Empires

Dungeons & Dragons MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
1

At 11:10 AM 7/1/97 +1000, Jeremy Scrimes(araqyl@spin.net.au)wrote:
>
>I LIKE the aspect of choice for DMs… The basic rules for ruling realms
>are there, and rules for expanding realms are there, and rules for vassals
>so that large realms aren’t sluggish giants are there - if the player can’t
>use those rules to create a realm that is “an empire” (which is usually a
>self-appointed title for a realm anyway!), then they don’t deserve one. And
>if the DM can’t use those rules to predict (and create appropriate)
>opposition to the player’s budding “empire”, then the DM should probably
>hand over control of this campaign to somebody who has the necessary skills
>to give the player(s) the finest role-playing experience of building an
>empire that is possible.
>

I have to agree with you. One of the many things I love about BR is the fact
I can speak to any BR DM and know that his game will be little like mine at
all. But we still have common ground and rules with which to compare our
experiences. Almost every other campaign setting has both its past and it
future written out for them by designers, and that bores me. I love creating
the entire experience with my PCs. Being able to weave our own intricate
plotlines without having to worry about bucking the “planned” vision of BR
makes it all that much better. Who, if anyone, will be the new Emperor is up
to the DM and Players. Not someone who will never sit at the gaming table
with you. Well thats my 2GBs.

Sepsis, richt@metrolink.net

“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://www.box.net.au/~hoss/birth.html

2

>At 11:10 AM 7/1/97 +1000, Jeremy Scrimes(araqyl@spin.net.au)wrote:

>>

>>I LIKE the aspect of choice for DMs… The basic rules for ruling
realms

>>are there, and rules for expanding realms are there, and rules for
vassals

>>so that large realms aren’t sluggish giants are there - if the player
can’t

>>use those rules to create a realm that is “an empire” (which is
usually a

>>self-appointed title for a realm anyway!), then they don’t deserve
one. And

>>if the DM can’t use those rules to predict (and create appropriate)

>>opposition to the player’s budding “empire”, then the DM should
probably

>>hand over control of this campaign to somebody who has the necessary
skills

>>to give the player(s) the finest role-playing experience of building
an

>>empire that is possible.

>>

>

>I have to agree with you. One of the many things I love about BR is
the fact

>I can speak to any BR DM and know that his game will be little like
mine at

>all. But we still have common ground and rules with which to compare
our

>experiences. Almost every other campaign setting has both its past and
it

>future written out for them by designers, and that bores me. I love
creating

>the entire experience with my PCs. Being able to weave our own
intricate

>plotlines without having to worry about bucking the “planned” vision
of BR

>makes it all that much better. Who, if anyone, will be the new Emperor
is up

>to the DM and Players. Not someone who will never sit at the gaming
table

>with you. Well thats my 2GBs.

>

>Sepsis, richt@metrolink.net

>

This makes no sense to me. . If you had your choice between a

Birthright which actively ignores, never adresses or even acknowledges
the question of a PC as emperor and one which does, in any way, you’d
pick the first one??? Why? Does it bug you that there are rules on
investiture? Domain actions?

My point, to which Jeremy was responding, was that the issue of a PC

as Emperor is so obvious, that it was foolish in the extreme for the
Birthright designers to ignore the question. How is
it possible that there are people who disagree with
this? If you dislike the idea of even adressing the question because
it somehow, mystically, takes away power from the GM, then why don’t
you disapprove of campaign settings altogether??

Matthew M. Colville. Armed only with wisdom

mcolville@earthlink.net The Shintao Monks fight against the
darkness…

Role-Playing and Fiction

http://home.earthlink.net/~mcolville

3

At 11:24 PM 7/1/97 -0700, Matthew Colville(mcolville@earthlink.net)wrote:
>
>This makes no sense to me. . If you had your choice between
>a Birthright which actively ignores, never adresses or even
>acknowledges the question of a PC as emperor and one which does,
>in any way, you’d pick the first one??? Why? Does it bug you that
>there are rules on investiture? Domain actions?
>
>My point, to which Jeremy was responding, was that the issue of a
>PC as Emperor is so obvious, that it was foolish in the extreme for
>the Birthright designers to ignore the question. How is it possible
>that there are people who disagree with this? If you dislike the idea
>of even adressing the question because it somehow, mystically, takes
>away power from the GM, then why don’t you disapprove of campaign
>settings altogether??
>

I’M not bothered at all by the various Regent and Domain Actions. They are
at the heart of a PCs attempt to forge thier own Empire. Thats the point I
was making. What I don’t like the idea of is a situation written in stone
like, “The Regent of Avanil will become Emperor within 10 years.” Most
likely I’d have to deal with all my Players wanting to be the destined
Emperor. The question of who will be the next Emperor is core to the
conflict within this setting, and the rise to that position is something I
feel should be determined by DMs and thier Players through actual play. Not
by following a series of predetermined events. I have no problem with
campaign settings, but that is what they are settings. The actual events
that take place once a campaign starts should not be ploted out by folks who
are not in your game. Again this has nothing to do with published
settings, adventures, or supplements in general. Only when they start
setting a narrow course that must be followed in order for your campaign to
remain consistant with a predetermined timeline, do I have a problem with
them. As I have said before, give me a well constructed arena to lead my
Players into, and we can handle the rest. I just don’t like someone else
saying, “Regardless of how good your Players role-play if they are not
Regent X they can’t become Emperor.” I’m perfectly fine with all the
clarification and mechanics that they want to give to better detail the
setting, and allow us to undertake our bids for the Iron Throne, I just
don’t want the future of my world’s history to be written out as a ‘these
events(or even just this event)will take place no matter what the PCs do’
sort of situation. Well I hope I cleared up my ealier statment. Thanks for
listening.

Sepsis, richt@metrolink.net

“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://www.box.net.au/~hoss/birth.html

4

At 09:22 AM 7/3/97 +1000, Jeremy Scrimes(araqyl@spin.net.au)wrote:
>

>
>Who knows? Maybe they planned a “High-level Realms” accessory for BR, and it
>just hasn’t surfaced yet?
>Also, I don’t think either myself or Sepsis mentioned that it takes power
>away from the DM - we just enjoy each campaign being clearly unique; as the
>players don’t have a ‘model Empire’ to copy, they have to be inventive and
>put their own creative energies into structuring an Empire that is uniquely
>THEIR Empire.
>

Again I have to agree with you. I think prehaps we were all getting our
lines crossed. I think we all agree that “who” will be Emperor must be left
up to individual DMs and Players. As for how they can run and maintain such
a huge political entity, there is room for clarification. I could go either
way on such a set of rules. Although it might be a bear to deal with such a
huge structure using the present BR Domain maintenence system, shouldn’t it
be? I don’t think ruling an Empire is an easy task and the present rules
would reflect this. But I would call for a way to dump most of the
‘paperwork’ into the PCs lap.

Sepsis, richt@metrolink.net

“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://www.box.net.au/~hoss/birth.html

5

> I just don’t like someone else
>saying, “Regardless of how good your Players role-play if they are not
>Regent X they can’t become Emperor.” I’m perfectly fine with all the
>clarification and mechanics that they want to give to better detail the
>setting, and allow us to undertake our bids for the Iron Throne, I just
>don’t want the future of my world’s history to be written out as a ‘these
>events(or even just this event)will take place no matter what the PCs do’
>sort of situation.

But who has ever even mentioned this?  Why not tell us you don't

like asparagus?

As far as I can remember, no-one has ever suggested that there

should be a rule governing who can become Emperor. I’m the only one on
this bandwagon right now, and all I want is the subject of Emperor covered.
Mentioned. Spoken of. I want a section in the rulebook that says “So you
want to be Emperor,” and then give guidlines and rules as to how that
happens, and what happens if you succeed. How does this harm the system?
In fact, how is this not incredibly beneficial??

Matthew M. Colville. Armed only with wisdom
mcolville@earthlink.net The Shintao Monks fight against the darkness…
Role-Playing and Fiction
http://home.earthlink.net/~mcolville

6

On Fri, 4 Jul 1997, Matthew M. Colville wrote:

>> I just don’t like someone else
>>saying, “Regardless of how good your Players role-play if they are not
>>Regent X they can’t become Emperor.” I’m perfectly fine with all the
>>clarification and mechanics that they want to give to better detail the
>>setting, and allow us to undertake our bids for the Iron Throne, I just
>>don’t want the future of my world’s history to be written out as a 'these
>>events(or even just this event).
>
> I want a section in the rulebook that says “So you
> want to be Emperor,” and then give guidlines and rules as to how that
> happens, and what happens if you succeed. How does this harm the system?
> In fact, how is this not incredibly benefial??

Looks like you are both saying the same thing. I agree with both
of you. Although the thing that troubles me the most about these
discutions, is that most of them assume that anuire, having done
it in the past, is the one who is going to have an empire. If
there are ever rules on extensive vassaillage of the Empire type
and which specific seremonies other than a seremony of investiture
have to be made for an Empire, I’d like them to also apply to the
other races of Cerelia. Who knows, someone somewhere has probably
figured out a reason why the elves would go out of their forests
and conker the humans, though limiting the bloodshed and keeping
their respect for life and nature enforced with the power of an
empire???

Greg.

7

At 10:44 AM 7/4/97 -0700, Matthew Colville(mcolville@earthlink.net)wrote:
>
> But who has ever even mentioned this? Why not tell us you don’t
>like asparagus?
>
> As far as I can remember, no-one has ever suggested that there
>should be a rule governing who can become Emperor. I’m the only one on
>this bandwagon right now, and all I want is the subject of Emperor covered.
>Mentioned. Spoken of. I want a section in the rulebook that says “So you
>want to be Emperor,” and then give guidlines and rules as to how that
>happens, and what happens if you succeed. How does this harm the system?
>In fact, how is this not incredibly beneficial??
>

I must apologize. As I said in my follow up Post to the one you quoted I see
now that I did misunderstand you. I thought you were calling for an official
determination of who will become Emperor. I was wrong. My confusion came
from not seeing a need for additional rules surroung running an Empire when
the rules for ruling a Kingdom already existed. Although through our
discussion I have come to agree with you. I would be interested in seeing
any mechanics specific to running an Empire that TSR would put out. But
failing this maybe a member of the list should take a crack at it, and
submit it to the Netbook.

Sepsis, richt@metrolink.net

“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://www.box.net.au/~hoss/birth.html

8

> Although the thing that troubles me the most about these
> discutions, is that most of them assume that anuire, having done
> it in the past, is the one who is going to have an empire. If
> there are ever rules on extensive vassaillage of the Empire type
> and which specific seremonies other than a seremony of investiture
> have to be made for an Empire, I’d like them to also apply to the
> other races of Cerelia. Who knows, someone somewhere has probably
> figured out a reason why the elves would go out of their forests
> and conker the humans, though limiting the bloodshed and keeping
> their respect for life and nature enforced with the power of an
> empire???

I find it hard to imagine a non-Anuirean empire. It simply doesn’t fit
into other races’ cultures to accept the almighty power of a single
individual. Who could, for instance, imagine a Rjurik or Brecht empire?
Well, not me. You can probably rule out the Vos too, as they may find it
very hard to unite being as loosely organized as they are. The khinasi
might have a chance, though, although I find their devotions to magic a
bit odd as a base for an empire like Anuire’s.

But then again, anything might happen. As DM you have a strong say of
what is fair and possible in your campaign.

Morten.

9

>> Although the thing that troubles me the most about these
>> discutions, is that most of them assume that anuire, having done
>> it in the past, is the one who is going to have an empire. If
>> there are ever rules on extensive vassaillage of the Empire type
>> and which specific seremonies other than a seremony of investiture
>> have to be made for an Empire, I’d like them to also apply to the
>> other races of Cerelia. Who knows, someone somewhere has probably
>> figured out a reason why the elves would go out of their forests
>> and conker the humans, though limiting the bloodshed and keeping
>> their respect for life and nature enforced with the power of an
>> empire???
>
>I find it hard to imagine a non-Anuirean empire. It simply doesn’t fit
>into other races’ cultures to accept the almighty power of a single
>individual. Who could, for instance, imagine a Rjurik or Brecht empire?
>Well, not me. You can probably rule out the Vos too, as they may find it
>very hard to unite being as loosely organized as they are. The khinasi
>might have a chance, though, although I find their devotions to magic a
>bit odd as a base for an empire like Anuire’s.
>
Ahm - I think that last sentence makes the point the first poster was
referring to…
The Khinasi would probably come up with an Empire completely different to
Anuire’s, based not so much on superiority of arms (although it could have
that!) as on better communication or prediction of problems through magic-use.
Some world leader once said that knowledge was power… and the use of magic
would (hopefully!) grant greater (or earlier) knowledge of possible threats
to a budding Empire…

>But then again, anything might happen. As DM you have a strong say of
>what is fair and possible in your campaign.
>
cheer :}

See ya,
Jeremy Scrimes
araqyl@spin.net.au
aka: Jes, Bolt, Araqyl, Jeremiah, Jeremy Hinoski.