| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Kajehase
Great Reader
Sweden
2104 Posts |
 Posted - 12 Apr 2006 : 17:09:08
|
That actually sounds about right - the generals that tend to be remembered in history are the ones who commands forces in extraordinary (I want to use a different word, but my brain is 50% snot at the moment , and I can't even remember the Swedish term ) actions, and the same goes for individual soldiers.
For instance, the Sweidish king Karl X Gustav is generally described in much more glowing terms than his son Karl XI, in terms of their military accomplishments.
The father invaded Poland, got beaten up and had to escape along with his army to invade Denmark where - as luck would have it - he and his army, performed the rather insane manoevre of marching across the two iced-over straits that separate the Jutland peninsula from the Själland-island, eventually forcing a very good (for Sweden) peace out of the whole affair.
All the son did was prevent the Danes from recapturing the lands his father had gained, and then spend the next 20 years or so overhauling the Swedish army until it may well have been the best trained in Europe by the time of his deat. All the while making sure his country didn't get involved in any wars...
(Not that being possibly the best army in Europe helped much when Denmark, Russia, Poland, and Saxony decided to start war on Sweden in 1700, later to be joined by Prussia/Brandenburg, Hannover/the United Kingdom, and one or two vassals to those states ) |
There is a rumour going around that I have found god. I think is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.
Terry Pratchett |
Edited by - Kajehase on 12 Apr 2006 17:10:07 |
 |
|
|
Kajehase
Great Reader
Sweden
2104 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2006 : 19:05:25
|
| Or for a more peaceful and present-day example: Compare the wages of a Premier League striker with that of the equally important defensive midfielder or defender in his team. |
There is a rumour going around that I have found god. I think is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.
Terry Pratchett |
|
|
|
Arivia
Great Reader
Canada
2965 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2006 : 20:16:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
Hi Eric,
Thanks to the Faerunianization of the rules on Promotions and Decorations, and thanks for the additional rules on Leadership and all!  These are now in use in my campaign!
I have one question though, and it perhaps relates more to Heroes of Battle than Power of Faerun, but I thought I'd ask you anyhow as you have an iron grasp on these rules by now and you can also perhaps add a Faerunian twist to it.
Basically, I have perceived a disconnect between the Victory points and Recognition points systems... I'm not sure I'm reading the rules properly, but they seem vague and unclear, and in fact, the latter system seems pretty independent from the former.
I'd like to somehow unite the two, or get a rule of thumb as to how to manage both, or even just get a reason as to why I should, as a DM, even track Victory points... As is, system only seems to be rewarding 'Maverick' or 'daring' actions by the PCs (Recognition points), and disregarding 'boring' actions such as properly leading forces, defending strategic locations, establishing supply lines (i.e. what is required to actually win the battle yields Victory points, which seems to yield no recognition points as far as I can tell...)
Let me know what you think... any help would be appreciated!
The two are disconnected for a reason; recognition points mark the PCs recognition amongst others, while victory points mark the effect on the battle that's being fought. See page 41 of Heroes of Battle for why you should be tracking victory points. |
|
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2006 : 21:03:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
The two are disconnected for a reason; recognition points mark the PCs recognition amongst others, while victory points mark the effect on the battle that's being fought. See page 41 of Heroes of Battle for why you should be tracking victory points.
Oh I've read that book inside and out, but thanks anyways!
Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly: I know what Heroes of Battle says... I just don't see the point of keeping a 'score' for each battle, especially if this score does not affect PC XPs or Recognition points, and ESPECIALLY since the outcome is determined ahead of time by the DM!!!
Now, if there would be a direct correlation between Victory pts and Recognition pts, perhaps I could start to understand the point of the Victory pt system... |
Edited by - Purple Dragon Knight on 12 Apr 2006 21:05:15 |
|
|
|
ericlboyd
Forgotten Realms Designer
USA
2089 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2006 : 22:41:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
The two are disconnected for a reason; recognition points mark the PCs recognition amongst others, while victory points mark the effect on the battle that's being fought. See page 41 of Heroes of Battle for why you should be tracking victory points.
Oh I've read that book inside and out, but thanks anyways!
Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly: I know what Heroes of Battle says... I just don't see the point of keeping a 'score' for each battle, especially if this score does not affect PC XPs or Recognition points, and ESPECIALLY since the outcome is determined ahead of time by the DM!!!
Now, if there would be a direct correlation between Victory pts and Recognition pts, perhaps I could start to understand the point of the Victory pt system...
I'm traveling, so it will be a while before I can answer this specifically (plus it's been a year since I read HoB), but, assuming I remember correctly ...
The point of the Victory point system is to determine who will win and by how much. The DM determines a priori who will win in the absence of the PCs. The "degree of winning" in the absence of the PCs is expressed as a number, e.g. -14. The PCs have a chance of impacting that number by amassing victory points. Imagine there are 20 VPs available in the scenario. If the PCs acquire 5 VPs, then the bad guys still win, but to a lesser extent. If the PCs acquire 15 VPs, then the good guys win, just barely.
In the first case, although the good guys lose, the PCs might be the difference between an orderly retreat and a massacre. In the second case, the PCs might be the difference between conceding the ridge or holding the ridge.
--Eric
PS As I said, this is from memory, so I may be way off. However, if what I outlined makes sense, I think you'll find what's actually stated in HoB makes sense. |
--
http://www.ericlboyd.com/dnd/ |
|
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2006 : 14:48:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by ericlboyd
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
The two are disconnected for a reason; recognition points mark the PCs recognition amongst others, while victory points mark the effect on the battle that's being fought. See page 41 of Heroes of Battle for why you should be tracking victory points.
Oh I've read that book inside and out, but thanks anyways!
Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly: I know what Heroes of Battle says... I just don't see the point of keeping a 'score' for each battle, especially if this score does not affect PC XPs or Recognition points, and ESPECIALLY since the outcome is determined ahead of time by the DM!!!
Now, if there would be a direct correlation between Victory pts and Recognition pts, perhaps I could start to understand the point of the Victory pt system...
I'm traveling, so it will be a while before I can answer this specifically (plus it's been a year since I read HoB), but, assuming I remember correctly ...
The point of the Victory point system is to determine who will win and by how much. The DM determines a priori who will win in the absence of the PCs. The "degree of winning" in the absence of the PCs is expressed as a number, e.g. -14. The PCs have a chance of impacting that number by amassing victory points. Imagine there are 20 VPs available in the scenario. If the PCs acquire 5 VPs, then the bad guys still win, but to a lesser extent. If the PCs acquire 15 VPs, then the good guys win, just barely.
In the first case, although the good guys lose, the PCs might be the difference between an orderly retreat and a massacre. In the second case, the PCs might be the difference between conceding the ridge or holding the ridge.
--Eric
PS As I said, this is from memory, so I may be way off. However, if what I outlined makes sense, I think you'll find what's actually stated in HoB makes sense.
That's what I understood as well, but what are the advantages of scoring high on Victory points, in-game and not in terms of the storyline? If the PCs score low on Victory points, time and time again, and see their armies whittle down to nothing as the game sessions go by, according to the flow charts system described in HoB, they still rake in the Recognition points for planting a standard here and there, taking on the enemy's champion, and doing other "james bond" activities as they see fit.
While I could see the loss of troops as a big disadvantage for a PC with the Leadership feat, the typical high-level character that does not have the feat can be sad about losses within his army, but no penalties in terms of game mechanics will apply.
Thoughts?
Edit: Perhaps a 'perfect' Victory (i.e. 76-100% of available Victory points) could yield a Recognition point award? This could allow the PC with the Leadership feat to stay behind and be all general-like while the commando PCs go climb a hill to kick some hill giant butt? This way, everyone gets decorations and promotions, albeit different in nature? |
Edited by - Purple Dragon Knight on 13 Apr 2006 14:55:25 |
|
|
|
Arivia
Great Reader
Canada
2965 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2006 : 21:15:33
|
| Looking at the list of diseases on pages 93-94, I see that the shaking plague was left off the statistics list --- any reason why? |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6680 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2006 : 02:52:23
|
If you're talking about the illness that affected Scardale, that was a magical plague as I understand it. Maybe that's why it wasn't included.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2006 : 03:05:39
|
| I would think because it's a mysterious, one-off, magical affliction rather than a known, relatively common malady. |
|
|
|
Arivia
Great Reader
Canada
2965 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2006 : 08:48:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
If you're talking about the illness that affected Scardale, that was a magical plague as I understand it. Maybe that's why it wasn't included.
-- George Krashos
Oddly enough, no; see the following quote:
quote:
Power of Faerun, page 94
The Five Fevers:[...], the shaking fever, [...]
The Three Plagues:[...], the shaking plague (not the same as the shaking fever, which recently struck Scardale).
Then stats are provided for the shaking fever, but not the shaking plague. I initially thought someone screwed up and labelled it the shaking fever, not the shaking plague, but its occurence on the Five Fevers list makes me think it should be included there, as the other five fevers are. |
Edited by - Arivia on 15 Apr 2006 08:50:02 |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 16 Apr 2006 : 16:30:58
|
Just a response to a few comments about not liking the storyline to advance in the Realms. First off, if you really, really want it to go differently, then just make it so in your alternate Realms. On the other hands, if you want things to stay "in canon", why not back date your campaign to give you enough knowlage to run what happens. By the time the third book of the Year of Rogue Dragons comes out (and Dragons of Faerun), you should know pretty much everything major that happens up through 1373 DR.
I don't want authors to have to work around their characters ever doing anything lasting or important in their novels. I don't want a static year that the campaign is always set in. The movement forward, in my opinion, keeps my imagination going, rather than getting bored with the setting.
Anyone remember how many years we stayed in neutral in DragonLance becuase TSR didn't want to advance the timeline? Even if you liked the novels, it became kind of boring to play in the setting after a while.
I have always liked Greyhawk, and consider it a sister setting to the Realms, one of those places that there should be a few portals here and there provided ingress and egress to. I say that to show I am not trying to bash the setting, but lets compare.
A lot of Greyhawk fans complain because there is no support for Greyhawk. A lot of Greyhawk fans also complain anytime a character is portrayed as having gained a level, and they complain whenever a ruler is killed off in an RPGA event, and they complain if anything is introduced that wansn't already spelled out in the orginal campaign setting. There are still fans that call for Carl Sergent's head for the Greyhawk Wars and Rary's betrayal, and who really only want new adventures that while they seem momentous, manage to truly change nothing.
I will admit that not every Greyhawk fan is like this, but a good number are, and I can tell you, I would much rather see the Realms as a living setting that grows and changes over time, while still having a core that makes if feels "like the Realms."
|
|
|
|
Reefy
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
892 Posts |
Posted - 17 Apr 2006 : 00:52:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
*snip*
I can tell you, I would much rather see the Realms as a living setting that grows and changes over time, while still having a core that makes if feels "like the Realms."
Amen to that, brother. It wouldn't be the same place if it was static, and characters get old. We've seen Azoun go, and Vangey retire. Not to mention Mirt, Durnan and Khelben amongst others are all getting on. But it gives us so many new things to work with. |
Life is either daring adventure or nothing. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 20 Apr 2006 : 22:43:50
|
| I don't really mind the current 'two years for five' time progession, which would put us at 1364/5 if held to from 1987. The needs of the book department (self-fulfilling as they might be) loom too large in the commercial Realms for a static timeline, with all its advantages, to be practical. What was crazy was the jump to 1367 DR that happened in 1993, and I wonder whose decision that was. I don't want to see fantasy characters age and die as quickly as I and my friends and family do. |
Edited by - Faraer on 20 Apr 2006 22:45:06 |
|
|
|
GungHo
Seeker
USA
68 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2006 : 18:18:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
I don't want to see fantasy characters age and die as quickly as I and my friends and family do.
I do... if it's part of the story and adds to the fabric of the Realms. Aging and death are part of life, real and literary. I like that Salvatore is having Entreri notice his fingers going numb. I wouldn't have a problem with an Elminster, at the end of a long day, stare at the sunset, sigh, and suddenly look incredibly old to those around him. It makes them more real.
Selfishly, I'd also like to see what the Circle years are all about before I keel over. |
|
|
|
Myssa Rei
Acolyte
Philippines
22 Posts |
Posted - 15 May 2006 : 11:02:03
|
Hello all~!
I just received my copy of Power of Faerun after a week's worth of waiting, and I have to say, I'm stunned at the breadth of information squeezed into the pages of this tome. It's probably going to take me quite a while to actually read EVERYTHING in detail... The esteemed Mr. Greenwood and Mr. Boyd have really outdone themselves with this one.
Though, why do I have a feeling that, while not really something that translates Epic levels of play in Faerun, that there are a lot of folks (judging by my quick perusing of the chapters) detailed herein are more than level 20?
|
Never underestimate the power of a good story. |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2006 : 21:08:48
|
| I admit I didn't read through the entire scroll...but where can I find the missing table 6.1? If that was the number... |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36874 Posts |
|
|
Arivia
Great Reader
Canada
2965 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2006 : 05:45:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
We now have errata: Power of Faerūn errata. This errata is nothing more than the lost table 6-1.
Yay table 6-1! Just happy that thing's finally seeing print. |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2006 : 08:21:50
|
| Ain't it sad that we get more and more "patches" to sourcebooks nowadays? Or maybe my old, cranky self just thinks way too brightly back to the olden days... |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
martynq
Seeker
United Kingdom
90 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2006 : 09:32:40
|
I've only just got round to reading this tome. One question that I don't know if anyone has answered yet, but why was Sythillis name changed?
Martyn |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36874 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2006 : 11:07:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
Ain't it sad that we get more and more "patches" to sourcebooks nowadays? Or maybe my old, cranky self just thinks way too brightly back to the olden days...
In the old days, it was harder to get patches. I remember having to have someone else get the errata for PHBR5 for me, since I wasn't online then and I knew nothing about computers... |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 04:24:36
|
To be honest...this book didn't do too much for me. And I hate to say it, but I can't fully explain why.
It just didn't grab me the way some of the other source books did. Oh well. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Ergdusch
Master of Realmslore
Germany
1720 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2006 : 09:52:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
To be honest...this book didn't do too much for me. And I hate to say it, but I can't fully explain why.
It just didn't grab me the way some of the other source books did. Oh well.
I read through some parts very briefly the other day and I have do agree with you Rinonalyrna. HTe reason for me was, that I find it very irritating to see "real characterplay" being trasfered into feats, DC checks and stats. Just some thoughts......
Ergdusch |
"Das Gras weht im Wind, wenn der Wind weht." |
|
|
|
Chosen of Bane
Senior Scribe
USA
552 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2006 : 11:01:30
|
| Heretic of the Faith made this book a must for me. My players and I have spent numerous hours coming up with different heresies. Some are pretty could, most are absolutely ridiculous, but still entertaining. |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2006 : 20:59:13
|
quote:
I find it very irritating to see "real characterplay" being trasfered into feats, DC checks and stats.
Well, that sort of started when 3E first came out. As much as Ed wanted to, I doubt WotC would have allowed him to print a statless supplement... |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2006 : 01:42:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ergdusch
I read through some parts very briefly the other day and I have do agree with you Rinonalyrna. HTe reason for me was, that I find it very irritating to see "real characterplay" being trasfered into feats, DC checks and stats. Just some thoughts......
I agree. I KNOW this is a game, not just a setting (especially a 3E game, as GothicDan pointed out), and that transfering "intangibles" into numbers is all par for the course. But still...I feel that some things don't need to be all statted out.
It's weird...Power of Faerun is the book I've been most looking forward to, and I've always wanted to read Ed's thoughts about being a courtier and so forth...but when I finally read it, it just didn't do anything for me. I *do* like the Border Kingdoms, though...one of my PCs has a kingdom there. :) But as I recall, even the BK section didn't say much about actually interacting with the official places that are already there. I would have liked that. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2006 : 22:55:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
Smirks at the mention of the events from the Bhaalspawn novels.
Well, well, well, there's two sourcebooks in 3/3.5e that mentions those events now plus the slew of 2e material.
But of course, those events aren't canon. Rolls eyes.
...But they don't actually mention anything about the Bhaalspawn, and the fact that the Bhaalspawn was the one who helped solved the problems mentioned in that paragraph. The star of the Baldur's Gate sage is danced around very coyly. That was kind of annoying. I just read this section today...didn't like it. Not too fond of the resurrected characters, either...CHEESY!
Overall, a very disappointing read. And to think, I've been pushing more for "fluffy" books like this for so long. I think the only thing about this sourcebook I've loved so far is the part about the Border Kingdoms...and even that leaves out too much info for my tastes. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 03 Jul 2006 22:57:21 |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2006 : 22:58:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
...But they don't actually mention anything about the Bhaalspawn, and the fact that the Bhaalspawn was the one who helped solved the problems mentioned in that paragraph. That was kind of annoying. I just read this section today...didn't like it. Not too fond of the resurrected characters, either...CHEESY!
Overall, a very disappointing read. And to think, I've been pushing more for "fluffy" books like this for so long. I think the only thing about this sourcebook I've loved so far is the part about the Border Kingdoms...and even that leaves out too much info for my tastes.
Shrug. That wasn't my point but okay. :) My point is that many people continued, for years, to claim that the Bhaalspawn and the Bhaalspawn novels aren't canon and finally we have more 3/3.5e material that says differently even though we had 3 to 6 2e material that said that the Bhaalspawn were canon. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
Edited by - Kuje on 03 Jul 2006 22:59:06 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2006 : 23:05:34
|
I know exactly what your point was, but I felt like venting about that section, because it really annoyed me. You don't need to remind me of that canon vs. not-canon argument--I remember it vividly.
A lot of stuff has annoyed me lately. Like I said, the only part of PoF that's gotten me excited so far is the BK section. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 03 Jul 2006 23:06:51 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Power of Faerūn
