Level of Rules for BirthRight?

Dungeons & Dragons The Royal Library
1

Alright - I’ve mentioned it 4 times now…time to put something worthwhile up here.

I’ve seen there’s a few entrenched opinions about how Birthright should be developed. With many great minds still poking around other places and off doing their own thing.

I’m writing this post to get some congruence going amongst the community.

There’s some friction with people & legimately we need to have at least two system of rules if birthright will survive our generation (collectively as gamers).

There is a trend to make the game very complicated and reasonable as it relates to people’s understanding of history. This trend makes sense from the position of established fans of birthright. This trend also fails completely in regards to gaining new players & crossover players.

The solution would be something similar to what they use in battletech (forgive me my lack of originality but I just spent over a year writing code to basically do a simplified version of birthright across an entire universe). Basically we acknowledge that Birthright needs to be simple to start, but eventually meet certain logical points for other players. Hopefully, this combined with other movements will prompt a boom in players.

To the outline…a vague system of rules open to change:

Level 1: Defined by being simple compared to birthright as we know it.

  • No spells that do not use a set cost per target(province/unit/character/item/entity) or set a generic cost.
  • Lay lines will be point A to point B (no varient rules on stringing or whatever)
  • No multi constraints…the rule of max province level is used. Balance is almost not a concern as players are just exploring the game
  • Contesting will be one time bid with defense of existing holdings getting second chance (new creations do not)

Level 2: Balance, basically tourney usage - for players that want to have fun, but are not satisfied by beginners level play

  • I have a list of spells that do not make sense & will have to be adjusted for their duration, cost, # targets relative to other similar domain spells
  • Armies varient rule will have to be standardized against the building speed rule & used as default
  • repairs during sieges will not be allowed
  • use of secret holdings possible
  • source holdings will be limited in casts per turns, the same way province level limits musters per turn

Level 3: Enthusiast, ratified variant rules- Anything else that people like, a best of in house

  • Population demographs
  • Social constraint systems like reputation
  • Normalized results to eliminate high/low oddities
  • Defensive mindset, like sieges allowing checks to block level loss of fortifications
  • Spells will be limited in # of targets by the holding levels, not by characters class levels

I left some of my notes at the ex’s house tonight - but wanted to throw this up before I start my next coding session…this would be a reclassification of existing rules and some tweaks. I could see myself finishing it off inside 2 months if it was the only thing I’m doing (not the case, besides it has to be something the community wants). I see this generically independant of edition. We can write it in scope of power scales or colors & then when next edition comes out just say, level 5 sorc spell is same as 2 psychic points or whatever they use as the next method of D&D.

2

I do think it’s a nice idea having several rules “levels” for different styles of play, but it’s quite a lot of work to get an agreement about those.

Also, about getting new players: BR needs visibility for that, I don’t think it’s related to rules. And also, we have to accept that even with more visibility the setting is not very popular in general (at least among the DnD players, it has been always a minor setting).

3

IMO, the 1st level of rules will help new DM but I’m not sure it will gather more players.

The visibility can be improved thanks to our wiki and our rules in pdf. Perhaps a sanctionned and finalized version of the rules could help.

I’m also wonder about the consequences of supporting multiple (or at least a second one) system of rules (not level of rules) like Warhammer rules or campaign setting.

4

A couple of major concepts I think you missed that need to be started at:

3 types of play:

(a) - Primary Domain level

(b) - Primary character level (basically adventurers)

(c) - mix of the 2 above.

There are a significant amount of people that play either primarily domain or primarily adventure level games.

Because of this it creates an inherent complication in any set of “simplified” rules being developed.

Start from one of the assumption above and then proceed down the path of simplification.

Also it is probably important to to note that there are also a significant amount of people that just take the domain/war level rules and import them to their own home-brewed game and remove any BR-setting specific ties.

5

I want to add another idea to improve visibility: Offer starting adventure packages that sit in a particular realm, contain adventure with each level of play (Comain/character) and a list of playable PC or PC ideas.

6

Am I correct in understanding that the current, unfinalized rules are for 3.0/3.5?

It will be very, very difficult to attract newer players using an older edition rule set. This is not about 3e or 4e being a BETTER rules set, it’s about meeting people where they are. I am currently running my Birthright game in 4e because that is the system my players know, and that is the system being supported by WotC.

7

I don’t see why it should be any more or less difficult to attract players to an unfamiliar and complicated setting, regardless of the rules used.

8

This is not the case for all. On 10 players, I know only one that like to play in 4e, whereas all are ok to play in 3.5 , pathfinder or 2e.
IMO, only mine, working on 4e is a waste of time. Actually, once you know well a system you can manage any problem or mistake done in the rule. Pathfinder is a good exemple. Paizo made few rules adjustement and correction and work more on scenario than on rules. Peharps it is the best ways : offer scenario

9

At 03:26 AM 8/7/2009, Vicente wrote:

>Also, about getting new players: BR needs visibility for that, I
>dont think its related to rules. And also, we have to accept that
>even with more visibility the setting is not very popular in general
>(at least among the DnD players, it has been always a minor setting).

To attract new folks to the setting, we definitely need
visibility. We also need a constant stream of new materials. To a
certain extent, these things feed off one another, but my point is
that the work folks have done is great. On the whole, if there were
efforts to put things into some sort of finished product format (they
dont actually have to be finished products, but in some form that looks like one) thatd make a difference too. People want something
that feels completed, even if it is version 9.2…

When I say new materials, though, I dont just mean extrapolations on existing stuff, or even conversions to new editions. I mean actual adventure hooks, new character classes, and things that people actually go out of their way to purchase out in the gaming world. Details on existing materials are good, but people want to see the plot move ahead. Maybe the Gorgon needs to die. Maybe the continent is invaded by a race from another continent. Maybe theres
another conflict with Azrai or his successor. Maybe bloodlines
suddenly vanish and players need to figure out what happened. Etc.

Those are the biggies, but there are a lot of little things too. For
instance, we cant charge for things, but people do seem to value materials that they have to pay for more. Maybe only downloads for those who sign up to an account on BR.net? Lately, Ive been more
and more conscious of when we old-timers dont play nice with the newbies, so that always gets my attention. (Ill readily plead
guilty to have made a few mistakes in that regard myself.)

Gary

10

Visibility is just a start … no one will stay around if the enemy can just keep abusing broken rules or priest’s buffs in army don’t last half as long or give as much power.

Even if we get 16 million players - no one will stay if the rules are broken.

The segmentation is almost just to help us develope rules … kguard’s “how war works” thread would have been completely different if everyone acknowledged that they are level 3 rules and don’t have to be simple or make sense from the standpoint of game design … as they are more geared towards appealing to aesthetic standpoint & we accept that it would be granular making one siege take several months to resolve.

The second purpose is uniform … which will help birthright make sense in terms of a game that people want to play (a theme if you will of the mechanics).

As to the crowd that takes what they like and uses it - that’s exactly what we want…more people playing. Maybe if the rest of the game makes sense after it’s balanced out - then they will play the vanilla version?

11

The 2e/3.x/4e debate can only be settled conclusively by ditching character stats entirely at the domain level.

Many people here have advocated making rulership skills and character details entirely dependent from normal D&D adventure statistics. That’s the only way to make a single version of the BR domain system (which is otherwise entirely independent from D&D adventuring rules, anyway) applicable to all versions. I’m all in favor of this.

I don’t think it is really possible to expand Birthright as it is, unfortunately. As long as Wizards holds the copyright and refuses to let us produce and sell product involving the story materials (the original published material or anything new), we will not be able to adequately reach new markets, increase visibility.

I agree that people value more what they purchase, but we can’t sell anything. That means that the only avenue we have open for appreciable expansion of the hobby through marketing/visibility is by producing all that material and paying for marketing, or donating marketing space and efforts on the web.

Creating and supporting an easy-to-learn free, online community game could work. With enough users, ad revenue could even sustain the hosting of it. But I don’t think this is possible unless you can automate the game to some degree. All the other successful free gaming communities that I know of have some level of automation. If we could set up living worlds where people would be able to submit turns and have them processed, that could suffice. That would limit roleplaying more than most PBEMs do, but it might attract more interest that could then get more into the roleplaying side.

Alternatively, we’d have to produce our own rulership game, abandoning the BR story (to which WotC controls the rights) to another setting. But that won’t work because what many of us love about this is the BR setting.

The last option for expanding the game would involve either buying the rights from WotC (likely prohibitively expensive–would they even entertain the thought if it were less than $10,000?), or trying to enter into some partnership with them whereby they earn royalties off of anything we sell, and we produce and sell things primarily with the goal of making enough money to pay web hosting and minor marketing fees to expand the hobby; no one will ever make any reasonable amount of money off of this, unfortunately.

So while I think it is an admirable cause to try to expand the BR community, I think it would be very difficult to do so, and I’m not sure we have the unity or energy or desire to do what is necessary yet. I don’t think rules are a major driver of new participation even if they are wonderful, so I don’t think we should approach rules under that illusion.

12

I definitively agree with this, the timeline of the setting needs to advance, that will help a lot making the setting more interesting and more lively. I don’t know what would be the best way to make the timeline move forward (and agree between ourselves), but it should be one of the first things to do.

13

What’s the purpose of advancing the timeline, specifically? That would have an impact on how you would do it.

Advancing the timeline will have no impact on attracting new players. The current timeline and disposition of things would be new to them, anyway, so the only way advancing the timeline might help for new players is if it was being done to effectively change the setting to something that we thought was more attractive to new players.

Advancing the timeline might encourage the current players, or draw old players back in. To do that, though, we would need to discuss and have some agreement about what most people would find exciting. It seems to me that a lot of people are rather happy with the default setting as a starting point anyway. I’ve seen people advance things a few years to create a fairly specific scenario for a new game they want to try out.

What I am cautioning against is change for the sake of change. Killing the Gorgon or bringing back Azrai or doing some other drastic thing may significantly change the flavor of the game, but for what purpose? We need to keep that purpose in mind, and not alienate existing players by destroying what they so love about the world.

WotC advanced storylines in Forgotten Realms to introduce new concepts and reinvigorate a setting with huge numbers of players, many of whom may have wandered away. But they also alienated a lot of people in doing so. Birthright never had that kind of a following. Birthright had less of a following than Dragonlance, and I think the rapid advancement of that storyline down dubious paths by the original authors of the world destroyed a lot of the charm of that setting. I hated what Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickmen did with their endless wars and cataclysms starting 30 years after the War of the Lance. The setting prior to the Chaos War had lots of beautiful flavor and I dearly loved it. The Chaos War, the Dragon Realms, and Takhisis’s prophet Mina and all that put Dragonlance through several major changes in flavor of the setting, as well as just strained credibility with me well past the breaking point.

I would hate to see us butcher Birthright, with a much smaller fan base, in the same way, when much of the reason that it is still played long after its commercial demise is because the flavor of the setting was well-loved.

14

At 03:34 PM 8/7/2009, Rowan wrote:

>WotC advanced storylines in Forgotten Realms to introduce new
>concepts and reinvigorate a setting with huge numbers of players,
>many of whom may have wandered away. But they also alienated a lot
>of people in doing so.

I don`t know that FR is the best example of how to go about advancing
a timeline… From what I can tell, people were wandering away from
FR before they advanced it.

Birthright never had that kind of a following. Birthright had less
of a following than Dragonlance, and I think the rapid advancement
of that storyline down dubious paths by the original authors of the
world destroyed a lot of the charm of that setting. I hated what
Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickmen did with their endless wars and
cataclysms starting 30 years after the War of the Lance [snip]

Personally, I dropped DL after the original Raistlin-godhood story
arc, because I rather felt I was done with the setting at that point,
so I dont have any opinion on the later materials. However, if BR has all the "problems" of the Dragonlance setting then we can mourn all the way into gaming immortality.... The problem is that BR never really even had that story arc. The story arc is setting background material. Its like a chessboard without any moves on it. Arguably,
the way one game plays out might “ruin” the setting for someone, but
thats the way franchises develop. Sooner or later, Captain Kirk must die, Vaders mask comes off or the castaways get off the
island. Unless the point is that there is no denouement (the coyote
never catches the roadrunner) then a setting in which nothing changes
is simply static. A good setting will continue on past such events
if its strong enough. Personally, I think BR has more than enough
material in it to survive the death of the Gorgon or an invasion by a
barbarian horde from across the sea.

Gary

15

[i]At 02:26 PM 8/7/2009, Vicente wrote:

>I heartfully agree with this, the timeline of the setting needs to advance, that will help a lot making the setting more interesting and more lively. I dont know what would be the best way to make the timeline move forward (and agree between ourselves), but it should be one of the first things to do. [/i] I appear to have some sort of Star Trek thing going on at the moment, so Ill make the following, rather awkward, comparison:

Apparently some Trek fans are upset about the events of the latest film. Im not a rabid ST fan, but Ive seen all the original episodes, all the NG, Enterprise and most of the episodes from the other spinoffs–but that`s mostly out of a sense of general geekdom rather than a particular fascination with the series. The fans who are upset, though, are bothered by the events of the movie because the diverge from the OS so much, and what was hyped as a “reboot” turns out to be something that has the potential to be season 8 of Dallas. At the start of season 9 one of the characters wakes up to find the whole last year was nothing but a bad dream. The next ST movie could easily cancel all the events of this one. For that matter, they might wipe out any number of things.

The thing is, alternate timelines are a core concept of the Star Trek universe. They appear in every series. They happen in the movies. They are major aspect of the settings action and events. Personally, I cant say I want to see another 10 ST movies based on an alternate timeline, but if theres anything to get annoyed about in the movie, the fact that its an alternative timeline just doesn`t seem to make a lot of sense to me.

Hows this relate to BR? Well, one of the things people dont really fully embrace about the setting is that it is absolutely RIFE with alternate materials. All the Players Secrets of X texts start out with alternate regents. The texts were intentionally written with a smattering of vagaries and optional events. The history is intentionally open to debate. Perspective is fit right into the setting material. Is the Cold Rider the servant of Azrai, the son of Azrai, a remnant of Azrai, or an Azrai-wannabee? The setting material doesnt tell us outright. Occasionally, one of these mysteries is solved. We found out in a supplement that the Magian is a member of The Lost. But even when such a mystery is solved, its not really a huge advance in our understanding of things. We know almost nothing about the Lost! The fact that hes a member of Azrais old posse is an interesting bit of character development, and might spark a few adventure hooks, but it doesnt really alter the conception of the setting.

So, I`d suggest that new materials be handled in a similar way. There is a concept in the old sci-fi RPG Traveller. We used to say “In my Traveller universe…” and then fill in the blank with some particular homebrew version of things. Later incarnations of Traveller has several timelines available that range from the demise of the vast interstellar empire to one where no such thing happened.

Nothing is hard and fast in BR. The materials contain suggestions about how to incorporate things, but they dont require DMs to do so. Thats always the case, of course, but BR didn`t just assume it, it embraced it. That should be the assumption when people come up with new materials for the setting.

Gary

16

I wasn’t suggesting FR was a model–unless it’s a model of what NOT to do :slight_smile: I was pointing out that that approach wouldn’t work for BR, and the reasons for it don’t seem to apply to BR. Neither was Dragonlance a good model.

o, I`d suggest that new materials be handled in a similar
way. There is a concept in the old sci-fi RPG Traveller. We used to
say “In my Traveller universe…” and then fill in the blank with
some particular homebrew version of things. Later incarnations of
Traveller has several timelines available that range from the demise
of the vast interstellar empire to one where no such thing happened.

That seems like a good approach for BR. I think it’s already being done (“in MY Birthright game…”). Perhaps we ought to institutionalize that approach more somehow. I’m not sure how Traveller does it.

Are you suggesting we provide a few alternate timelines or scenarios/storylines? That would be easier than agreeing on one, for sure.

17

I like the idea of multiple timelines. It allows people to conjecture about the various futures and gain substance by “wiki-magic”, without alienating people who would dislike a single future.

18

At 10:11 PM 8/7/2009, Rowan wrote:

>Are you suggesting we provide a few alternate timelines or
>scenarios/storylines? That would be easier than agreeing on one, for sure.

I think we should use the Player`s Secrets of… texts as a model for
new material, and maybe extend the concept a bit. That is,
everything should be presented with a timeline option as a way of
showing the DM/players a way of incorporating that material into
their campaign, but it should be understood that it is just one of
several ways of doing things. Other possibilities should be given
their own little descriptions.

BR does this kind of thing a lot. In addition to the PSo texts,
consider the “Playing a Birhtright Campaign” in the original
Rulebook, the recommendations for player and NPC realms in all the
Expansions, the lists of adventure hooks and hints. The texts
consistently present material as a set of possibilities or from a
particular perspective, meaning the DM can take that view and run
with it, or give it to the players as misleading.

Gary

19

In my research the other day I opened the latest version of the birMail program…their map must contain materials I’ve never seen as they have a continent basically 3-5 times bigger than just the boxed set’s map.

Granted all I have on hand is boxed set, blood enemies, sea/naval, herokings, maybe two others … but we don’t seem to be at a loss for grounds and the need of fleshing out from that perspective.

What you said about the time & energy thing hangs over me too…as we all gradually lose steam. My focus has to be on balancing out birthright.

Are we allowed to offer previous versions of editions as a historical type thing? With them axing all online stores (WoTC), I’d hate to have to get a name scrabbler ran (one of the final reasons I went with sql db project).

20

OT: I wouldn’t go completely away from class/D&D system, but I suggest … players choose one of their character classes/skillfocus whatever & that is their acting domain stat for collections etc. That way I can shoehorn the players in to my game without getting complicated. If I have too, all domain characters start out at level 1 & I’ll have exp system for domain actions to allow them to level a seperate entity from their normal character.

From there we deal in raw related bonus - loosely done & totally in the domain of DM Fiat. Pick any skills or whatever 7th Edition will call it & then that’s their bonus to completely domain actions if we need a syngergy/spell level etc.

I have no opposition to a new system independant of D&D adventuring stats based on 2nd/3rd/4th - just I have no time for it either.