|
Are you a fan of the political shenanigans involved in claiming the Iron Throne?
Are you intrigued by a setting where dragons are historical fact but now presumed to be extinct?
Would you love to be part of a game where you lead a powerful family against its rivals?
I'm not talking about anything by GRRM... this isn't A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones.. but the old AD&D setting: Birthright!
In Birthright you play the heads of powerful factions: Kingdoms, Churches, Thieves' Guilds, etc. It's a game much less about the usual concerns involving adventurers but moreso about, well, a game of thrones :)
I've run two Birthright campaigns in the past; I think that PbP would actually be a brilliant format to revisit the game for a third go.
If you're interested in participating in a PbP Birthright game here, let me know your thoughts about:
What edition you prefer.. it's written for 2nd/AD&D and WOTC never supported it once they took over, but it's got fairly significant fan support. An entire 3rd edition conversion has been fan-written, and that can in turn be used to adapt the game for Pathfinder. And there's always 5th edition D&D as well, which I keep hearing great things about.
What part of Cerilia you'd like the game to be set: Both campaigns I've run were set in southern Anuire.. It'd be neat to see different parts of Cerilia that don't quite resemble Westeros so much, but then again I don't mind going for the trifecta, either.
I'm interested. My preference is for pathfinder, since I like those rules the most. But I remember playing this back in the day and it was loads of fun. So, are you planning a game like Game of Thrones with more intrigue and politics, or will this be more traditional go, get a kingdom and kill things a la Kingmaker? Both are fun, just different types of fun.
Give me 5E or give me death
Well, not to rain on Scranford's parade, but I would prefer Pathfinder :D
I have never played the game before but it sounds awesome. I love intrigue style games based around Political actions.
Interested. Desperately interested. I have loved BR for as long as there has been a BR.
To answer the questions:
I would be most interested in the 3e/d20 conversion of BR. I'm not super-familiar with them (I think I read the file more than a decade ago.) but I remember the rules looking pretty good. I'm entirely ignorant of 5e, though if the group inclines that way I would go about remedying it. I could do 2e, but I'm really rusty and no longer very fond of it. I would also be up for something like using Pathfinder for everything except the BR-specific rules if that's easier to wrangle.
So far as sections of Cerilia go, I'm pretty flexible. Even just within Anuire one can get a lot of different flavor, but there's a lot of appealing diversity outside of it too. My preferences in descending order:
Tie between Khinasi (mainly the Docandragh and Island States) and Anuire (most interested in the southern and western coasts and heartlands between, but open to anywhere)
Brechtur (generally prefer the Basin States, but intrigued by Drachenward).
Rjurik Highlands (no internal preference)
Vosgaard (ditto, also always felt like there wasn't much room for PC realms)
And I have questions :)
1) Would players run existing domains? (I imagine yes, but you never know and there is space on the map to carve out new ones.)
2) Would we have the option of playing BR-canon regents? I remember some of the old domain sourcebooks cast the player as the regent from the books, but others went the other way and had you be the heir who had just inherited. Don't have anybody in mind here, just curious.
3) Would traditional adventuring also be involved, or mostly domain action?
4) Would all the PCs be regents? If so would you be looking for a more coordinated sort where we have complimentary/aligned domains or something more anarchic? I like both options about equally well, assuming we could manage the latter without hard feelings.
5) Would you be open to potential awnsheghlien/ersheghlien PCs? Again no specific ideas, just getting a feel for the concept space.
6) Assuming we're not playing extant NPCs or their similarly-blooded heirs, would our bloodlines and abilities have to be random or would we have some ability to pick, assuming we're not playing extant NPCs?
7) Would we be working in a fairly fragmented setting that suits sort of how the books were published (very little to no interaction between realms of different culture groups) or something more integrated as the contents of the books themselves sometimes suggest? Obviously this only matters much if we're near to a cultural border. :)
|
|
Birthright vs Kingmaker:
I'll admit I've never looked into Kingmaker. I suppose I always assumed it was Paizo's ripoff/homage to Birthright.. At any rate I can't speak in an informed manner as to what the difference would be.
I intend to run a sandbox.. you do what you want to do. I do anticipate leaning more towards the intrigue/diplomacy angle of things as players do so rarely decide to go adventuring together in a birthright campaign.. so any adventures that do occur are going to have to be short and sweet.. especially so for the PbP format.
Existing domains vs created ones:
Undecided. For my own sake just handing out the pregen domains is easiest, however I am toying around with an Anuirean campaign set about a generation after the canonical presentaion.. one where Anuire has re-gelled into two or three powerful archduchies vying for final domination and the Iron Throne, and the players are all vassals in the same one.
Either way, I plan on the domain process being handled on my end. Possibly to include assigning bloodline strength values as well, rather than letting the dice muck things up. ;)
Regents vs "Small Folk"
I plan on everyone being a regent.. in a game of Archbishops and Kings, those PCs simply have too much power relative the adventuring cleric or fighter. Their power is to vote with their feet and GTFO to a nicer place.. which isn't a great option for party dynamics.
Races allowed
That's a potential issue. Birthright is a much more human-dominated setting than most D&D worlds. The typical Pathfinder racial freakshow isn't appropriate here. I'm not sure exactly how I'd handle it, but I do certainly want most if not all characters human. (and I'm reserving elves as campaign antagonists, if we do Anuire ;)
PC creation & Bloodlines
I don't plan on anyone playing an extant NPC, but I am leaning towards extant domains (potentially modified somewhat for party balance, especially if I do the altered Anuire setting I'm contemplating). If you end up the regent of the Barony of Roesone, for example, your PC is not Marlae Roesone but her heir that you create. She's dead or retired now; such specifics will be determined during character generation.
Rolling is part of the fun, but having bloodlines (or attribute scores) of varying relative strength among the players is not fun. At least not in my opinion. I plan on allowing rolling for derivation and specific powers, but I plan on assigning actual bloodine strength scores.
Level of teamwork?
I plan on leaving that completely up to the players... encouraging them to work together however by the occasional menace that threatens everyone.
I'll put in extremely tentative interest for this if done in Pathfinder.
I would heavily suggest checking out the kingdom building rules for Pathfinder. It would allow you to have an effective party of high-end leaders without having to have a half-dozen players who are all kings or queens. Or you can still do as much with ease. The Kingmaker AP itself is a good jump-off point if you do go with a non-established realm just in terms exploration and the basic idea of "why?"
It sounds like you're thinking less Kingmaker. I run a kingmaker game, and, at first blush it seems like Pathfinder's answer to Birthright, since you're establishing a nation and then ruling it. But, Kingmaker focuses more on exploration and building a nation from literal scratch (you're claiming it form untamed wilderness settler-style), and doesn't deal with intrigue between other nations in the area. I'd use the Birthright rules for domain building. Kingmaker is very detailed: you decide who fills what governmental roles, where roads are, and all other infrastructure and administrative details, instead of deciding actions and then rolling. It's less detailed, but it encourages more intrigue and maneuvering instead of book-keeping. I like both systems though and would be fine with either.
Both Kingmaker and Birthright would have smaller short and sweet encounters. So, if we did adventure, you could hit us a bit harder because you could assume we'd be coming in to things at full health.
All that said, I'd LOVE to jump in on this.
I like all the places equally. I'm currently toying with a sort of Arya Stark or Jaqen H'gar. He's an assassin for hire and wants to build an assassins guild. He could be a halfling because the Shadow Realm is so much fun. But, a human could work easily well, too. Or, a druid or other naturey type who wants to build a barbarian realm (like Conan) could be super fun, too. I could see playing some kind of warrior who wants to create an order of knights to protect the rule of the realm. Of course, it could also be fun to play a pope.
As for where? Hmm.. I like all the places. Anuire, Brecht, and Khinasi have loads of potential, but I also like the brutality of the Highlands or Vosgaard. All but Khinasi have great anti-elf potential.
How do you plan to handle magic?
Good question since the original BR predates spontaneous casters and anything other than classic 2nd AD&D includes it (I assume 5e still has it).
Interested. Not sure I can play but definitely interested. I have an application for dickie's game right now, but this sounds fun. I've never even heard of Birthright but you did a good job selling it. My preference be Pathfinder.
I can say for sure that deusvult certainly knows the material well.
Just to expand based on my limited exposure, the regents are your classic medieval rulers who have been bestowed the right to rule by divine fiat, and divine blood. They receive a special power from their heritage. Sometimes that blood is tainted, which is where the major threats are often generated from (you know, when not coming from rival kingdoms). Using the Mythic Rules might not be a horrible idea, either, duesvult, or possibly modified as bloodline powers for PCs and aberrations.
Non-blooded could be Magicians which had access to a few schools (illusion, divination, and Enchanment) and all schools up to like 3rd level if i remember correctly.
But, since he wants to all be blooded, there really wouldn't be a need to worry about that part. Although, allowed classes would be up for debate. Although, since we'd all be blooded, that could also remove barriers to what classes allow what spells. There'd be more of a question about which classes coincide with which domains.
Big fan of the kingdom-building side of Kingmaker, but honestly I've found those rules more fun than the actual campaigns. I'm in a social combat-focused game right now where everyone started as a 12th-level nobleman with unfathomable wealth, and so far it's gone quite well, especially for a high-level PF game (though nobody's actually *fought* anything yet).
Partial casters really shine in a game like that, though—the immense number of skills given to Bards/Inquisitors/Investigators/Hunters winds up being potentailly more useful than full casting.
|
|
Birthright vs Kingmaker, part II
Birthright is generally more about being the Nth regent of an existing realm that's potentially a thousand years old rather than carving a new one from scratch. However, there are parts of the continent that are sparsely inhabited/developed and if the game is set in those kinds of places, then kingdom building can become a bigger focus of the game.
Mythic and Ultimate Campaign
Birthright already has a complete rules set on running a realm. While one could use Mythic and UC to recreate a Birthright style campaign, I don't see any reason to reinvent the wheel.
That being said, like any good GM I consider myself open to shamelessly stealing from good sources. I'd consider those to be potentially on the table at this point in the interest check.
Magic
As Dragonofashandflame mentioned, "full" arcane magic is only possible by elf blood or the divine energy of a bloodline. Since I plan for everyone to be the latter (even if noone is the former) Cerilia's unique arcane magic rules should be a non-issue. Realm Magic is going to be much more relevant to the campaign anyway than the "run of the mill" arcane/divine magic common to D&D games.
I don't plan on adapting the setting-specific Magician class; any NPC arcane types will just have levels in Adept, only level-dipped in Wizard/Sorcerer, or simply be blooded scions without a domain of their own. (and thus potentially able to go snatching at unclaimed resources..)
The only arcane magic consideration that's leaping immediately to mind is that Summoners are not thematically appropriate to the setting. Speaking of:
Classes
Dragonsofashandflame also identified a potential issue that's particularly applicible to Pathfinder: what classes will be allowed. Birthright was created before multiclassing was what it is now, and the 3rd edition fan conversion didn't properly address it to my satisfaction. What classes can apply divine power to what sorts of domain actions is a big deal in Birthright, and as is there's little disincentive to level dip in all the classes you need to do everything. I'll be coming up with something.
Pathfinder poses a particular challenge: that's a system that is all about providing options and lots of them. But Cerilia isn't the cosmopolitan "we have everything!" setting that Golarion is; lots of things in Pathfinder will have to be banned for a Birthright game. I'm not sure if it'd be shorter to make an "allowed" list or a "banned" list.
Cerilia basically has the following cultures:
England/France (Anuire)
Celts/Scandinavians (Rjurik)
Dutch/Germans (Brechtur)
Moors/Arabia (Khinasi)
Turkics/Rus (Vos)
If some "thing" isn't appropriate to that culture, it shouldn't be there. By the setting rules, Anuireans can't be Druids and and Rjuriks can't be Paladins, for example. I'm not sure if I want to keep that sort of 2nd edition mindset or not. What do you think?
At any rate, I like Gunslingers and Oriental stuff but those are all utterly foreign to the setting. There won't be any of that, sorry :(
Classes, continued:
In a birthright campaign, much of the game balance that goes into the classes designed for conventional adventuring is thrown out of whack. Skills and social abilities are far more valuable than normal, as thunderbeard noted in a similar campaign. Another consideration is that in a Birthright campaign your domain is pretty much a surrogate character.. the ins and outs of the thing you rule is often more important than your character sheet. The divine bloodright linking your character to the realm pretty much does make the realm an extension of your character.. often the more important part when the regent isn't adventuring.
For classes, youc ould run along themes, and then weed out the stuff that just doesn't feel right for the area. Or, you could go core only. That also works.
Huh... England and France were where all of the druids CAME from, though. Weird.
It might make sense to put limitations on flavor—a Bard being referred to as a "Skald" in Scandinavian culture, and a Skald being referred to as a "Bard" in French culture.
You could also restrict each culture to an alignment, and do it that way. Druids are a neutral class, and wouldn't make sense in a highly lawful or chaotic society. Skalds and Barbarians are chaotic; Paladins and Monks are lawful. Anything else could just come down to reflavoring.
Also—if one of the cultures is Turkic, I would recommend using the Samurai alternate class, since Samurai arms and tactics more strongly resemble those found in historical steppe cultures (even in Europe) than those of Western knightly traditions.
The Druidic culture is heavily ingrained in most Celtic countries so yes France would have had a lot of Druids, as would Scotland and Ireland.
I have both AD&D birthright rule book and the 3.0 edition fanmade one, just never got someone to play this with.
This would be awesome. I would prefer 2E or 5E if I were going to get in on it!
This is awesome. I actually started the first Birthright PBEM on AOL Online way back when with the help of Ed Stark, who gave us an early version of the Book of Magecraft.
It didnt last long but it was pretty fun and many PBEM games started after that.
I am definitely interested. This kinds of games always lead to fun and interesting player interactions. I am up for using any of the systems, but pathfinder is preffered.
I am interested, but only if 5E. It seem to be fitting for such a throwback.
|
I would also be interested, but again only in a 5e campaign. I believe there is even a conversion out there for 5e...but I would have to check again! It would be great for the players to take the roles of some of the major players in the game, controlling the Law, or Trade, Religion or Magic in a realm. Played a number of game and have most of the books too!!
Yarr. I've played birthright several times in 2e and have played and GMed variants of the 3e conversion.
I have some interest depending on the type of campaign envisioned and the rules set used.
Any d20 system 3.5, Pathfinder, even 5e would be fine by me.
I've gotten some what sick of Southern Anuire by now and would be much more interested in something like Khinasi or Brechtur.
desulvult: let me know if you want a link to the site I ran my last BR game from in 2011, it's got my own slightly modified 3.5 BR rules set there in case you want to take a look.
I'll be interested in this if it is 3.5/Pathfinder. And really hoping PoW might be allowed, and that we don't start at level 1!
i am interested