Core Materials design philosophy

Dungeons & Dragons BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
1

> As for Cerilian gnomes, well, they -could- be added, -if- (and only if) there is consensus to revive them as a race as originally envisioned by Rich Baker. I dont think most people are interested in that, however, because its not true to the original Birthright.

Why not?! What could possibly be gained in leaving that material out?
What? Will the setting be “more pure” without these undesireable races
within the sacred core book?

If its in the core materials and people dont want in the campaign, they
wont allow it. Simple, direct. These people can still play their game. If people want it in their campaign, and its not in the book, what happens
then? What good is a game book if you purposefully leave out material
needed to play the game? All that`s really doing is making sure people play
their games the way you want it played.

Beyond space/time limitations, I can see no reason for purposefully
excluding game materials. To extend the argument to ludicrous proportions:
If I want to play a game with non-blooded adventurers, I am not extremely
hindered by the inclusion of bloodline rules within the rulebook. However,
if I wanted to play a game wherin PCs had these blood abilities and those
rules were purposefully left out to accomodate non-blooded adventuring
campaigns, that would be fairly annoying.

Personally, I hate that everytime I say "Lets generate characters", soemone in my gaming group takes out the DMG and wants to play a damn minotaur. Im
thinking my first adventure is going to be about establishing a trade route
between Roesone up through Ghoere, and my foolheardy patato-chip-munching
players are trying to create characters that will eventually become a
Minotaur Monk, a dwarven Paladin of Moridin with his flying warhorse, an
elven ShadowDancer/Assassin/ArcaneArcher, and a Khinasi wizard with wands of
fireballs and scrolls of magic missiles. And of course, they all want
Healing as a blood ability.

Nevertheless, despite the aggrevation, I`m glad those options are there. I
like the idea that I can have a minotaur PC in my game, or that I can have
Minotaur Monks running around as NPCs. It just means I have to go down the
list each time: This campaign will not have gnomes, gnolls, minotaurs,
tieflings, half-dragon/half-vampire medusa rogue/assassins, etc.

More options are better. Thats purely it. And if these options can be worked out within the core materials, to be as balanced and compatible with all the core materials as possible, thats a much better improvement than
saying, “Well, if you`re going to run your own custom game, go ahead and
makeup your own custom rules then. So there.”

Now, there is still the space/time limitations. Ive tried to say "core materials" rather than "core book", because I dont believe there should be
only one core book. Indeed, theres not reason why every chapter shouldnt
have a corresponding core supplement. Saying you want to exclude Gnolls
because you dont want it in the main core rulebook is an argument Ill
accept long before Ill accept "because its not true to the original
Birthright".

Personally, I`d like core materials to be modular rather than comprehensive,
with a section at the end of each chapter giving guidelines on why the
particular game mechanics of that chapter were included, some ideas that
were tossed out, and recommendations for some house rules. This whole
section could also be the introduction to official supplements that would
expand on these chapters. Personally, I think a book on “Races and Cultures
of Cerelia” that was specifically divided into two parts: one on setting
source material and the other part on game mechanics that expend the
race/culture chapter would be a very desireable approach.

More options are better. And if someone wants Minotaur Monks in their game
because theres a particular niche/story of Cerelia that theyre trying to
play out, I dont think its fair for the core materials or their writers to say, "Youre not being true to the original Birthright."

I argue that the entirety of any given system should not be agreed on when
making the core materials. Take bloodlines for an example. We can agree on
a fairly simple ability-score based bloodline system for the core books.
But a supplemental expansion I`d like to see in a book focussed purely on
bloodlines and blood abilities, would be a variety of alternate ways to
determine and use bloodlines and blood abilities in the Birthright game. A
checklist could be provided at the end of each book describing all the new
blood abiltiies, bloodline generation rules, bloodtheft mechanics,
blood-feats (for those of you into that kind of thing), and such. Then the
DM just has to go down the checklist and say, “This Southern Coast
Trade-based campaign will be using this… this… not that… this…”

We could even have a list of campaign models. For example, War-Themed,
Intrigue-Themed, Bloodline-Themed, Shadow-World-Themed,
Unite-The-Empire-Themed, Survive-Winter-Themed campaigns can all have
recommended pre-generated checklists that could easily be modified and
customized.

I strayed a bit. My point was more options are better. Include the gnoll.
But I`m not going to allow it in my game. As it is, in my game, PCs all
have to belong to the same family – same race, same bloodline, etc.

-Lord Rahvin

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.

2

>>>>>Why not?! What could possibly be gained in leaving that material out? What? Will the setting be “more pure” without these undesirable races within the sacred core book? >>>>>

A system should be inclusionary, but it is detrimental to a setting. Example: maybe I want to play a cyborg T-1000 terminator in BR - after all there are d20 rules for them? Why don`t we throw those in the main rulebook also?

In converting a setting from XX to 3E the main goal (IMO) is to preserve the setting, not standard D&D. Star Wars, Wheel of Time, Judge Dread, Ever Quest and on and on have demonstrated that the setting is paramount, not the ability to use all the magic weapons from the DMG or the MM. The attitude of everything and the kitchen sink steals the very thing from Birthright that keeps people playing it after several years of being oop.

Birthright is a setting that has a specific flavor, say like Coke. Other colas are out there and people like those well enough, but mixing Coke, Pepsi, Dr Pepper and RC into one bottle will not please anyone. They are all basically made from the same things, but by freely mixing them we have disturbed the subtle balance of ingredients of each separate product and turned them into one great big homogenous glass of blllaaaghhh.

Why can`t I play a Jedi in the Star Trek campaign? Because it does not belong. Pretty simple answer.

Eosin the Red

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.

3

Originally posted by Eosin the Red
A system should be inclusionary, but it is detrimental to a setting. Example: maybe I want to play a cyborg T-1000 terminator in BR - after all there are d20 rules for them? Why don`t we throw those in the main rulebook also?

Now you’re just being silly. There’s a vast difference between the inclusion of things in the core D&D game and the inclusion of non-D&D material.


In converting a setting from XX to 3E the main goal (IMO) is to preserve the setting, not standard D&D. Star Wars, Wheel of Time, Judge Dread, Ever Quest and on and on have demonstrated that the setting is paramount, not the ability to use all the magic weapons from the DMG or the MM. The attitude of everything and the kitchen sink steals the very thing from Birthright that keeps people playing it after several years of being oop.

Star Wars is not a D&D campaign setting. Wheel of Time is not a D&D campaign setting. Judge Dredd is not a D&D campaign setting. EverQuest is not a D&D campaign setting.

Birthright is a D&D campaign setting. Birthright should not rewrite the core mechanics of the game. It may choose not to include certain magical items, spells, and monsters, but it should not take core classes and mechanics, then change them. And honestly, most of the mechanic revisions have been of extremely poor quality, without any sort of balance.


Birthright is a setting that has a specific flavor, say like Coke. Other colas are out there and people like those well enough, but mixing Coke, Pepsi, Dr Pepper and RC into one bottle will not please anyone. They are all basically made from the same things, but by freely mixing them we have disturbed the subtle balance of ingredients of each separate product and turned them into one great big homogenous glass of blllaaaghhh.

Yes, but there is a difference between preserving the flavor of a game by not adding certain things, and allowing the game to stagnate by not coming up with new material. The BRCS should not just be a rewrite of 2nd edition with 3rd edition rules. It should be a complete update, allowing for new rules, further development of the setting, and most definitely a progressive timeline.

The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting changed the way a lot of things were done in 2nd edition, and it is so much better for it.


Why can`t I play a Jedi in the Star Trek campaign? Because it does not belong. Pretty simple answer.

Actually, the real answer to that question is “The GM said no.” You could play a goddamn tarrasque Jedi, piloting the Defiant through the Delta Quadrant if your GM allowed you to.

I think that everyone needs to realize that 2nd edition is DEAD and any holdovers from its days are DEAD as well. Every single game mechanic needs to be completely overhauled and reevaluated, without a thought for how 2nd edition did it. If 2nd edition handled the system so well, then it wouldn’t have died.

4

> What? Will the setting be “more pure” without these undesireable races
> within the sacred core book?
>
> If its in the core materials and people dont want in the campaign, they
> won`t allow it. Simple, direct. These people can still play their game.

If people want it in their campaign, and its not in the book, what happens > then? What good is a game book if you purposefully leave out material > needed to play the game? All thats really doing is making sure people play
their games the way you want it played.

My understanding of this project was that it was supposed to be a
conversion…not a revision. There are no gnomes as PCs in Birthright.
The original books are very specific about this. The reasoning is
somewhat vague, however, it is one of those things that makes this setting
a bit different. There are no psionics either…same reasoning.

If you want to have gnomes and psionics (or any of the other things that
arent "supposed" to be there) in your game..go ahead.. The basic rules are in the PHB for playing one. The team cant really come up with the
conversion for you, as there isn`t anything to convert, so you are kind of
on your own on this.

If the point was to redesign the setting, there is a ton of things to
change..as you mentioned, should they include stats for PC minotaurs? How
about titans? Beholders? Ive been a DM for 20 years, and have been asked to allow about every monser variety in the books as a PC.. I dont
think the “core” rules are the place for these varients. Convert the
original rules as well as possible, and additional info can be distributed
in an additional “suppliment”

Sean

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.

5

>>>>>Birthright is a D&D campaign setting.

No, D&D is a setting called Greyhawk. d20 is a game system used in all of the mentioned settings, including D&D & BR. However, you were correct when you said SW, WoT, JD, etc… were not D&D settings, they are not. They are d20 settings.

>>>> I think that everyone needs to realize that 2nd edition is DEAD and any holdovers from its days are DEAD as well. Every single game mechanic needs to be completely overhauled and reevaluated, without a thought for how 2nd edition did it. If 2nd edition handled the system so well, then it wouldn`t have died.

Won`t be a problem, never played 2e. I am fairly new to BR.

Eosin the Red

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.

6

----- Original Message -----
From: “Mourn” <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 7:32 PM

> I think that everyone needs to realize that 2nd edition is DEAD
> and any holdovers from its days are DEAD as well. Every single
> game mechanic needs to be completely overhauled and reevaluated,
> without a thought for how 2nd edition did it. If 2nd edition handled
> the system so well, then it wouldn`t have died.

The body be cold, but the spirit lives on for many on this forum. I detect
a serious attempt by the BRCS team to remain true to that spirit, and to
focus on the new mechanics. Setting material, like the frequency or
availablilty of non-standard races as PC`s is pretty well set out in the
material. The one exception I notice is the goblin, which has a pretty wide
acceptance as a viable class (under the right circumstances) among many
here.

What dies has less to do with its quality than it does with its popularity,
marketing, the health of the publisher, and the philosophy of the publisher
to proliferate or retrench the number of settings.

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.

7

Originally posted by Eosin the Red
No, D&D is a setting called Greyhawk. d20 is a game system used in all of the mentioned settings, including D&D & BR. However, you were correct when you said SW, WoT, JD, etc… were not D&D settings, they are not. They are d20 settings.

Since you’re new, you obviously don’t know the history of things. Birthright was a campaign setting developed for the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition game. This was years before 3rd Edition D&D, which is the core system of the d20 System. Birthright is a D&D campaign setting, which is why it is still owned by Wizards of the Coast.

Won`t be a problem, never played 2e. I am fairly new to BR.

Good. Then that does not apply to you.

8

Originally posted by kgauck
The body be cold, but the spirit lives on for many on this forum. I detect
a serious attempt by the BRCS team to remain true to that spirit, and to
focus on the new mechanics. Setting material, like the frequency or
availablilty of non-standard races as PC`s is pretty well set out in the
material. The one exception I notice is the goblin, which has a pretty wide
acceptance as a viable class (under the right circumstances) among many
here.

That’s not what I’m disputing. Without the spirit and fervor of the people on this forum, this would never have come to be. Remaining true to the spirit of Birthright is essential, but there has to be new growth.

What dies has less to do with its quality than it does with its popularity,
marketing, the health of the publisher, and the philosophy of the publisher
to proliferate or retrench the number of settings.

Poorly written material does not sell. Gamers always say they would pay money for a cheap, crappy copy of some long abandoned campaign setting, but in truth, they wouldn’t. When a publisher begins to steadily put out lousy material, just as TSR did toward the end of its life, it loses its popularity. The 3rd Edition core books have been out for about 3 years now, and have already outsold the 2nd Edition core books. Quality has a direct bearing on popularity.

9

> Mourn wrote:
>

Originally posted by Eosin the Red
> No, D&D is a setting called Greyhawk. d20 is a game system used in all of
the mentioned settings, including D&D & BR. However, you were correct when
you said SW, WoT, JD, etc… were not D&D settings, they are not. They are
d20 settings.
>

>
> Since youre new, you obviously dont know the history of things.
Birthright was a campaign setting developed for the Advanced Dungeons &
Dragons 2nd Edition game. This was years before 3rd Edition D&D, which is
the core system of the d20 System. Birthright is a D&D campaign setting,
which is why it is still owned by Wizards of the Coast.

New does not equal stupid. Maybe we should define a few things, since I
obviously do not know your history of things. New to BR, does not equal new
to D&D, 3E, or d20 - it means new to BR. You seem to like to change what I
say?

2nd edition = all campaigns were D&D campaigns, except for Amazing Engine,
Alternity, and Dark Matter, possibly others that I do not know about.

D&D = Greyhawk, the default setting. That is what the book called the
players handbook details. Nothing more, nothing less. It uses an engine
called the d20 system.

SRD = core of d20 system, not the PHB.

WotC ownership = not automatically D&D. They also own several settings that
you rightfully pointed out were not D&D but wrongfully included some that
were like BR or FR. If ownership is the only criteria to be D&D then SW,
WoT, Diablo, and Call of Cthulu would all be D&D settings. They aren`t.

Birthright = an AD&D setting or a setting that is being adapted to the d20
system with strong influence from 3E (meaning core Wizards products -
including FR materials and splatt books).

Now, back to flavor and setting. RPG settings need not include everything to
be good. Often times the opposite is true, by trying to please everyone, you
ensure that no one is happy with the product. I already included the coke +
pepsi + Dp + RC example, so refer to it. Someone, somewhere has to draw a
line that says -“these things are not in the spirit of BR.” You might
consider a minotaur ok but not a Terminator. I might like Demons and Angels
in BR. We all have things that we add or subtract to the setting to make it
our setting but the public setting was defined long ago in a series of RPG
supplements. The BR team can include what they personally like to see in
their home games or what they think would be cool to see or they can try to
update the rules from second edition and leave the setting alone. Including
everything that is in the players handbook, DMG, & MM diminishes the
setting - they had to pick and choose based on precedent. I think they did a
good job in their stated objective for the core book.

They (or others) have said that other books are possible and some of those
might explore humanoid characters (like Gnomes). The objection raised is why
include things that were never in BR within the core book, to my
understanding your reply is cause it is in GH or the FR? I can and do change
things to make them more like the game I want to play but I do not tell
everyone that they should use Chromatic Dragons, Bahamut and Tiamat just
because I like them and they are part of the core setting. Let BR be itself
and not a pale shadow of GH or FR. I can buy supplements to those worlds if
I want, BR.net is where I get BR material.

Eosin

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.

10

At 07:29 AM 3/8/2003 +0100, Mourn wrote:

>

[b]Originally posted by kgauck
>The body be cold, but the spirit lives on for many on this forum. I detect
>a serious attempt by the BRCS team to remain true to that spirit, and to
>focus on the new mechanics. Setting material, like the frequency or
>availablilty of non-standard races as PC`s is pretty well set out in the

material. The one exception I notice is the goblin, which has a pretty wide
acceptance as a viable class (under the right circumstances) among many
here.[/b]

Thats not what Im disputing. Without the spirit and fervor of the
people on this forum, this would never have come to be. Remaining true to
the spirit of Birthright is essential, but there has to be new growth.

I think the dispute is that some folks seem to think that growth should
take the form of any and every template or character class available in 3e
as opposed to templates and character classes different from those in the
core D&D books that are developed particularly for BR. Emulating every
aspect (particularly the goofier and more pointless ones) of 3e is not the
way to go. It is, in fact, at best the illusion of growth. At best it is
just emulation, but I think it would be more aptly described as
dissolution. Many of the same things that are 3e templates or character
classes were available in 2e and were expressly excluded from the campaign
setting when it was devised. Putting them into an update because a new
edition of the core rules has come out misses the point in excluding them
in the first place, which is that they do not conform to the themes
expressed by the setting.

That, of course, does not mean that someone cant include whatever they want in their homebrew. The argument that every possibility of the core materials should be included in the setting material in order to make it a third edition product (which if youll notice the BRCS document is not–it
says “D20” right there on the cover) completely misses the point in
devising setting material that is different from the core settings in the
first place. One can bring in material from other sources certainly if one
wants, but including so much of that stuff in the setting material not only
is an amazingly good example of redundancy but a superfluous one at that.

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.

11

At 02:32 AM 3/8/2003 +0100, Mourn wrote:

>There`s a vast difference between the inclusion of things in the core D&D

game and the inclusion of non-D&D material.

Actually, the standard that was suggested was that NO gaming material
should be excluded in a core text. D&D stuff was not the guideline. Even
if it were the guideline, though… why should it be? I mean, if one wants
to play a psionic half-dragon gnome monk in Cerilia then why not a
T2000? The T2000 you could at least justify by making it an awnsheghlien…

No one (as has been claimed by Lord Rahvin) is trying to force people to
play in one way or another. If someone wanted to play Cerilian gnomes or a
T2000 theres nothing stopping you. To be frank, very few people in the BR community seem to be so non-ego formed as gamers that something as innocuous as the BRCS update is going to actually dictate to them how they are going to game, so even if that were the intent of the authors its
pretty futile, and not something to get all that worked up over.

Star Wars is not a D&D campaign setting. Wheel of Time is not a D&D
campaign setting. Judge Dredd is not a D&D campaign setting. EverQuest is
not a D&D campaign setting. Birthright is a D&D campaign setting.
Birthright should not rewrite the core mechanics of the game. It may
choose not to include certain magical items, spells, and monsters, but it
should not take core classes and mechanics, then change them.

I dont think BR is a D&D setting. It came out when 2e was the rules set, but since 3e/D20 came out theres little need for it to conform to D&D, and
on the cover of the conversion it says D20 not 3e. Id argue that the inclusion of bloodlines and blood abilities alone makes it different enough from 3e that it qualifies as D20. BRs system of magic and bloodline is as
different from standard D&D as that of the WoT.

Im curious, though, is there really much point in playing in Cerilia using so many of the 3e monsters, races and concepts that are, for the most part, from Forgotten Realms? Seriously, why play Birthright if thats the case?

And honestly, most of the mechanic revisions have been of extremely poor
quality, without any sort of balance.

Are there any particular examples you`re thinking of here? Most of the D20
products listed strike me as being much more carefully balanced than 3e is.

>


>Birthright is a setting that has a specific flavor, say like Coke. Other
>colas are out there and people like those well enough, but mixing Coke,
>Pepsi, Dr Pepper and RC into one bottle will not please anyone. They are
>all basically made from the same things, but by freely mixing them we have
>disturbed the subtle balance of ingredients of each separate product and
>turned them into one great big homogenous glass of blllaaaghhh.
>

>
>Yes, but there is a difference between preserving the flavor of a game by
>not adding certain things, and allowing the game to stagnate by not coming
>up with new material. The BRCS should not just be a rewrite of 2nd edition
>with 3rd edition rules. It should be a complete update, allowing for new
>rules, further development of the setting, and most definitely a
>progressive timeline.

None of those things (a complete update with new rules, further development
of the setting and a progressive timeline) would particularly be furthered
by the inclusion of races that didn`t exist in the original materials.

The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting changed the way a lot of things were
done in 2nd edition, and it is so much better for it.

:slight_smile: Ill just disagree with you on that. I find Forgotten Realms... well, lets just say gnomes are fine for that setting.

I think that everyone needs to realize that 2nd edition is DEAD and any
holdovers from its days are DEAD as well.

Many aspects of 3e are themselves holdovers from 2e. A list of them would
be too long for the listserver to handle.

Every single game mechanic needs to be completely overhauled and
reevaluated, without a thought for how 2nd edition did it. If 2nd edition
handled the system so well, then it wouldn`t have died.

The thing I think being confused here is that no one is saying the 2e RULES
should be preserved in BR. Throw them out in favor of newer, more
carefully and intelligently composed rules. One should, however, maintain
the SETTING. Gnomes, as a racial template, aren`t part of the BR
setting. What races will be included are part of the setting material are
the ones that were presented in the original materials, even though
additional races were available even back in the hoary old days of 2e.

A while back I described 3e as “Forgotten Realms D20” and a couple of
people asked me for more of an explanation of that–which I never got
around to, Im afraid. Fortunately, most of this thread could be used to exemplify the problem. Like the little green circles nested among the red ones that form the numeral "6" in a test for color blindness you either see it or you dont. It may be impossible to explain what the difference is
between the green dots and the red ones to a person who doesnt see them. The effects of FR on 3e may be similarly impossible to describe since so much of it depends on having the requisite POV. Most of the folks with whom Ive discussed this issue have found it pretty self-evident, but it
appears the opposite perspective is equally obvious to others. In any case,
the thing to keep in mind is that the more a conversion looks like
Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk the less it will look like Birthright.

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.

12

Originally posted by geeman
Actually, the standard that was suggested was that NO gaming material
should be excluded in a core text. D&D stuff was not the guideline. Even
if it were the guideline, though… why should it be? I mean, if one wants
to play a psionic half-dragon gnome monk in Cerilia then why not a
T2000? The T2000 you could at least justify by making it an awnsheghlien…

So you could justify a construct created from technology unavailable in the setting, but not justify a psionic half-dragon gnome monk that has been brought here from FR?

Nice.

BR`s system of magic and bloodline is as different from standard D&D as that of the WoT.

Birthright uses the same exact Vancian-style fire-and-forget magic system that D&D does. It has levels 0-9. It has divine and arcane magic. It has the same schools of magic. It uses the same mechanics. The only thing different is the inclusion of bloodline.

Are there any particular examples you`re thinking of here? Most of the D20
products listed strike me as being much more carefully balanced than 3e is.

Bloodline. A system using two methods of “measuring” your bloodline strength, one of which has no bearing on the other, and vice versa. I could have a bloodline of 45, but be considered a scion of a minor bloodline, while my friend could have a bloodline of 15, but be considered the scion of a major bloodline. What is the point of having the score if it has no bearing on the strength of the bloodline?

Races. The elves are a bit overpowered with their Nature Stride and their favored class, but can be fixed up easily. Halflings need some adjusting, as they gain three 1st-level spell-like abilities AT WILL on top of the PHB halfling traits.

:slight_smile: Ill just disagree with you on that. I find Forgotten Realms... well, lets just say gnomes are fine for that setting.

You think 2nd Edition FR was better than 3rd Edition FR? I find the new books infinitely better in layout, writing, mechanics and art.

The thing I think being confused here is that no one is saying the 2e RULES
should be preserved in BR. Throw them out in favor of newer, more
carefully and intelligently composed rules. One should, however, maintain
the SETTING. Gnomes, as a racial template, aren`t part of the BR
setting. What races will be included are part of the setting material are
the ones that were presented in the original materials, even though
additional races were available even back in the hoary old days of 2e.

Agreed, except for the gnomes… but that’s just me.

A while back I described 3e as “Forgotten Realms D20” and a couple of
people asked me for more of an explanation of that–which I never got
around to, Im afraid. Fortunately, most of this thread could be used to exemplify the problem. Like the little green circles nested among the red ones that form the numeral "6" in a test for color blindness you either see it or you dont. It may be impossible to explain what the difference is
between the green dots and the red ones to a person who doesnt see them. The effects of FR on 3e may be similarly impossible to describe since so much of it depends on having the requisite POV. Most of the folks with whom Ive discussed this issue have found it pretty self-evident, but it
appears the opposite perspective is equally obvious to others. In any case,
the thing to keep in mind is that the more a conversion looks like
Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk the less it will look like Birthright.

Well, Forgotten Realms has influenced D&D the most because it is the most popular campaign setting for the game.

13

----- Original Message -----
From: “Gary” <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 1:51 AM

> In any case, the thing to keep in mind is that the more a conversion
> looks like Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk the less it will look like
> Birthright.

FR does look like a foreign country. Some things are instantly familiar.
Feats like Silver Palm or Woodsman fit right into a Brecht or Rjurik list of
feats. Much more strikes the Cerilain visitor as strange and exotic. Many
on this forum (Ive adopted the word forum as a nod to both those who read the list and the boards without drawing attention to either) have different visions of Cerilia, but in general I can see what they have emphasized or drawn out of the same setting I am using. It doesnt look foriegn, but more
like a different neighborhood of the same city. Different yes, but familiar
as well.

Aside from a common body of shared knowledge ( we all know that Roesone is
not a dragon, that Avanil is not a pirate ship, and that Masela is not king
of the planetouched drow monks) we mostly have a reasonably similar sense of
the setting. Discussions of the setting itself is where there is the
greatest intersubjectivity (at least apparently). Mechanics questons
involve more unspoken assumptions than do setting discussions, and talk
about other influences is full of conflicting subjective misinterpretations.
Whatever a new BRCS produces in its final form needs to retain that familar
sense that we all share as a standard from which we all immediatly begin to
depart as we cook up our campaigns homestyle.

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.

14

----- Original Message -----
From: “Mourn” <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 2:56 AM

> Well, Forgotten Realms has influenced D&D the most because it is
> the most popular campaign setting for the game.

Hence the desire among some to assert that BR is not D&D, but d20. Some
wish to flee FR like the creeping Shadow of Azrai, others just want to keep
them seperate. A fairly broad consensus of posters consider its sporting to
disrespect FR.

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.

15

> So you could justify a construct created from technology unavailable in
the setting, but not justify a psionic half-dragon gnome monk that has been
brought here from FR?
>
> Nice.

I believe the point was that the concept was more possible in this setting
than the Psionic/Monk Half Dragon/Gnome.

In place of liquid metal and computer chips you could have the curse of an
ancient dead god flowing in your veins causing your body to warp and change
into new never before seen forms.

>

BR`s system of magic and bloodline is as different from standard
D&D as that of the WoT.

Birthright uses the same exact Vancian-style fire-and-forget magic system
that D&D does. It has levels 0-9. It has divine and arcane magic. It has the
same schools of magic. It uses the same mechanics. The only thing different
is the inclusion of bloodline.

Not so. In this world humans can not tap the magical power of the world and
are limited in that they can only cast 0-9 in Divination and Illusion (I
believe, been awhile since I read over the Magician). Now elves on the
other hand do not have this draw back. They have a bond with the world and
they can tap the force unaided. Now certain humans whose ancestors marched
to war against the army of evil 1,500 years ago and lived through the death
of every major human god can now tap the full potential of the magical force
of the world. This is because their ancestors where imbued with the energy
of slain gods and where elevated to a semidivine level.

Blooded Priests and Wizards can also cast realm magic which is not in
standard D&D.

Seems that the mechanics are slightly different than the run of the mill
D&D.

You think 2nd Edition FR was better than 3rd Edition FR? I find the new
books infinitely better in layout, writing, mechanics and art.

I think that FRs just needs to be nuked and wiped off the face of Role Playing. The setting is a horrid hodge podge of crap. There are uber level characters on every corner, demigods walking the city streets (and also teleporting to modern day earth to eat ice cream and chat before bed.) The 2e was the lesser of two evils. I dont even want to get started on that
new Portals all over Faerun BS.

The only thing good about 3e FR is the eyecandy. The books are very
pleasing to look at. (Well at first glance any ways.)

Agreed, except for the gnomes… but that`s just me.

Gnomes are not a part of BR. They never where apart of the campaign. They
where an early idea thrown out during the initial brainstorming that occured
when the product was first being designed. They got axed and where not
included in the products.

I remember Rich (I believe, its been a few years) talking about another idea
that never saw the light of print. There was gonna be an hierl to the roele
line with a true bloodline over in one of the former colonies across the sea
of storms. That NPC was gonna be a plot arch in that he/she would return to
anuire to claim the throne and be the thorn in the side of the PCs. That
was never published. It got the axe. Should we include that also? Many
ideas are kicked around during intial brain storming. That doesn`t make
them the gospel of the campaign.

> Well, Forgotten Realms has influenced D&D the most because it is the most
popular campaign setting for the game.

Just because the FR BS sells, does not mean every campaign world should
follow its outline. If ever world had every possible combination and option
like Faerun then what is the point of playing in something besides Faerun?
Birthright is a restrictive unique campaign setting and it should remain
that way. I only play/DM in two published campaign settings Dark Sun and
Birthright. Both are alien and different from the FR experience, but that
difference is why I enjoy them.

-Anakin Miller

"What was sundered, shall be remade.
What was stolen, shall be avenged. "

  • Engraved on the Crown of Diemed

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.

16

For the people who are proponents of including races that did not exist in the original Birthright setting:

The object of this is a conversion of the existing rules set, not to re-write the campaign setting into a brand new creature.

If we cannot stay true to the visions and intent of the original authors of the setting, then what in Azrai’s name are we doing here? We have no right to change the look and feel of the campaign.

If some people cannot see this, then maybe they shuld wait until everything is done here, borrow from every source they want to and create their own campaign setting, because it certainly won’t be BR as envisioned by the original authors.

-Mike Dowd

17

[b]Originally posted by Athos69

   For the people who are proponents of including races that did not exist in the original Birthright setting:

The object of this is a conversion of the existing rules set, not to re-write the campaign setting into a brand new creature.

If we cannot stay true to the visions and intent of the original authors of the setting, then what in Azrai’s name are we doing here? We have no right to change the look and feel of the campaign.

If some people cannot see this, then maybe they shuld wait until everything is done here, borrow from every source they want to and create their own campaign setting, because it certainly won’t be BR as envisioned by the original authors.

-Mike Dowd[/b]

I agree!

18

At 09:56 AM 3/8/2003 +0100, Mourn wrote:

>So you could justify a construct created from technology unavailable in
>the setting, but not justify a psionic half-dragon gnome monk that has
>been brought here from FR?

The original statement was that one could justify the T2000 by making in an
awnsheghlien, which is part of the BR setting. A psionic half-dragon gnome
monk as an awnsheghlien I suppose would be equally viable (perhaps he could
be called The Lizard Thing) and in keeping with the themes of the
setting. Including such character templates in a main document (without
going the bloodtrait route) would not be.

>

[b]BR`s system of magic and bloodline is as different from standard

D&D as that of the WoT.[/b]

Birthright uses the same exact Vancian-style fire-and-forget magic system
that D&D does. It has levels 0-9. It has divine and arcane magic. It has
the same schools of magic. It uses the same mechanics. The only thing
different is the inclusion of bloodline.

First of all, I dont think one can discount that difference as insignificant. The inclusion of bloodline changes many aspects of the base character classes in ways I wont list since Im sure everyone is familiar. It also creates a new character class. If you take a look at the differences between 1e and 2e youll see fewer changes in the system
than the difference between 2e and BR. That`s enough to differentiate the
setting from X edition, and make it a D20 product.

However, if youll note that I didnt say “spellcasting” I said the “system
of magic and bloodline” which is a broader subject area than the manner in
which spells are cast in D&D. In addition to the changes to character
classes created by bloodline theres the influence of BRs magic system on
the number of magic items available in the campaign world, and how those
items are created. In the original 2e BR the system for creating magic
items (using the high-level Permanency spell) precluded their creation by
the majority of arcane spellcasters, which was factored into many aspects
of the setting. In D&D if I said that magic dominates any aspect of the
game I would not be overstating the case. That was the case in 2e as well
in 3e. Yet magic did not dominate the game in BR. The way magic item
creation works in 3e, however, can and does change that, to the detriment
of one of the core themes (“magic items are rare”) of the setting.

All that is at the adventure/character level. You also have to consider
the magic system of the campaign as a whole, and when you do there is a
whole new scale of magic in BR using sources and realm magic that is
unrepresented in any other campaign world. All told the magic system of BR
has significant differences from 3e.

>

[b]:slight_smile: I`ll just disagree with you on that. I find Forgotten

Realms… well, let`s just say gnomes are fine for that setting.[/b]

>
>You think 2nd Edition FR was better than 3rd Edition FR? I find the new
>books infinitely better in layout, writing, mechanics and art.

I generally try not to bash a product, but since you asked, no, I dont think 2e FR was better than 3e FR. I think their both cruddy. I suppose theres a variable rate of cruddiness that should be taken into
consideration–but its substantially less than infinite. On the Richtor scale of crud where 2e FR was a sustained, city-levelling 8.0 that leaves one shivering and moaning "Why, why, why?", 3e FR is maybe a 6.5. For the sake of decorum Ill not say what I think the F in FR really stands
for… but the R is “ridiculous.” :wink:

>Well, Forgotten Realms has influenced D&D the most because it is the most
>popular campaign setting for the game.

No argument there. The question, though, is whether or not that means BR
should emulate FR. My opinion is that at most an update of the BR setting
should emulate 3e FR about as much as 2e BR did 2e FR. It wold make more
sense for it to be even more different from that setting now, though,
because part of the nature of the 3e rules is that they are more versatile,
so why emulate an existing campaign setting?

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.

19

>>>>>Birthright uses the same exact Vancian-style fire-and-forget magic
system that D&D does. It has levels 0-9. It has divine and arcane magic. It
has the same schools of magic. It uses the same mechanics. The only thing
different is the inclusion of bloodline.

Funny, 1st and 2nd Ed AD&D meet those same criteria, does that mean that
they are also D&D (d20 Fantasy)? I would say that WoT is closer to D&D (d20
Fantasy) than 1st Edition but that may just be me. You have put forth
several critera but they all seem to say that you want BR to be GH & FR. You
indicate that you want advancement BUT only into 3E (GH & FR) products,
dismissing prety much everything else as “not D&D.” If that is not your
position, please clarify. It seems like several folks have come to the same
conclusion.

For the record - I did not indicate a Terminator as an Awns - though it does
sound like one in the Blood Enemies source book. The point was that you
“could” put anything into BR if you wanted. I used an extreme example to
illustrate that at some point a line needs to be drawn and the best-most
agreeable place for that is “what was included in the previous supplements.”
Homegames can include the Psionic/Monk/1/2
Gnome/1/2Dragon/celestial/Terminator if they want - but people need not pimp
their home game preferences onto the setting. The game does need to grow but
not through dilution.

Eosin

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.

20

[b]Originally posted by geeman

:slight_smile: Ill just disagree with you on that. I find Forgotten Realms... well, lets just say gnomes are fine for that setting.[/b]

Why everybody hates gnomes? They are sweet little creatures with a little bit toooooo big noses… There is nothing to hate about them.