CHARACTER RULES

[X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander)]

Huh, good point, forgot about temples having this in place.

Fair enough, I'd still argue that this leveling is a good thing. Temples hold all the cards: They have almost-equivalent spells, better holding types and automatic ley lines. Temple Holdings gives advantage to almost everything that matters to most rulers... I think that some of priest's advantages being handed out to others is a good thing.

But that might be a separate discussion. These rules definitely dole out some of the advantages that priests have to others. You were right there.

[Stjordvik Traders/SH (Tristan)]

Temple connections work differently to source connections though. For a temple to be connected I need to trace a physical line from the spell location to a temple of the level to cast the spell. You can't hop hostile territory with a ley line (like an arcane caster), you have to build a set of level 0 holdings accross it.

Temple holdings are easier for other (temple and non-temple) regents to oppose, they are vulnerable to pillaging, they require maintenance and they lead to all sorts of interactions with everyone because religion.

I like the idea that casting access would be dependant on both domain size and regent power.

I personally feel that the key to differentiating the arcane vs divine casting access is not in how they access spells but rather what those spells can do.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

I'm with Linde on this one, and I happen to disagree that the simplification is a good thing, I don't think things are anywhere near too complicated as they stand, and having the various class/domain types being as different as possible is a good thing - it adds flavour and it allows the various regents different advantages and disadvantages. By making a one-size-fits-all system, you effectively reduce the difference between the various caster types to their spell lists.

[Ohlaak (Alan)]

I'm curious RP - how does the domain caster rules detract from the focus? What they change is primary the dependence of caster domains on their regent... or is it that any domain can pick up a bit of casting by grabbing a few temple holdings?

Both. A caster domain SHOULD be entirely dependent on it's regent, it isn't a political entity, it's a wizard who controls the magical power of the earth itself - the entire thing should be completely personal. In fact, caster domains should not be inheritable, they should fall apart when the regent dies.  And if a non caster wants to get some spell ability, then either take another class or pick up a Lieutenant of the appropriate class, the assumption that merely owning temple or source holdings will grant one realm spells flies in the face of the very core concepts of both Birthright and D&D (and just about every other FRPG in existence.

Again it is the same old difference in play focus, to me the domain is an asset of the regent, while to many here it is the other way round, the regent is merely an asset of the domain. I think, quite strongly, that the second approach detracts enormously from the game as it minimizes the best aspect of the game - playing a regent. The regent, after all, is the whole focus of the Birthright game, the premise is that without a blooded regent, a domain is crippled - that hardly sounds like just another "asset" to me.

An integral part of ROE has always been that it is a game about domains primarily. Regent are a domains most important assets but they are still but a piece of the domain. This isn't going to change I suspect. So it doesn't seem like this hammering this difference is worthwhile.

In practice a character can't get a single level of a spell casting class and then cast spells. It usually requires an establish character who has a compelling and story to have learned realm magic. In Roe learning realm magic required a few feats and skill ranks, it wasn't something a undedicated character learned.  Additionally, it also required a domain trained to wield realm magic - it is easy to forget that realm magic is a domain activity.

[X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander)]

To be fair, that is a thematic change from the original game. It is hard to imagine High Mage Aelis as mysterious figure who goes years without human contact, when he has a couple hundred assistants he needs to clothe, feed and help him cast realm spells.

Personally, I like this new direction - it fits better with the general feel of the game and in practice this has been in place all through RoE 2 (dunno about RoE 1) as you really need a court rating to be an effective caster. I'm not sure I would call it a core concept, but it is a change compared to the original game.

As a general principle, I think the roleplaying elements (training, story reasons for being able to cast realm spells, etc) need to be reflected in the rules. Also, the D&D 3.5 system seems to be something we are moving away from, started by Bjørn with the "tiers" introduced for skill modifiers and continuing with this. A single level in this proposed system reflects several D&D levels... enough for a couple of feats and skill points.

Perhaps to gain access to Domain Caster Level, you need to spend a couple of actions, over a period of time? 2 actions, each in their own turn?

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

An integral part of ROE has always been that it is a game about domains primarily. Regent are a domains most important assets but they are still but a piece of the domain. This isn't going to change I suspect. So it doesn't seem like this hammering this difference is worthwhile.

Well in that case RoE has always taken the wrong approach, and these proposed rules take it even further down that wrong road. And as far as hammering the difference being worthwhile or not, well what the hell, it's not like we have anything else to do on here now is it.

Look, I know most of you seem to think this sort of thing is the right way to go, but I simply do not, I think it will ruin the game - at least it will for me. It will reduce the game to a mini/maxing number crunching exercise in rule playing with nothing to differentiate one realm from another - no thanks, if I want to do that I'll play Risk.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

it fits better with the general feel of the game

If that's the case, then RoE has pretty much nothing whatsoever to do with D&D or Birthright.

[Ohlaak (Alan)]

To be fair, that is a thematic change from the original game. It is hard to imagine High Mage Aelis as mysterious figure who goes years without human contact, when he has a couple hundred assistants he needs to clothe, feed and help him cast realm spells.

Personally, I like this new direction - it fits better with the general feel of the game and in practice this has been in place all through RoE 2 (dunno about RoE 1) as you really need a court rating to be an effective caster. I'm not sure I would call it a core concept, but it is a change compared to the original game.

It is not a thematic change at all. High Mage Aelies had a domain of people. In fact, his death and the integration of his domain in the greater Wardens domain is one of the reasons why the wield realm magic.  I will grant you that it may have appeared that way but under the surface, definitely not that case.  As the IHH, in RoE I and II, I inter acted with the domain along with HMA you'd have been surprised at the amount of angst in his domain with this clash between the new and the old.

[Ohlaak (Alan)]

An integral part of ROE has always been that it is a game about domains primarily. Regent are a domains most important assets but they are still but a piece of the domain. This isn't going to change I suspect. So it doesn't seem like this hammering this difference is worthwhile.

Well in that case RoE has always taken the wrong approach, and these proposed rules take it even further down that wrong road. And as far as hammering the difference being worthwhile or not, well what the hell, it's not like we have anything else to do on here now is it.

Look, I know most of you seem to think this sort of thing is the right way to go, but I simply do not, I think it will ruin the game - at least it will for me. It will reduce the game to a mini/maxing number crunching exercise in rule playing with nothing to differentiate one realm from another - no thanks, if I want to do that I'll play Risk.

It could perhaps, but given that there are a host of us who have played this game with this never being an issue. It crops up from time to time and those players simply don't last long in the game.  This pretty much goes back to: if it ain't broken, don't fix it.  RoE has survived multiple iterations, with consistent players and good, if not excellent RPing, a vast majority of the time - why does it require a change?

Once you actually play and see the ROE community in action, I think your perspective will at minimum be more informed and perhaps your critiques more appropriate.

[Ohlaak (Alan)]

Sorry Bob, that reads bitchy.  Not what I intended, apologies.

[X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander)]

It is not a change for RoE, no, but compared to the original Birthright rules it is a change, I think that's what Bob refers to.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

It crops up from time to time and those players simply don't last long in the game.

Hardly surprising, given as how that approach sucks.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

This pretty much goes back to: if it ain't broken, don't fix it.

But the approach you are taking, or more specifically the extent to which the proposed rules are tailored to that approach are broken.

I think your perspective will at minimum be more informed and perhaps your critiques more appropriate.

I doubt it, I have been running a tabletop campaign using the RoE rules for nearly 2 years now - I am confident that I a familiar with how it works, and over and above that, I know what makes for a good game, and ore importantly - what doesn't.

It's quite clear that the majority here are very uninterested in getting the most out of the game, oh well so be it, that doesn't affect my enjoyment of it, though if Brandon's proposed rules are adopted, then it's doubtful if I will bother wasting my time with the game.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

And don't sweat it Alan, I don't take things said online personally, it is far too easy to misread intention with only text, so I don't even bother trying - I just take what was written at face value without trying to impart any hidden meanings or intentions to them.

[X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander)]

There is a huge difference between a tabletop game and PbEM with 20 players. The medium, the context and so on change a lot. What I really miss - compared to "live" games - is the quick back-and-forth communication. Not saying that your experiences aren't valid, but applying them directly to PbEM play might not be easy.

Also, because you don't like an approach does not mean it's broken. The experiences Alan are referring to are PbEM experiences from many years of RoE. The regents as assets things is more his taste
We're getting close to a apples-and-oranges territory here.