AEG Empire, how is it?

[Silveras]

Your notes on how you adapted Empires looked darn good...

Already bought MMS, and got the complimentary MMCity as well. Guess I'll have to take the time to read 'em.

Can't wait until I have the money to buy about another $300 or so of stuff...

Hmmm... the notes in that thread were just that: notes. About how I might alter Empire if I were to use it. Sadly, I am between games at the moment. I am tempted to just sit down and write my own, drawing on the OGC framework of AMMS:WE and Empire; however, I already have a considerable investment in modifying the Birthright rules to be less Cerilia-specific.

I would recommend looking at MMS, especially since it does talk about small benefices of a manor or two as a starting point (more than an adventuring group, less than a kingdom). What is missing there, though, is how to juggle the party members into suitable roles on the manors. It is conceivable that a party with both a Druid and a Cleric, for example, would find them at odds over the religious practices of peasants on a manor controlled by "the party". Likewise, there is nothing (IIRC) other than flavor text for making the party Cleric the official chaplain of the manor(s) (and the RP benefit that his/her superiors might be happy).

In that sense, MMS's historical focus may work against it. Because historical domains did not include "real" arcane spellcasters or divine spellcasters with the style of D&D Clerics, there is nothing in the mechanics to differentiate domains where such are the rulers. A Fighter gets exactly the same benefits from being the ruler as does the Rogue, the Cleric, the Sorcerer, etc., and can do exactly the same things.

 

[jasamcarl]

1) I certainly have no reason to think it will be better.
2) A bird in the hand is better than almost-vaporware in the bush.



By all accounts?

I heard a lot of people raving about Empire (among them, Chris Aylott). You have a strange definition of "all accounts."

That said, it's up on the top of my review queue right now. Still digesting it, but so far I gotta say: the scale system, while a good idea, needs better defined. If this is going to represent the results of war in the game world, I need to know what a "city" or a "castle" represents (and it is obvious that given that population units and damage units represent different things at different scales, that cities and castles do too.)

Despite this, I have no reason to think Fields of Blood will be better. I am hearing the ad copy say things like "a complete wargame", which makes me very leery. I want a system that supports my game; when that stops being the goal, it is bound to serve less well in that capacity (instert painful flashback to the supposed "mass combat" system in the Minis Hanbook here.)

By 'all accounts' i'm referring to the fact that, after reading both good and bad judgements of the books and putting them into context, the political-scale mechanics seem sloppy. Some examples can be found in this thread actually. It seems that beyond the initial 'wow' factor, those who have actually dug into the rules have come back to say that they are not particularly good. This doesn't cover the entire book, mind you, just kingdom-managment, which is the only point of comparison with Fields of Blood.

Now, going on from there, there really are no decent, comprehensive set of crunchy kingdom-managment rules on the market today, so its rational for me to place my hopes in the product whose avowed goal is to do provide such rules. Something is better than nothing. It may very well suck, but it has no real competition in what it does.

 

[jgbrowning]

Hmmm... the notes in that thread were just that: notes. About how I might alter Empire if I were to use it. Sadly, I am between games at the moment. I am tempted to just sit down and write my own, drawing on the OGC framework of AMMS:WE and Empire; however, I already have a considerable investment in modifying the Birthright rules to be less Cerilia-specific.

I would recommend looking at MMS, especially since it does talk about small benefices of a manor or two as a starting point (more than an adventuring group, less than a kingdom). What is missing there, though, is how to juggle the party members into suitable roles on the manors. It is conceivable that a party with both a Druid and a Cleric, for example, would find them at odds over the religious practices of peasants on a manor controlled by "the party". Likewise, there is nothing (IIRC) other than flavor text for making the party Cleric the official chaplain of the manor(s) (and the RP benefit that his/her superiors might be happy).

Glad you like it. I'll add my $0.02 in here...... It is conceivable that there would be some characters at odds with each other in the above situation. I think that's more of an issue for the DM and his PCs to work out however. It's also very individual and campaign specific. There's no rules for the chaplain because those rules would need to descend from your campaign's choice of god, more than they would be from simple landowership.

In that sense, MMS's historical focus may work against it. Because historical domains did not include "real" arcane spellcasters or divine spellcasters with the style of D&D Clerics, there is nothing in the mechanics to differentiate domains where such are the rulers. A Fighter gets exactly the same benefits from being the ruler as does the Rogue, the Cleric, the Sorcerer, etc., and can do exactly the same things.

Yep. That's actually what we were trying to show. The lord of a manor/benefice has the same abilities/responsibilities from that ownership regardless of character class. We only did this after some thought, however, as i think it seems more "D&D natural" to assume that a manor ruled by a cleric would have to be different than a manor ruled by a fighter.

We think class is a game mechanic that's supposed to support role-playing. If you want a cleric to have different responsibilities/benefits of being a landowner those responsibilities are based upon your role-playing choice. We thought about making them different but realized that the differences would be solely based upon the campaign setting and we didn't want to go there. What would be considered appropriate differences in one campaign wouldn't work in another.

There was very little difference in the day to day between a religious landholder and a secular landholder historically anyway so we thought to stick more with the historical. In the end, these differences seem to us to be more a matter of setting than class. It also seems a bit more meta-game thinking than we usually engage in. Why would you think a cleric would have different benefits from owning land than a fighter, except that we're all used to thinking in "different class=different abilities" D&D terms. It was tempting however, but it seemed to have more drawbacks than positives to us.

MMS:WE tries very hard to not make what it's doing dependant upon more than a basic high-medieval western europeanesque environment (basically MMS:WE is a social historical guide for that time period, rather than a traditional historical guide). We thought about more class-specific ideas, but decided against them in the hope that something more general would allow people a greater freedom in fitting the book in with their campaign.

joe b.

 

[Silveras]

Glad you like it. I'll add my $0.02 in here...... It is conceivable that there would be some characters at odds with each other in the above situation. I think that's more of an issue for the DM and his PCs to work out however. It's also very individual and campaign specific. There's no rules for the chaplain because those rules would need to descend from your campaign's choice of god, more than they would be from simple landowership.

Of course, that situation is all role-playing to resolve, I would think. What I was getting at, though, was that there is no "room" in the treatment in MMS for either the Cleric or the Druid to have any "power" through being the "official" spiritual leader; ALL authority comes from the land, in the end. The closest alternative is what I suggested Heretic Apostate look at; the Influence rules in the City Builder section.

Those Influence Point rules could form the basis of what people here are seeking. Extended up to be used for the Kingdom, they could be used to show the division of influence among the merchants, religious factions, nobility, and arcanists' organizations.

Yep. That's actually what we were trying to show. The lord of a manor/benefice has the same abilities/responsibilities from that ownership regardless of character class. We only did this after some thought, however, as i think it seems more "D&D natural" to assume that a manor ruled by a cleric would have to be different than a manor ruled by a fighter.

We think class is a game mechanic that's supposed to support role-playing. If you want a cleric to have different responsibilities/benefits of being a landowner those responsibilities are based upon your role-playing choice. We thought about making them different but realized that the differences would be solely based upon the campaign setting and we didn't want to go there. What would be considered appropriate differences in one campaign wouldn't work in another.

There was very little difference in the day to day between a religious landholder and a secular landholder historically anyway so we thought to stick more with the historical. In the end, these differences seem to us to be more a matter of setting than class. It also seems a bit more meta-game thinking than we usually engage in. Why would you think a cleric would have different benefits from owning land than a fighter, except that we're all used to thinking in "different class=different abilities" D&D terms. It was tempting however, but it seemed to have more drawbacks than positives to us.

MMS:WE tries very hard to not make what it's doing dependant upon more than a basic high-medieval western europeanesque environment (basically MMS:WE is a social historical guide for that time period, rather than a traditional historical guide). We thought about more class-specific ideas, but decided against them in the hope that something more general would allow people a greater freedom in fitting the book in with their campaign.

joe b.

I guess it depends on what level you look at. Birthright managed it nicely, in some ways. All regents could and did perform the same functions, but some had an easier time than others with some tasks. Priests could more readily sway the populace for or against the state. Rogues (or "mercantile-oriented characters", if you prefer) could make more money than a Fighter or Mage doing mercantile actions. Warriors more readily exert military control. It is that kind of game-play-friendly differentiation that I think most of us are seeking.

On another note, by basing MMS:WE on Western Europe, you already made some choices about the campaign setting involved. For example, terrain. MMS:WE is focused on the default terrain mix laid out in the book, and so does not translate quickly to a desert setting, a tundra setting, or a tropical jungle setting. Having chosen to model Western Europe, there would have been nothing wrong with choosing Western European-style roles, abilities, benefits, and/or penalties for the classes. Isn't that exactly what you did for the Magical Medieval King template ?

In the end, the strong implication that there is no difference based on class is just as much a decision about the campaign setting as any other (in the same spirit as "To take no action, is an action").

 

[jgbrowning]

Of course, that situation is all role-playing to resolve, I would think. What I was getting at, though, was that there is no "room" in the treatment in MMS for either the Cleric or the Druid to have any "power" through being the "official" spiritual leader; ALL authority comes from the land, in the end. The closest alternative is what I suggested Heretic Apostate look at; the Influence rules in the City Builder section.

I think it was jgkushner who called MMS:WE a "meta-setting." That's a pretty good discription. Though we made decisions about the subject matter, we tried to limit the subject matter to campaign neutral ideas.

We couldn't figure out how to give any power the way you're talking about without effectively creating a campaign setting. I tried, however.... All authority comes from the land because any other source of authority is campaign specific. Even if its something as simple as say "the thieves guild." We were trying to avoid putting in more campaign specific material than we had to.

Those Influence Point rules could form the basis of what people here are seeking. Extended up to be used for the Kingdom, they could be used to show the division of influence among the merchants, religious factions, nobility, and arcanists' organizations.

That's what we were hoping people would use them for. They show how power centers have influence over individuals.

I guess it depends on what level you look at. Birthright managed it nicely, in some ways. All regents could and did perform the same functions, but some had an easier time than others with some tasks. Priests could more readily sway the populace for or against the state. Rogues (or "mercantile-oriented characters", if you prefer) could make more money than a Fighter or Mage doing mercantile actions. Warriors more readily exert military control. It is that kind of game-play-friendly differentiation that I think most of us are seeking.

Yeah, Birthright's pretty cool, but again it's a system based upon a campaign setting.

On another note, by basing MMS:WE on Western Europe, you already made some choices about the campaign setting involved. For example, terrain. MMS:WE is focused on the default terrain mix laid out in the book, and so does not translate quickly to a desert setting, a tundra setting, or a tropical jungle setting. Having chosen to model Western Europe, there would have been nothing wrong with choosing Western European-style roles, abilities, benefits, and/or penalties for the classes. Isn't that exactly what you did for the Magical Medieval King template ?

Yes we made some choices in campaign settings. The King Template we thought we could get away with because, well, there's very few kings....

In order for us to give hard game mechanics to the medieval period we'd suddenly not be making a social history suitable for any generic D&D campaign and we'd be making a campaign setting. I think Green Ronin's going to do a medievel setting with their mystic vista's line and I expect them to stat out the church and other aspects of the historical period. We didn't want to make a campaign setting, we just wanted to provided the "social fabric" that can fit in with most generic D&D campaigns.

In the end, the strong implication that there is no difference based on class is just as much a decision about the campaign setting as any other (in the same spirit as "To take no action, is an action").

I agree. To me there's no difference in who owns land because the land will produce the same product regardless of the class of the owner because we were really just talking about the land and not the owner. Any other effects like you mention (ala birthright) are really really dependent upon the campaign setting. We were trying to leave it open enough so everyone could use it.

I'd have like to have made more along the vein you're mentioning, I just didn't think MMS:WE was the place to do it. I have a feeling that Green Ronin will be more along the vein you're looking for in this aspect.

joe b.

 

[Silveras]

I'd have like to have made more along the vein you're mentioning, I just didn't think MMS:WE was the place to do it. I have a feeling that Green Ronin will be more along the vein you're looking for in this aspect.

Ok... thanks for the insight. I always like knowing where people are coming from.

While I am looking forward to seeing just what the Medieval book from Green Ronin is like, I suspect it will be more of a campaign setting, as the other two works in the series have been, than a toolkit for adding such to your own setting (which is what I'm looking for).

 

[Voadam]

Of course, that situation is all role-playing to resolve, I would think. What I was getting at, though, was that there is no "room" in the treatment in MMS for either the Cleric or the Druid to have any "power" through being the "official" spiritual leader; ALL authority comes from the land, in the end. The closest alternative is what I suggested Heretic Apostate look at; the Influence rules in the City Builder section.

Those Influence Point rules could form the basis of what people here are seeking. Extended up to be used for the Kingdom, they could be used to show the division of influence among the merchants, religious factions, nobility, and arcanists' organizations.



I guess it depends on what level you look at. Birthright managed it nicely, in some ways. All regents could and did perform the same functions, but some had an easier time than others with some tasks. Priests could more readily sway the populace for or against the state. Rogues (or "mercantile-oriented characters", if you prefer) could make more money than a Fighter or Mage doing mercantile actions. Warriors more readily exert military control. It is that kind of game-play-friendly differentiation that I think most of us are seeking.

On another note, by basing MMS:WE on Western Europe, you already made some choices about the campaign setting involved. For example, terrain. MMS:WE is focused on the default terrain mix laid out in the book, and so does not translate quickly to a desert setting, a tundra setting, or a tropical jungle setting. Having chosen to model Western Europe, there would have been nothing wrong with choosing Western European-style roles, abilities, benefits, and/or penalties for the classes. Isn't that exactly what you did for the Magical Medieval King template ?

In the end, the strong implication that there is no difference based on class is just as much a decision about the campaign setting as any other (in the same spirit as "To take no action, is an action").

How did birthright handle multiclass characters? Say an elven cleric/fighter/mage?

In 3e there are more opportunities for multiclassing and diverging from the class archetypes, so basing ruling power on class seems a bit misplaced.

 

[Silveras]

How did birthright handle multiclass characters? Say an elven cleric/fighter/mage?

In 3e there are more opportunities for multiclassing and diverging from the class archetypes, so basing ruling power on class seems a bit misplaced.

That's actually a very long answer, and not terribly on-topic for this thread. If you wish, I'll be happy to go on at length about how Birthright handled it and how I altered the same in my adaptation of Birthright to 3E and to be less Cerilia-specific in another thread.

 

[Voadam]

That's actually a very long answer, and not terribly on-topic for this thread. If you wish, I'll be happy to go on at length about how Birthright handled it and how I altered the same in my adaptation of Birthright to 3E and to be less Cerilia-specific in another thread.

A spin off thread would be fine.

Back on topic, Empire apparently has different effects for different character class rulers. How does it handle multiclass characters? Would my Eldritch Knight get both the ranger and wizard benefits or are these level dependent so he might get some wizard bonus but not his one level of ranger?

 

[Silveras]

A spin off thread would be fine.

Back on topic, Empire apparently has different effects for different character class rulers. How does it handle multiclass characters? Would my Eldritch Knight get both the ranger and wizard benefits or are these level dependent so he might get some wizard bonus but not his one level of ranger?

Ok, I will start a new thread... Birthright comparison with Empire

The abilities are level dependent. Each of the core base classes gets a different mix of abilities, 1 each at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20.

The recommendation for Prestige Classes is for the DM to look at the 11 base class treatments and select appropriate abilities from them for the PrC you are working on. Looking through it again quickly, I don't see any treatment of multi-classed characters. The phrasing of the guidelines for assigning abilities to PrCs mentions trying to synchronize the abilities of a PrC with same level as a base class would get the same ability; that implies that no thought was given to multi-classed characters at all, as multi-classing would severly alter the "rate" at which an individual character earned the abilities assigned to the base classes.

Your Eldritch Knight would conceivably get nothing for the Ranger level, then the 5th level Wizard ability. Thereafter, he might get either the 10th level Wizard and the 15th level Fighter ability, or vice versa, as the EK is a Fighter/Arcanist sort of hybrid class. Although you can qualify by being a Ranger instead of a Fighter, I think you would need to pursue a more woodsy-oriented PrC to get the Ranger abilities.