Birthright. Tell Me About It. Please.

[drscott46]

So I recently picked up a bunch of old Birthright materials, and I'm really intrigued by the concept of the whole thing. D&D plus wargaming? Sounds great in theory.

I made it a point to scour through as much of EN World as I could to find out what people thought about it. I'd been to birthright.net and the Wizards.com section devoted to the game's 10th "anniversary", sure, but diehard fans of a "dead" setting like Birthright aren't really the ones to give you an honest evaluation.

I discovered that there's actually very little said about BR on this site (at least, that I can locate). Sure, it gets a fistful of mentions here and only one or two here, but overall it makes me think that the whole product line has just disappeared into the Void of TSR's mid-to-late-nineties downward spiral.

So what I'd like is for some honest opinions from people who have played and (especially) DMed the setting. What works well? What doesn't? What's cooler in theory? Why did your campaign end? How does the feel compare to your typical 3.5 D&D? (In other words, is it just regular D&D with alternating phases of Risk? Or more than the sum of its parts?) How are the published adventures?

I ask all this because my current gaming group is a dog's breakfast of 1e/2e veterans (including myself) and 3.5 newbies. Everyone's enjoying a 3.5 homebrew at the moment. As much as I want to run Birthright, I'm worried that some of the 3.5-only novices may have trouble with it. As the setting's going to have to be converted to 3e as it is (yes, I have located that netbook), I want to make sure that the game is different from your typical D&D game without being overly complex and alienating.

So am I barking up the wrong tree with this, do you think?

Thanks in advance for any sage advice.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

A surprisingly solid setting

The last few campaigns I have run used Birthright as their setting. I have found it to be a surprisingly solid setting.

I have never used the rules for the wargaming aspect though. In theory, it is interesting, but in practice, D&D players usually arent going to leap at the chance to let the administration of a kingdom get in the way of adventuring.

That aside though, the setting does have several things that setit apart from other settings.

- Numerous well defined, powerful villians integrated into the setting. The Awnsheileign make for great villians. Interesting powers, a detailed backstory, and the resources of a kingdom to draw on.

- Lots Plot Hook Fodder. Every kingdom gives you the ruler, and the movers and shakers within that kingdom. It also lets you know about historic rivalrys, internal dissent, and a handfull of other things. If your players suddenly decide to go on a long overland trip well away from where you were focused, your not totally screwed for coming up with ideas about what you might try to do.

- Well defined meta cultures. You have the equivalents of British, Scottish / Irish, German, Russian, and Middle Eastern cultures, each with their own common language. You can choose not to have a common tongue and just make do with the 5 regional languages.

- The rules for Law, Guild, and Church holdings can be exploited in a standard game. They provide you a means of declaring which preisthoods are strong and which are weak in a given area. You can use law holdings to represent the foreign influence of an otherwise more powerful nation.

The only drawback of the Birthright setting is that many of the setting specific things are really not all that impressive. The Shadowrealm thing is not something that I find very useful. And even with 3rd edition feats, I dont like the notion of letting the players have bloodlines.

For my next campaign, which I hope to start soon, I intend to use a combination of Birthright and Dragonlance setting info.

I use Birthright for the map layout and NPC's. The rest of it is basically average D&D stuff. You either like it or you dont.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Crothian]

Here's a good thread on it

 

[drscott46]

Here's a good thread on it

Hmmm... I went through 25 pages of "Settings" threads and either missed or didn't find that one. Thanks.

So that thread's over a year old. Did you ever run a Birthright campaign?

 

[Daijin]

http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?t=2628

 

[Yair]

I played BR only once. Well, 1.5 times. It was very interesting, but I failed to manage to connect the boardgame and D&D levels. I'm not sure on how to do it, to this day. The political intrigue was excellent, but the mechanics were very difficult to keep track of and the game didn't appeal to many players. When I tried to combine it with the D&D level, said lack of interest and other issues sent the whole thing KABOOM.

I do love the setting. I think it's just an excellent mix of ideas, an excellent setting for D&D. But I don't think the political level provides a good enough basis for adventuring. Perhaps it will work better as a one-on-one game D&D game, but the boardgame wouldn't... hmph.

I think I'd like to run a D&D game centered around BR's setting and probably using variant rules for drawing power from faith, loyalty, and nature (plus a few other changes). But despite the interesting political intrigue, I don't think I'll be going in the direction of micromanaging your domains.

 

[Shieldhaven]

Birthright was the first setting I ever ran I credible campaign in, back in high school. At that time, I wasn't able to take advantage of the pure awesome that the setting had to offer, because I didn't know enough about political plotlines... or any other aspect of GMing, for that matter. It was still a great campaign, though, if only because the players didn't know any better either.

Someday, I'll run a BR campaign updated to 3.5e (or whatever edition the game might be on at that time), and all will be right in the world. It's a great setting, as others have said, particularly because it is written to allow forms of PC power that other settings just aren't.

Haven

 

[an_idol_mind]

Personally, I think Birthright works best if you take the rulership out of the hands of the PCs. It's not that the regency rules are broken, but they're probably the least interesting aspect of the setting.

The setting itself probably has the best sense of heroism and mythology that I've seen in a D&D campaign. The world is interesting and complex, but with lots and lots of areas for you to expand on. The monsters are menacing and unique. The heroes are something special, with the blood of the gods themselves running through their veins.

The best way to run the game, in my experience, is to let the PCs adventure in the setting normally. It's familiar to D&D, but closer to a Camelot feel than a Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms feel. Let the PCs get involved in politics, but I would recommend saving the regency stuff for later on.

 

[Crothian]

So that thread's over a year old. Did you ever run a Birthright campaign?

Nope, but it is not something high on my list of things to run.

 

[Glyfair]

Personally, I think Birthright works best if you take the rulership out of the hands of the PCs. It's not that the regency rules are broken, but they're probably the least interesting aspect of the setting.

I disagree. I think the setting is interesting without the regency rules, but it ties strongly to the mythology.

In fact, I have considered running a Birthright campaign that's a cross between a play-by-internet and real life game. Run the regency turns by email or play-by-post, and then get together at the table to play out any adventures that arise (perhaps by having the other players control trusted compatriots of the central PC).

My only problem is I think Birthright works best in 2E and I have no interest in running a 2E game. I don't particularly like the 3E conversions I've seen.