking it might be interesting to have an e-mail or IRC
>birthright game. If anyone is currently running or playing in one, or is
>interested in starting one, let me know.
>
> Laura

I think there's at least one email BRight campaign going on, I wouldn't mind
joining another. I use the BRight rules to handle politics etc. in my own
campaign world - they work quite nicely, better than various other piecemeal
things that have come out.

I agree with a previous post that PC's in such a campaign would have to be
carefully managed to avoid a slaughterfest. The parallel between some
aspects of BRight bloodlines etc. and Highlander can leads some to a "there
can only be one" philosophy.

__________________________________________________ _________________
| |
| We ask ourselves if there is a God, how can this happen? |
| Better to ask, if there is a God, must it be sane? |
| |
| Lucien LaCroix |
|_________________________________________________ __________________|

[Jaanus Lillenberg]

hello once again..

> On TSR and its supposed lack of support for Birthright --
>
> I don't know how many of you are "in the know," but TSR is in SERIOUS
> financial doo-doo right now. As in, they just fired more than twenty
> employees as of December 20th. As far as I know, several months' worth of
> releases have been held up. Basically, what I'm saying is that this is NOT
> the time to pressure TSR -- in fact, we should try to be as supportive as
> possible, as fans of their games. I have no problem with a nice letter sent
> to Sean, requesting more support for birthright, and of course anyone is
> free to say whatever they want. THIS IS NOT A FLAME, AND I DON'T PRESUME
> THAT I CAN TELL ANY OF YOU WHAT TO DO. Take this as a suggestion, as a
> perspective, whatever you like -- but I doubt that there will be a very
> favorable response to posts which harshly criticise TSR, especially now.

As an unwritten rule of economics says:

A company thats financial situation goes downward will be much more
polite to its customers.

So be preprared for polite letters and followed terms and righttime
shippings (if you live over the sea).

Sorry for the little sarcasm :)

Sincerely Yours Jaanus Lillenberg
- ---
jaanusl@postimees.ee

[Ian Hoskins]

On 07-Jan-97, l.braslow@genie.com wrote:
- -> I think that it would be really cool/interesting to have multiple PC
- ->groups operating in the same "reality," for one very important reason. It
- ->would make the "NPCs" more realistic. It's very difficult for a DM to look
- ->out for the interests of all the NPCs involved, especially if many of them
- ->are regents. If they are controlled by other players, however, they start
- ->to act more like real people than characters in a scenario.

What I do is usually just decide on a plan of action for each of the NPC's,
and carry out this plan where it effect the PCs only, with everything else
having taken place off camera.
For instance, over the next few months of gametime, the regent of Medoere is
going to be off on a quest for his god (because he's been a naughty boy,
destroying sorces in his kingdom). So while this is going on the Head Priest
of the temple of Haelyn in Ilien is going to be very active, creating holdings
and constesting holding all over the place.

- -> I'm playing in a campaign where the PCs are scattered over a rather wide
- ->area, and none of us begin with any connections. It takes place in
- ->Brechtur, in the Rohrmarch area, and three of the four PCs are Wizards.
- ->Several also have guild holdings, and one is playing one of the rival
- ->Princes. None of us are really involved with each other, as of yet -- but
- ->we will be, once we start trying to build our power and our domains. Some
- ->of us might ally, but others might become enemies. Although this is a
- ->microcosm of what you're talking about, Jonathan, I think it would be just
- ->as interesting on a larger scale.

I started a campaign like that too, based in southern Anuire, currently I have
4 regents who are playing as well as several other blooded characters. Apart
from 2 of the regents, the rest decided to try to kill off everyone else, so
now I have the PC's devided into two camps, one side has the regent of
Medoere, & Roesone, as well as 2-3 other character. While the other side has a
priest and thief regent (also becoming an awnshieghlien). So things have got
rather interesting at the moment.
Adventures can be difficult to run if everyone is trying to kill each other,
so usually I have them all seeking the same prize, or run different adventures
for each group.
The campaign is actually working out quite well. The regent of Medoere is
going to find himself involved in a holy war with the priests of Haelyn if he
doesn't watch it. Roesone is about to be invaded by Ghoere, the thief regent
is about to become a Awnshieghlien and be hunted across the continent. By the
Gods I love being a DM


- --
Darkstar

hoss@satech.net.au
http://www.satech.net.au/~hoss/index.html

`Now weary traveller rest your head
because just like me you're totally dead.'

A.J. Rimmer Bsc Ssc

[Ian Hoskins]

On 07-Jan-97, Robert Harper wrote:

- ->I agree with a previous post that PC's in such a campaign would have to be
- ->carefully managed to avoid a slaughterfest. The parallel between some
- ->aspects of BRight bloodlines etc. and Highlander can leads some to a "there
- ->can only be one" philosophy.

Indeed, that was the problem I had in my campaign with everyone working
against each other, but I guess it depends of the players as to how it turns
out. But if your campaign does go that way it can be fixed with some careful
DM'ing.
- --
Darkstar

hoss@satech.net.au
http://www.satech.net.au/~hoss/index.html

`Now weary traveller rest your head
because just like me you're totally dead.'

A.J. Rimmer Bsc Ssc