http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2130&
As far as my specific opinion (it is included in the link) but here it is via the e-mail I wrote to them at Dragon.
Concerning Dragon #315
First off I’d like to thank you for touching on the various campaign settings of the past that have been relegated to the “forgotten” bin.
But since no good act goes unpunished here are my complaints:
Why did you include Ghostwalk in a magazine dedicated to “Campaign Classics”? It is a new setting that wasn’t around before 3erd edition. Also the inclusion of an article on Forgotten Realms seems kind of out of place since it has been updated very thoroughly to 3rd ed. The inclusion of these 2 articles seems to counter to point that others weren’t included or the articles were truncated due to space considerations.
The note in the Wyrm’s Turn really got my ire up.
"You know the best part? This issue is only a prelude to our next spectacular Dragon and Dungeon crossover event. In May 2004, we're going to release the Dark Sun campaign setting, revised for D&D 3.5! Happily it will see print about the time the revised 3.5 Psionics Handbook hits the shelves, enabling you to explore Athas fully armed for its many perils."
Gosh I thought that the "official" DS 3.5 material was already published on by the Athas.org team after nearly 4 years of work and input by the many fans. This blatant disregard for this effort, and unless I'm mistaken the previous agreement with WotC that the official fan site (Athas.org) could publish the "Official" 3.0/3.5 conversion material.
What a slap in the face to the dedicated fans of the setting.
Also Birthright.net, the “Official” fan site for Birthright has been working on an “Official” 3/3.5 conversion for over 2 years now. The playtest version was posted last February (and mentioned on Enworld.) This spawned the posting of the Birthright maps in the maps section of the Wizard’s D&D site.
While I have great respect for Ed Stark’s work in the past, there are several problems with the blood abilities article. For one there were 44 different blood abilities in the Book of Regency, this article reduced them down to 6. This doesn’t make for a very good translation of the originally published characters and creatures from the setting.
The Book of Regency also talked about the draw of evil and chaos for scions with Azrai blood so the statement that a scion of Azrai is no more or less predisposed to evil than a half-orc is rather misleading.
Editorially there is a great deal of confusion over blood points and bloodline score – the terms seem to be used interchangeably with no clear definition for what a blood point is.
None of the articles listed are posted as OGL so the opportunity to incorporate them into the “Official” conversions is non-existent. Bottom line is keep up the work, but pay respect and attention to the ”Official” fan sites, they are “Official” for a reason and listed as such on the Wizards boards so don’t overuse the “100% Official Dungeons & Dragons” statement.
Duane Eggert
AFAIC, only Wizards are allowed to publish "official game material" for their intellectual properties, such as the Birthright brand. It is their legal right.
Think of this like Star Trek. Only the movies and TV series are canon, because they are produced by the franchise. Although the many Star Trek novels are approved by Paramount, they are still considered non-canon as they are often ignored by the franchise's films and series.
Fan site are just that, while they posted good material, they are not considered official canon material.
As for Ghostwalk, I do agree it shouldn't be there where Spelljammer is noticeably absent.
But, I have seen an overview of the article so far, and am not overly impressed, although had I known Ed Stark was going to be writing it, I could have guessed this is what he would have come up with from bloodlines. However, I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing. If people are drawn to BR because of the article, then that is a good thing. It doesn't matter what I nor any of the other BR "old timers" think, as we have all long ago made up our minds about a 3E conversion of BR and each of us uses our own ideas and rules.
There was much conversation in the Spelljammer community after the release of the Spelljammer Minigame in Dungeon, almost all of it bad, but it did draw additional people to Spelljammer, which in the end is a good thing....
It would have been different if it (Dragon) was still owned by WotC.
The agreement also specifies that when (and if) WotC publishes new material for the setting then the "exclusive" arrangement is now null and void. This hasn't happened yet.
And how do you think bloodline should be handled, Raesene_Andu? The only thing I do agree is the short length of the article, but that's because you're trying to fit almost all of the old favorites and update them to 3e/3.5e.
One can hope there will be one or two future articles devoted to Birthright as they have announced for Oriental Adventures and Kara-Tur in the April 2004 issue.
It is also that Campaign Classic issue that announced they'll do a Dark Sun themed crossover issue (both Dragon and Dungeon) when the new Expanded Psionic's Handbook is released (yeah, it's more of a promotional factor).
Originally posted by Ranger REG
So, what does that mean? Did Wizards breach the agreement with fan sites by allowing article publication for the thematic "Campaign Classic" issue?
This is something that the various fan sites "holders" are currently disussing as well as updating their 'contracts'. This whole issue caused quite a stir at the Athas.org site, check the Dark Sun discussion boards for apropriate discussion. They had already posted the "official" DS 3.5 conversion and the anouncement from Dragon that they were going to publish an "official" conversion in the spring is specifically something that seems wrong considering the fan site/WotC issue. Note that Jim Butler worked up the fan site 'contract' and other type of details with a 'vision' of how they should interrelate, but that vision seems to have vanished from WotC along with Jim.
And how do you think bloodline should be handled, Raesene_Andu? The only thing I do agree is the short length of the article, but that's because you're trying to fit almost all of the old favorites and update them to 3e/3.5e.
So you are happy with having to use 3 feats to gain 3 blood abilities, the maximum that a scion can have based on the article in Dragon? It should be noted that having a stronger bloodline (i.e., higher blood score) doesn't grant any additional blood abilities per the article.
One can hope there will be one or two future articles devoted to Birthright as they have announced for Oriental Adventures and Kara-Tur in the April 2004 issue.
One can only hope, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Oriental Adventures has already received a 3.0 update, so I would imagine anything that Dragon publishes relating to that would just be supplemental (optional) information and not supplanting/replacement information.
It is also that Campaign Classic issue that announced they'll do a Dark Sun themed crossover issue (both Dragon and Dungeon) when the new Expanded Psionic's Handbook is released (yeah, it's more of a promotional factor).
This is the specific thing that caused the most concern at the Dark Sun discussion boads. 2 official 3.5 updates/conversions for Dark Sun. which one is the official one?
Coincidentally, I've been I've been to athas.org, and to their discussion boards. The case is quite serious.
The point is: there's an agreement. These so-called fan sites have the power to make "official" conversions. However, in this case official is quoted because the agreement seems to be very fragile.
In the Dark Sun and Birthright cases, all they did was to release an article (ARTICLE, as in "too short to be a complete conversion") with a conversion of marking points in the original rules of these classics.
If you think that's a big deal, look at what happened to Ravenloft and Dragonlance! There was the same agreement with their respective fan sites. The first had a well dedicated team working a lot to bring a conversion at Kargatane, but the game was sold to Sword & Sorcery Studios. The other had a messy but existant conversion project and, all of a sudden, it was released by WotC itself, and the worst: using the widely unapproved Fifth Age!
The fairest would be: if there's an agreement, there's an agreement, and OGL is OGL, so the community does the best it can to bring the classics back and all for free.
What's really going to happen, and it's already hapenning, is: slowly, market is opening breaches and opportunities for the companies to make money with the classics, and they WILL make money.
It's a matter of time. When WotC first published DnD3e, they had this situation: an unbalanced ADnD and their messy overpowered and overnumbered settings were losing far too many customers to Vampires and the such. By that time, their biggest waste of money was having to mantain at least 10 full featured campaign settings (FR, RL, DL, DS, KT, AQ, GW, GH, SJ, BR, the first on top of my mind). They knew it, and they decided to kill those bad businesses. Now, a balanced DnD gets so many costumers, they've become good businesses again.
I liked the idea of having the community pulling the strings, specially because WotC doesn't seem to respect the classics as they should (no offense, but look at FR... they changed it all... if they wanted something different, leave it alone and build one up from scratch). But forget that dream, DnD is a money machine now.
Originally posted by evilrafael
Now, a balanced DnD gets so many costumers, they've become good businesses again.
I know you meant "customers," but that line is really cracking me up. :DOriginally posted by evilrafael
[b]
In the Dark Sun and Birthright cases, all they did was to release an article (ARTICLE, as in "too short to be a complete conversion") with a conversion of marking points in the original rules of these classics.
If you think that's a big deal, look at what happened to Ravenloft and Dragonlance! There was the same agreement with their respective fan sites. The first had a well dedicated team working a lot to bring a conversion at Kargatane, but the game was sold to Sword & Sorcery Studios. The other had a messy but existant conversion project and, all of a sudden, it was released by WotC itself, and the worst: using the widely unapproved Fifth Age!
It really isn't just a matter or publishing a single article. In the Wyrm's Turn, Dragon said they were going to publish a "complete" 3.5 Dark Sun.
The "old" Dragon didn't insist on labeling everything in the magazine"100 % Official D&D", usually they labeled specific items as such and everything else was 'additional' and 'optional'. What Paizo has been doing is relying on that "100% Official D&D" label to carry them.
IMO what they (Dragon) should be concentrating on is add-ons and optional things, not trying to write an "official" conversion. For Dark Sun, it would have been pretty easy to do a write up of 'new' races ala Pristine Tower or even a psionic version of standard monsters in the MM. The section on defiling would have normally been a good theme, since it is small enough yet significant enough of a focus to have some meaning. Again the problem is the upcoming full conversion.
For the Birthright article they made it far too small to cover such a significant topic. Bloodlines are at the core of what makes Birthright Birthright and not just another version of Forgotten Realms.
I am wondering how they (Dragon) managed to include anything on Ravenloft without giving credit (or openly gaining approval) from S&S - I believe that WotC sold the line lock, stock and barrel, which started them (WotC) rethinking the process of selling off entire lines.
Coincidentally, I've been I've been to athas.org, and to their discussion boards. The case is quite serious.
While the views of the participating fans who follow the fansite conversions are indeed very serious, you'll note that most are still quite happy to see their favorite setting in Dragon once again, even if its a version that they do not intend to use. Also, there are fans who are not entirely satisfied with the fansite conversions. The future campaign classics articles will allow those who still have a soft spot for these discontinued settings another option to explore. All in all, I think the 'retro revivalism' so to speak is a good thing.
Now, a balanced DnD gets so many costumers, they've become good businesses again.
Costumers, customers aaaahh cmon! You guys'll have bear with me, it's not my mother language ;) anyway I appreciate the correction hehehe
It really isn't just a matter or publishing a single article. In the Wyrm's Turn, Dragon said they were going to publish a "complete" 3.5 Dark Sun.
The "old" Dragon didn't insist on labeling everything in the magazine"100 % Official D&D", usually they labeled specific items as such and everything else was 'additional' and 'optional'. What Paizo has been doing is relying on that "100% Official D&D" label to carry them.
Yes, I agree. It's always been meant to publish optional rules. It seems Dragon magazine changed to worse after being sold.... Actually, before reading this thread I didn't know it wasn't owned by WotC anymore, which makes me think HOW can they claim to be "100% official", now without a true support from Wizards. It's onus of the selling and re-selling of companies nowadays -- it's not TSR anymore, it's WotC, and it's not WotC, it's Hasbro, and so on.
News from DnD and suh have to be scavenged down here in Brasil, you usually don't get as much info as in the US, you can imagine.
you'll note that most are still quite happy to see their favorite setting in Dragon once again, even if its a version that they do not intend to use. Also, there are fans who are not entirely satisfied with the fansite conversions.
I realize that too. The whole point of my reply, however, is that the community itself doesn't matter. In time, all the GOOD and still addictive worlds of DnD will have their 3e versions, and by a company or another, not fan-sites. It's sad but true.
Originally posted by RAMAUL
i thought blooded should be more of a template added to a character.
Did you check out the thread at Birthright.net I posted earlier?
Here's the link again in case you didn't.
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2132&
In the BRCS-playtest, originally we made being blooded templates but after reading the 3.0 DMG and such about having all characters start at the same level (i.e., if there is a +2 ECL template than all characters should be starting at 3rd level) in order to keep things balanced (specifically between PCs since no player likes to start out at a disadvantage compared to another).
In the revised Chap 2 system we switched over to a scion class system (only 2 levels though) in order to keep things balanced between players. This also fits with what they have been doing at the WotC site with posting class levels for all of the ECLd templates in the MM.
There is one blooded template though, that of the Great Heritage. This works, IMO, without an ECL because it has to be 'given' by the DM and not chosen by the player. The template can also be 'lost' with subsequent penalties (i.e., the scion will lose more than he gained when the template was acquired). IMO this keeps things in check and gives something 'special' for the truely great leaders of the land.
Anyway, just a thought.
I didn't like the article what about Azrai blood line the one that matters most.
taking levels for blood abilities doesn't sound right either
but a template seems the way to go......with a feat
like system added to it.
I could see a feat system but a blooded character should be able to gain extra blooded feats by improving here blood score.Like a fighter bonus feats from the selected blooded feats
i didn't like the feat that gave you more blood points you should earn them.
Originally posted by RAMAUL
in the original who wouldn't be blooded free powers. :D
I didn't like the article what about Azrai blood line the one that matters most.
taking levels for blood abilities doesn't sound right either
but a template seems the way to go......with a feat
like system added to it.
I could see a feat system but a blooded character should be able to gain extra blooded feats by improving here blood score.Like a fighter bonus feats from the selected blooded feats
i didn't like the feat that gave you more blood points you should earn them.
RAMUL,
Have you read the BRCS revised Chap 2 yet? From the way your posts are reading, it looks like you haven't. No offense meant, but most of the issues you are bringing up are addressed in it. Yes, I'm biased but it really does cover things in a whole lot more detail than does the article in Dragon and it covers all of the 'existing' blood abilities not just 6. There is a feat-like variant (not actually using feats since in order to do that there would have to be a 20+ level scion class) but having prerequisites for gaining various blood abilities. There is a variant for having to take a feat to become blooded. MOst of the info from the revised Chap 2 came about from the 'lengthy' and detailed discussion on the Birthright.net forums and a couple of polls I ran to determine which 'method' of blood line determination and blood score determination (and pretty much also how to acquire blood abilities) were preferred by most people.
There are only 2 scion class levels. One allows access to major abilities and the other allows access to great abilities. This is the way to incorporate the 'level' adjustment that would arise from having those abilities. Well, actually a single scion class level alllows a scion regent to gain the bonus hit points and any other 'optional scion benefits incorporated' for example extra starting funds (generally used to purchase a magic item).
The scion class levels are based on the derivation, each one has a different flavor to it. They vary with hit dice, BAB, saving throw bonuses, and some extra benefits. Too much to lay out in this post. This was something else that several people had proposed on the forums.
Now a character doesn't gain bonus feats (like the fighter or wizard class) nor does a having a template. Feats are given at every 3rd character level (all characters not just special ones) Bonus feats could be tied as a class feature (like the fighter, wizard or the 3.5 ranger).
Well I guess I've diverged since this was really a discussion of what people liked and didn't like about the article in Dragon - sorry about that. From what I can tell most people think that it is too shallow and doesn't work real well, at least as written in the 3 pages they used.
Originally posted by evilrafael
I'm not too used to Birthright, but anyways, instead of a template of a special class, couldn't it be done through feats? This way, each player "buys" whatever he or she likes, blood power or power attack or metamagic, or whatever, all in the same package, balanced enough. Those that want to be more "blooded", get powers over time and advance buying more and more feats....
Anyway, just a thought.
The biggest problem with the system is that the iconic characters from the 2nd ed books cannot be duplicated at all. A character just can't acquire enough feats to be able to gain 6 or 7 blood abilities and still maintain some semblance of a class. That is, most rulers in Birthright were fighters and in order to maintain being a fighter-ruler a character needs to use his character-level feats to acquire those that useful for rulership with his fighter feats going towards the fighter specific things.
And a character gets 1 feat at first level (and a bonus one for humans) and a bonus feat every 3rd level to acquire blood related things.
IMO the article reads like it was written in a weekend (I'm being generous) there was a real lack of quality control (no definition of blood points and the interchangeability of blood score and blood points), the lack of inclusion of a wider grouping of blood abilities (or at least a pattern for converting the 2nd ed ones into 3.5) and some real poor issues addressing the draw to evil of the Azrai blood line (Ed really missed the mark on this one).
Again in regards to templates and special classes (neither of which is in the Dragon article) check out the revised BRCS Chap 2 via the link I listed.
they don't have any
army cards when i visited so I avoid that site.
but what if you are hit with that magian spell that turns you into awnshegh
I was just saying they should have done a azrai awnshegh article
not a half crapped up blooded article.
Originally posted by RAMAUL
i haven't read the birthright.net yet.
they don't have any
army cards when i visited so I avoid that site.
but what if you are hit with that magian spell that turns you into awnshegh
I was just saying they should have done a azrai awnshegh article
not a half crapped up blooded article.
Help me with this one please. What magian spell turns a character into an awnshegh?
I think we are in agreement on the shallowness (and lack of usefullness) of the Dragon article though. It would have been much better to pick something smaller and give guidelines for how they came up with what they did then to do what they did.
page 65 blood enemies
Indeed, not being able to adapt the old famous characters is a shame. I'd suggest one of two things:
1. Make them buy lots of feat anyway, thus, in order to have great power, they'd have to reach great levels. It worked with Elminster, but then again, probably wont work with Birthright at all, because Elminster IS supposed to be a character as powerful as anything immortal...
2. Make them buy a few feats, that's enough. A "blooded" feat would do most of the trick, and from then on, characters could get automatic blood points and whatever it is that they need to use. For advanced powers, better feats, but not too many, in order to be "reachable" (is that a word)
Idea # 2 is better I think, and acts a little like those "devil pacts" feats from AEG's "Evil" and WotC's "Book of Vile Darkness". They add interesting powers smoothly, I think.
Out of that, you'd better create whole new classes, I think, like the psionics, or maybe even better, a mix of template and feats system, like you suggested.
Anyway, again, just a thought, I'm not the best person to ask, I'm not a BR DM
Originally posted by RAMAUL
bloodline corruption lvl 9
page 65 blood enemies
Thanks.
I see a misprint within the spell itself though (actually several) - another one of those many editorial errors in the 2nd ed BR books. The way I read the spell is that it changes the bloodline of the recipient to that of Azrai. This is not supposed to cause an 'automatic' transformation into an awnshegh though. Heck if you read the spell description "The recipient maintains his current bloodline strength and abilities, but his blood becomes the blood of Azrai and he gains the curse of bloodform and 1d4 abilities available to Azrai bloodline." This just doesn't make any sense, since if a scion's bloodline changes he 'loses' any blood abilities that aren't consistent with his 'new' bloodline. All in all, I (and many others on the Bnet) have found Blood Enemies to be one of the worst BR books written, although in actuality I find that the Sword of Roele adventure is worse, but its close.
The Book of Regency talks a lot about the transformation process and basically if a scion has bloodform he will eventually become an Awnshegh but the transformation is not immediate.
Originally posted by irdeggman
So you are happy with having to use 3 feats to gain 3 blood abilities, the maximum that a scion can have based on the article in Dragon? It should be noted that having a stronger bloodline (i.e., higher blood score) doesn't grant any additional blood abilities per the article.
Am I happy with the short-length article? No.
Am I happy with the magazine issue overall? Yes.
Of course, you should note, I'm not a devoted BR fan. I only like it because of its realm management system. If I could port that mechanics out of BR and leave bloodlines behind and put it into other settings like FR or Kingdom of Kalamar, I'm content.
One can only hope, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Oriental Adventures has already received a 3.0 update, so I would imagine anything that Dragon publishes relating to that would just be supplemental (optional) information and not supplanting/replacement information.
While I'm not holding my breath, I will be pressuring them to do something for Birthright, even if it means that someone will have to submit material for it (and not just someone from Wizards).
This is the specific thing that caused the most concern at the Dark Sun discussion boads. 2 official 3.5 updates/conversions for Dark Sun. which one is the official one?
In all honesty, does it matter?
If you have concerns about a sanctioned campaign ("Living Dark Sun" or "Living Athas") using certain rules then perhaps you should consult with the organizer of said campaign tournament.
Otherwise, for gamers, you have two options: One that is fully detailed, and the other coming from Wizards but veteran gamers could use as a starting reference point. Other gamers would just try to blend them together.
In all honesty, does it matter?
If you have concerns about a sanctioned campaign ("Living Dark Sun" or "Living Athas") using certain rules then perhaps you should consult with the organizer of said campaign tournament.
Otherwise, for gamers, you have two options: One that is fully detailed, and the other coming from Wizards but veteran gamers could use as a starting reference point. Other gamers would just try to blend them together. [/b]
I think you have missed the whole crux of the issue here - Dragon is no longer owned and operated by WotC. It is now a 3rd party produced product. If it was still being run/owned by WotC then there is no issue (other than agreeing/disagreeing with the content) since it is clearly "official" and supercedes anything that a fan site produces.
Sometime in early '03 WotC sold Dragon and Dungeon to Paizo which now 'owns' them. WotC still peeps over their stuff, but it is all Paizo's - lock stock and barrel.
What will happen in around the April time frame is that Paizo will publish a "100% official D&D" issue that has a complete Dark Sun 3.5 update and then will publish an adventure (or perhaps more in the future) in Dungeon that uses this system. So now there will be 2 sources (at least) publishing (or posting) 3.5 "Official" Dark Sun products that use completely different rulesets. There is a difference between using different variants and using a completely different system. The defiling system in Dragon was very similar to an earlier system used in the DS 3 but was was abandoned due to playtesting (read mass-playtesting by the boards) and feedback based on it. This is an example of things that willl cause problems. I personally don't agree with all of the decisions made by the Athas.org team but I do whole heartedly agree with the process that was was used.
The DS group has already posted a few supplements and an adventure "Dregoth Arising" (I think that was the final name) (updated to 3.0) that was an "official" WotC product that was turned over to them to 'finish' - so a precedent has already been set concerning 'official' material.
One of the main goals of the BRCS was to develop a product that could be used as a baseline for PBEM games and for individuals to post adventures, etc. that could be used in individual campaigns. There are also several people working on Neverwinter Nights modules/add-ons to incorporate the Birthright material (some based on the BRCS info).
Personally, WotC made a good move to sell off their periodical department. By doing so, they can focus on marketing their products instead of dated material (all magazines fall in this category).
But if you want to deny it, that's your problem, not mine. ;)
AFAIC, I don't care what you do. Use whatever you and your group feel are more suitable for your own Birthright game, without searching for any legitimacy.
After all, just because Wizards themelves made a Complete Warrior version of the samurai class does not mean I will replace previous versions of the samurai (especially when I have my own strong opinion about the new one).
Originally posted by Ranger REG
While I know it is no longer owned by WotC, it is given the stamp of approval by WotC. If they didn't, Paizo would be infringing on Wizards' trademark by its printed claim that it is 100% Official D&D magazine.
Yes, but that is for D&D (re: core products). What about the contract that gave the official fan sites the right to solely publish official products for the settings that are no longer supported by WotC.
Personally, WotC made a good move to sell off their periodical department. By doing so, they can focus on marketing their products instead of dated material (all magazines fall in this category).
I absolutely agree with this one. It was a good financial decison on WotC's part and up until recently the things that Paizo has been doing with both Dragon and Dungeon have been very good.
But if you want to deny it, that's your problem, not mine. ;)
AFAIC, I don't care what you do. Use whatever you and your group feel are more suitable for your own Birthright game, without searching for any legitimacy.
After all, just because Wizards themelves made a Complete Warrior version of the samurai class does not mean I will replace previous versions of the samurai (especially when I have my own strong opinion about the new one).
I don't know if this is a slam or not ; )
But I never said that people couldn't or shouldn't adapt anything published to their own personal flavor - that is a core value of D&D itself.
The only thing I was harping on was the legal (and moral) issue. There are a great many people who had never played Birthright before (check out the Birthright.net) that had their interest sparked by the BRCS-playtest. There are, and will be, more who have had their interest sparked in the forgotten campaigns by the Dragon coverage. I think that is a good thing overall.
Paizo should have (morally and legally) referenced the "official" fansites in their coverage of the settings. That is where most of the info on the settings and products (adventures, supplements, etc.) are being developed.
As far as the Samurai issue is concerned. I agree and don't agree with your assessment of the CW's version. I don't like the one presented in OA, it was far too unbalanced. That version had all the benefits of a fighter (HD, BAB, save progression, bonus feats - although a slightly different list they were still there) and then could make a magic weapon quicker than a wizard and with no experience point penalty. As far as the making a magic weapon quicker, there is no limit to what special abilities that the samurai can add to his weapon and quite a few combinations would allow him to create a special magic weapon quicker than a wizard could. In our campaign (non-BR) there was a player playing a samurai using the OA rules, but when I brought up the advantage in making a magic weapon over a wizard the DM quickly said that he had to pay the exp cost like a wizard to make it (or actually awaken the weapon I guess is more accurate). I tried to push towards the system in Avalanche Press' Noble Steeds where a character can send a share of his experience points to his mount and 'level' it up, gaing special abilities as the steed progessed in level, but that didn't work. The other problem was that the samurai class is designed (well in OA and most versions other than CW) to be an inherent part of an Oriental setting, in ours the samurai was nowhere near his lands and his soverign, so the role-playing restrictions just weren't there.
Originally posted by irdeggman
Yes, but that is for D&D (re: core products). What about the contract that gave the official fan sites the right to solely publish official products for the settings that are no longer supported by WotC.
You're going to have talk directly to Wizards about it. And if you're willing, take them to court on the charge of breach of contract.
I don't know if this is a slam or not ; )
But I never said that people couldn't or shouldn't adapt anything published to their own personal flavor - that is a core value of D&D itself.
The only thing I was harping on was the legal (and moral) issue. There are a great many people who had never played Birthright before (check out the Birthright.net) that had their interest sparked by the BRCS-playtest. There are, and will be, more who have had their interest sparked in the forgotten campaigns by the Dragon coverage. I think that is a good thing overall.
Paizo should have (morally and legally) referenced the "official" fansites in their coverage of the settings. That is where most of the info on the settings and products (adventures, supplements, etc.) are being developed.
Morally, I may agree with you that they should give prop the official fan site. But to be fair, I haven't seen them give prop to other official fan sites which they covered in other articles such as Dragonlance/Taladas (there is no mention of Dragonlance.com nor Dragonlance Nexus).
Legally, it is not their obligation. (Of course, see my disclaimer below.)
As far as the Samurai issue is concerned. I agree and don't agree with your assessment of the CW's version. I don't like the one presented in OA, it was far too unbalanced. That version had all the benefits of a fighter (HD, BAB, save progression, bonus feats - although a slightly different list they were still there) and then could make a magic weapon quicker than a wizard and with no experience point penalty. As far as the making a magic weapon quicker, there is no limit to what special abilities that the samurai can add to his weapon and quite a few combinations would allow him to create a special magic weapon quicker than a wizard could. In our campaign (non-BR) there was a player playing a samurai using the OA rules, but when I brought up the advantage in making a magic weapon over a wizard the DM quickly said that he had to pay the exp cost like a wizard to make it (or actually awaken the weapon I guess is more accurate). I tried to push towards the system in Avalanche Press' Noble Steeds where a character can send a share of his experience points to his mount and 'level' it up, gaing special abilities as the steed progessed in level, but that didn't work. The other problem was that the samurai class is designed (well in OA and most versions other than CW) to be an inherent part of an Oriental setting, in ours the samurai was nowhere near his lands and his soverign, so the role-playing restrictions just weren't there.
OT SIDEBAR
Personally, the CW version makes the OA version more tolerable to play (initially, I didn't like that samurai class because of its root in Rokugan rather than generic OA). As for the Daisho ability, I think it is missing the same key ingredient: spending XP, which AEG corrected that in their Rokugan companion book.
[The CW Kensai prestige class now have that feature.]
As for the CW version, it is too specific. How many historical samurai figures you know always fight with two weapons or the niten ryu technique?
BTW, as a shameless plug, I offered a samurai class markup as a variant (specialist) fighter class in the Oriental Adventures forum (along with a thread that offers my review of the OA article in the same issue as Birthright "bloodline" article).
Originally posted by irdeggman
I think you have missed the whole crux of the issue here - Dragon is no longer owned and operated by WotC. It is now a 3rd party produced product. If it was still being run/owned by WotC then there is no issue (other than agreeing/disagreeing with the content) since it is clearly "official" and supercedes anything that a fan site produces.
The real question should be "Is this published WotC intellectual property?" What I am getting at is this seems to me to be a cheap way to protect their brands. If WotC does not occassionally publish books (or at least articles) for a particular brand every so often then anybody can just publish a game using the exact same name (Birthright, Dark Sun, etc) because it isn't supported/protected. To me this was just the cheapest and most efficient way for WotC to help protect a number of their brands with little to no effort on their part (remember, most of these are up to 10+ years "stale").
Originally posted by irdeggman
Editorially there is a great deal of confusion over blood points and bloodline score – the terms seem to be used interchangeably with no clear definition for what a blood point is.
Now that I've read the Birthright article I have just one thing to say: I don't see how anyone who's ever watched a sporting event in their life could possibly find this confusing. Your blood score is the number of blood points you have. It's as simple as that. I can't believe you're griping over their failure to spell out the definition of common English words.
Wyvern
Originally posted by Wyvern76
Now that I've read the Birthright article I have just one thing to say: I don't see how anyone who's ever watched a sporting event in their life could possibly find this confusing. Your blood score is the number of blood points you have. It's as simple as that. I can't believe you're griping over their failure to spell out the definition of common English words.
Wyvern
Actually my point goes all the way back to one of the core 3/3.5 issues and that of ability scores. There are commonly used options there that give a certain amount of points to spend on these scores and there is not a one-for-one equivalency.
The use of the phrase "points" implies that it is a number that can be adjusted by the player as is the ability score.
There are also systems out there that use 'points' to define things like spell usage and other things. If you go back to some of the other threads here you will see questions people ask about the number of times a blood ability can be used (with the inference being that it is point based).
The article was written by a paid professional with many articles and products to his name and was published by a likewise "professional" organization that does nothing but publish products. I somehow have a reasonable expectation that these would be proofed to a better qualtiy than they were.
And I have no idea why you are bringing in watching professional sports into this topic since they are totally non-related. I have watched sports with my wife and she had/has no idea what the scoring refers to. Has anyone tried to watch a tennis match (for the first time) and tried to figure out the scoring system?
There is a common usage in writing that you define things when you first use them, if it is an abreviation then it is 'supposed' to be defined in its first use.
Originally posted by irdeggman
The use of the phrase "points" implies that it is a number that can be adjusted by the player as is the ability score.
Not to me it doesn't. If you're going to ascribe a nonstandard definition to a word, that's your problem.
There are also systems out there that use 'points' to define things like spell usage and other things.
That contradicts what you just said, since spell points are not 'bought' in the manner of ability points.
If you go back to some of the other threads here you will see questions people ask about the number of times a blood ability can be used (with the inference being that it is point based).
Having a limited number of uses per day is not the same as being point based.
And I have no idea why you are bringing in watching professional sports into this topic since they are totally non-related. I have watched sports with my wife and she had/has no idea what the scoring refers to. Has anyone tried to watch a tennis match (for the first time) and tried to figure out the scoring system?
The fact that tennis has its own particular jargon doesn't change the fact that the words "point" and "score" have a straightforward, consistent, and generally understood meaning in sports or any other context.
There is a common usage in writing that you define things when you first use them,
If the author had used "point" and "score" in a nonstandard way, then he should have defined them. But he didn't.
if it is an abreviation then it is 'supposed' to be defined in its first use.
What abbreviation?
Wyvern
Originally posted by theDwarf
The real question should be "Is this published WotC intellectual property?" What I am getting at is this seems to me to be a cheap way to protect their brands. If WotC does not occassionally publish books (or at least articles) for a particular brand every so often then anybody can just publish a game using the exact same name (Birthright, Dark Sun, etc) because it isn't supported/protected. To me this was just the cheapest and most efficient way for WotC to help protect a number of their brands with little to no effort on their part (remember, most of these are up to 10+ years "stale").
Oh, they can protect their trademarks even if they don't continue to use it. The law says they must be protective of their trademarks, meaning that if someone misuses their trademarks and IPs (without their permission), they can go after them with a lawsuit.
So if someone have the gall to publish a Birthright game that is in every way similar to the game which Wizards acquired from the sale of TSR without Wizards' permission to use the trademark, Wizards' Legal will go after that someone.
Originally posted by irdeggman
As far as the Samurai issue is concerned. I agree and don't agree with your assessment of the CW's version. I don't like the one presented in OA, it was far too unbalanced. That version had all the benefits of a fighter (HD, BAB, save progression, bonus feats - although a slightly different list they were still there) and then could make a magic weapon quicker than a wizard and with no experience point penalty. As far as the making a magic weapon quicker, there is no limit to what special abilities that the samurai can add to his weapon and quite a few combinations would allow him to create a special magic weapon quicker than a wizard could. In our campaign (non-BR) there was a player playing a samurai using the OA rules, but when I brought up the advantage in making a magic weapon over a wizard the DM quickly said that he had to pay the exp cost like a wizard to make it (or actually awaken the weapon I guess is more accurate). I tried to push towards the system in Avalanche Press' Noble Steeds where a character can send a share of his experience points to his mount and 'level' it up, gaing special abilities as the steed progessed in level, but that didn't work. The other problem was that the samurai class is designed (well in OA and most versions other than CW) to be an inherent part of an Oriental setting, in ours the samurai was nowhere near his lands and his soverign, so the role-playing restrictions just weren't there. [/b]
OT again -
I think the OA samurai is infinitely superior to the CW samurai designwise. Looking at the CW samurai, it looks like playing one would feel like playing a parody of a bad samurai in a bad ninja movie. With the progression of cinematic-style abilities, it feels like you're forced into a stereotype. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that - it's just that the OA samurai is much superior, in that it allows a player to customize his character more, with more skill points and feats, rather than a set menu of abilities. Of course, a lot of the PHB classes are hard to customize for the same reason too. It's just that in this case, the CW samurai really looks and feels like shoddy design work. Some guy sat down and thought 'this is what samurais are like,' rather than 'this is what samurais can be like, now what else can they be like...?' Same thing goes for the swashbuckler - a straight progression of pre-picked special abilities with very little room for customization is boring. At least with the hex blade you eventually get to pick spells.
If you want to compare an OA samurai to a straight fighter, the fighter is induitably the better combatant. The fighter has more feats, from 1st level onwards, and he has proficiency with heavy armor and shields. By comparison, the samurai has more skill points, a better Will save, and a smaller and more restricted, and hence inferior, selection of bonus feats. Seems balanced enough to me. A special note might be that the samurai does NOT start with proficiency in the katana - he can only use it as a martial weapon, two-handed style.
As for the item creation thing - the element that seems to be missing from your analysis is that, unlike the wizard, the samurai has to sacrifice the full market value of the item. To get a +5 bastard sword with +5 worth of specials, the wizard shells out 100 335 gp and 8000 XP. To get +5/+5 katana, the samurai shells out 200 000 gp. To make both weapons +5/+5, that's 400 000 gp. Essentially, the special ability of the samurai is that he's allowed to buy a couple of specific magic items, even if the world doesn't feature a magic shop. Those extra 99 665 gp that the samurai has to shell out is quite a lot. The expected wealth for an 18th-level character is 440 000 gp. The most I think most samurai characters would make of their swords would be a trusty +5 keen weapon or so.
Both balancewise and designwise, the OA samurai is IMO infinitely superior to the CW excuse for a samurai.
They also can create magical weapons quicker (i.e., at an earlier level) than can a wizard without the expenditure of a feat. Now while they have to pay the full gp cost this is really not an equivalency, IMO, since the gp awards are more subject to DM insertion that are the exp ones (i.e., exp awards apply to everyone while gp awards can too easily be tweaked). Check out a few of the magical abilities that can be added (and stack them based solely on the pluses they have) and you will see that the samurai can achieve them quicker - he doesn't even have to invest his sword with the +1 first. The samurai's feat selection is indeed less than that of the fighter, but they are very much clan based - oh that was the design wasn't it.
I also don't much like the CW version that much either - it is too focused on the samurai fighting with 2 weapons which is not how the katana is normally used. Really it is a waste to treat it like a bastard sword for that case (i.e., exotic weapon).
Originally posted by irdeggman
Good to see you posting Jan, (OT) but I emphatically disagree with your analysis of the OA samurai. It is not balanced. They do start out being able to use a katana one handed - it is considered a martial weapon in that setting.
Nope. Check table 5-7 in OA. 'Katana' is listed as a medium-sized exotic weapon. Bastard swords (katanas) are considered martial weapons in all settings - when used two-handed. I believe there was even a query about this specific issue in Dragon once. If I recall correctly, the answer was something like - 'not all samurai learn how to use a katana with one hand.' (I.e. they do not get it for free.)
They also can create magical weapons quicker (i.e., at an earlier level) than can a wizard without the expenditure of a feat. Now while they have to pay the full gp cost this is really not an equivalency, IMO, since the gp awards are more subject to DM insertion that are the exp ones (i.e., exp awards apply to everyone while gp awards can too easily be tweaked). Check out a few of the magical abilities that can be added (and stack them based solely on the pluses they have) and you will see that the samurai can achieve them quicker - he doesn't even have to invest his sword with the +1 first. The samurai's feat selection is indeed less than that of the fighter, but they are very much clan based - oh that was the design wasn't it.
They can only ever 'create' two specific items - the wizard can churn out as many as he wants to, subject to cost limitations. They do get the advantage one level earlier than wizards can get Craft Magic Arms and Armor, but I don't quite see a problem with that. The wizard can make himself a few scrolls of magic weapon if he feels like it is a really pressing concern. At 4th level, it's quite reasonable for a normal D&D character to have a +1 weapon anyway. For the samurai, what it amounts to is a +1 bonus to damage at 4th level, since the weapon already yields +1 to hit from being masterwork. The OA text contains no reference contradicting the DMG rule that you need to have at least a +1 bonus before getting a special ability in any case - and getting a high enhancement bonus quickly trumps most of the special abilities you can get anyway. It's better in general to have a +2 weapon than a +1 flaming weapon, for instance, especially in the original context the class was presented (3e, not 3.5e). Further, if the samurai wants a weapon that has a powerful single ability, like vorpal, he's going to be going a lot of levels with a crap sword.
The only way this ability will be potentially imbalanced is if the DM runs a campaign with treasure assumptions that deviate a lot from the expected norm. That is -
1) If the DM gives out very little treasure of any kind, the ability will be a non-factor;
2) If the DM gives out a lot of treasure, but very little magic, and the party doesn't have another outlet to create magic items, the ability can be very powerful;
3) If the DM gives out 'normal' (by D&D standards) or greater amounts of treasure, there's a likelihood that the samurai would probably have come across a better weapon by mid levels anyway.
Of course, there are certain cultural taboos about looting and such in OA which might complicate the issue compared to regular D&D. What it all boils down to, though, is that the ability isn't really the ability to create a magic item - the ability is the ability to buy one, even if there's no magic shop around.
I also don't much like the CW version that much either - it is too focused on the samurai fighting with 2 weapons which is not how the katana is normally used. Really it is a waste to treat it like a bastard sword for that case (i.e., exotic weapon).
It's not just that that irks me - there's also the 'staredown' abilities. I don't much appreciate the notion that every samurai I play should be a menacing badass - and besides, isn't that really what the Intimidate skill is for in the first place? The 'staredown' ability makes me think of spaghetti westerns.
[Edit - forgot to close some tags.]
If you guys want to discuss the versions of samurai class even further, we should move the discussion to another forum.
Too much OT posts will result in WizO closing this thread down, and I don't want that to happen.
So, let's try to stick to the topic.
Jan, have you looked over the Chap 2 revision I posted? I'd like your input on how well it came out.
This is back to the topic since the reference is to the BRCS and it was brought up as a comparision to the dragon article.
Originally posted by Ranger REG
Oh, they can protect their trademarks even if they don't continue to use it. The law says they must be protective of their trademarks, meaning that if someone misuses their trademarks and IPs (without their permission), they can go after them with a lawsuit.
So if someone have the gall to publish a Birthright game that is in every way similar to the game which Wizards acquired from the sale of TSR without Wizards' permission to use the trademark, Wizards' Legal will go after that someone.
Actually, that is not entirely true. Trademarks must be paid for/renewed. Certain things are IP and other things are not. Also, IIRC, there is a time thing before writings become open (and no longer protected) based on a number of factors (including, again IIRC, date last published).
It is the last of these that I am referring to ... aka, this could be construed as updating the "date last published" and thus delay any open use and do other weird things to was is/isn't "fair use".
Originally posted by theDwarf
Actually, that is not entirely true. Trademarks must be paid for/renewed.
Registered trademarks must be paid for to be renewed at the federal office of patents and trademarks. But whether it is registered or not, trademarks must be protected or they lose it.
Certain things are IP and other things are not. Also, IIRC, there is a time thing before writings become open (and no longer protected) based on a number of factors (including, again IIRC, date last published).
If we are referring to Birthright copyrighted material, I'd be six feet under before it can become PD. But the Birthright trademark (associated with a lot of known elements that makes up the distinction) can still be protected, as long as Wizards or any future owner of that trademark is vigilant about it.
To sum things up:
Patents only last 30 years.
Copyrights only last 50 years after the author's death.
Trademark last forever as long the owner protects it. If he fails to protect his trademark, he loses it and cannot sue other people who (mis)use it.
Arjan, one of the webmasters for Birthright.net, has correspondance from Rich Baker at WotC pretty much saying that we could use any of the old published Birthright material as long as we gave credit for the source and did some other things with names and credits, etc, - well specifically for the BRCS project that is.
There was a thread on Birthright.net pertaining to trademarks and Birthright. I think that was the subject, and it (Birthright) was one of the trademarks that WotC 'dropped'. This is from my memory, which is greatly affected by age, and more than 3rd hand but there might be something there.
As far as 'protecting' anything - having it published in Dragon should not accomplish that - since Dragon is not owned by the company in question. Saying that anything published by a different company that is not owned by the 'parent one' is being protected by the owner of the original material is a pretty far stretch.
Originally posted by Ranger REG
Are you saying that the magazine article in question is unauthorized? That they didn't get the permission from the company who holds the IP?
No I didn't. But I am saying that just because it was published in Dragon cannot meet the issue of publishing new material since it was not published by the IP. That was essentially all I was saying on that.
Well maybe that Birthright.net had specific permission to publish the official material. I do not know what the contract between Dragon (i.e., Paizo) and WotC looks like. As far as my limited legal knowledge goes the first contract issued is the binding one, unless it is recinded - which it wasn't in this case.
Should we hold a rally and burn issue #315 in bonfire because of the sacrilegious material that would infringe upon Birthright.net material?
Do we cast the first stone upon Ed Stark, since Richard Baker is the one and only creator of Birthright?
Because I really do not care. New material is new material to me, an article written by one of the few remaining employees at Wizards' R&D, published by the 100% Dungeons & Dragon magazine (trademark used with permission by Wizards of the Coast, and they don't hand out their trademark in the commercial industry lightly).
Originally posted by irdeggman
No I didn't. But I am saying that just because it was published in Dragon cannot meet the issue of publishing new material since it was not published by the IP. That was essentially all I was saying on that.
Well maybe that Birthright.net had specific permission to publish the official material. I do not know what the contract between Dragon (i.e., Paizo) and WotC looks like. As far as my limited legal knowledge goes the first contract issued is the binding one, unless it is recinded - which it wasn't in this case.
Curious because I've seen you and Ranger REG go back and forth on this...
What first contract are you talking about? The license WOTC gave you guys for the fansite?
Remember that a license (as for a fan site) is unilaterally revocable by the owner in most cases.
A contract, by contrast, is mutually enforceable because both parties have also bound themselves to perform certain duties under the contract. No mutuality of obligations, no enforceable contract.
So unless WOTC extracted a fee from you or bargained for some legal detriment on your part, any such "exclusivity" clause as you mentioned above is unilaterally revocable. No rescission is necessary because there was never an enforceable contract.
And just because as license is printed and signed does not make it irrevocable at will.
How this all may apply to your particular set of facts, I won't pretend to know. But the foregoing at least provides you a baseline of understanding as to something that seems to be causing some confusion.
Originally posted by evilrafael
If you think that's a big deal, look at what happened to Ravenloft and Dragonlance! There was the same agreement with their respective fan sites. The first had a well dedicated team working a lot to bring a conversion at Kargatane, but the game was sold to Sword & Sorcery Studios.
Note however that in the case of Ravenloft, Sword and Sorcery had the class and decency to consult and even hire the Kargatane members to work on the new 3e Ravenloft setting therefore providing a strong continuity from the RL fansite to the official 3e setting.
Just because the writer of that Birthright article in Dragon magazine did not consult the fansite members does not mean he is wrong. Nor is it Paizo's fault. Should Wizards have ordered them to consult with the BR fansite? Perhaps, but BR is still Wizards' IP and they can do what they want with it.
So, if you're miffed they didn't ask BR fansite, as they probably didn't ask other other fansites for consultation, I can't help you with your personal feelings.
Originally posted by Advocatus
Curious because I've seen you and Ranger REG go back and forth on this...
What first contract are you talking about? The license WOTC gave you guys for the fansite?
Remember that a license (as for a fan site) is unilaterally revocable by the owner in most cases.
A contract, by contrast, is mutually enforceable because both parties have also bound themselves to perform certain duties under the contract. No mutuality of obligations, no enforceable contract.
So unless WOTC extracted a fee from you or bargained for some legal detriment on your part, any such "exclusivity" clause as you mentioned above is unilaterally revocable. No rescission is necessary because there was never an enforceable contract.
Let's see, they 'owners' of the fans site had to 'sign' contracts with WotC , they also had to pay a fee of some kind. I don't know how much, but I don't hink it was substantial - but money did change hands. So it does seem to me that it is more than a mere license and has not been revoked, especially since as late as early last year there was correspondance with Rich Baker over ideas for the BRCS. I am not an owner of the fan site, only a contributor to the BRCS. The thing that outraged me the most was the total invalidation of the Dark Sun project. This project was published by Athas.org with WotC interest and oversight (although not as great as they had hoped, but still they (they Athas team) did provide info to WotC) and met the restrictions put on them by WotC which semed to be the same things that caused Paizo to have problems. That is the fansite can only publish electronic products and they must be free, Paizo won't publish anything that has been published by anyone else {company policy}.
The contract did have conditions that both parties were to meet, so again it sure looks like more than a license. The only automatic revoking was if WotC took up the publishing of campaign material again (or sold the product line). Note that neither of these has happened with regards to Dark Sun or to Birthright.
Bottom line, IMO, is that WotC failed to work on their contracts properly. Either by voiding them, rewriting them or enforcing them. They still have not stepped up to the plate on this issue.
All I can tell you is that Wizards of the Coast is the owner of IP, plain and simple. They didn't sell it. They acquired it through the sale of TSR.
The fan site is just that, a fan site. So, I'm having a difficult time believing that Wizards would offer an exclusive trademark use contract to that fansite, that they and only they can offer Birthright material.
I am concern about that as well, since it's really poor that Paizo is going to put out a PhB for darksun, while athas.org as worked with the community over FOUR years to conceive such a great core rules set. They even have release their monsters pdf which is nearly 200 pages of monsters without images! There is at least two adventures builds and some accessory.I just can't believe that Paizo will let the fan down. Why? Because it would just have been a HUGE waste of time...
I've seen you on the Dark Sun boards too.
Btw, does any of the peoples in charge of the net old settings know anything more to this Paizo - deadsetting thing?
Originally posted by Grummore
I just can't believe that Paizo will let the fan down. Why? Because it would just have been a HUGE waste of time...
Well, They wanted to do it in order to promote the Expanded Psionic Handbook release (April 2004) and Wizards of the Coast is giving them their blessing.
Really, you should complain to Wizards for handing out their DS IP all willy-nilly. As for me, I really don't care who does Dark Sun or who is entitled to put out the so-called "official rules."
Now, either Athas.org supports the rules put out by Paizo, or they don't. It still does not change what they are in my eyes: a fansite (like all other Dark Sun online fan resources). And to put it on-topic, that's what also I think of Birthright.net (like all other Birthright online fan resources).
Either way, I think the rules from Unearthed Arcana would be vastly preferable to a Scion class or a Template.
Originally posted by GreenKnight
It then serves as the prerequisite for the major version, which is then the prerequisite for the Major version.
I think you've got a typo here -- the major version is the prerequisite for itself?(By the way, why'd you resurrect a dead thread about the Birthright rules in Dragon magazine to post something that has nothing whatsoever to do with Dragon magazine? It seems to me you would've been better off starting a new thread.)
Wyvern
Basically, whether or not UA specifically said it, the UA system is a means of capturing a physical transformation. That is they capture "physical" aspects of the source creature and the one with the blood line starts to "approximate" or come closer to it as they progress in character levels.
It is real difficult to approximate the "physical" aspects of a god. Which is pretty much why they didn't include any examples of divine bloodlines, even though they included them in the broad statement about the kinds of things that could be done with the bloodline system.
It is not mechanic that readily lends itself to tie in with a bloodline score. Basically it is character level dependent and independent of any other external influences like a blood score. This causes issues with bloodtheft and increasing/decreasing blood score either by investiture or by ggod rulership. These are an essential part of the BR bloodline system, IMO.
But it depends on what type of campaign you are using it in. For an adventure based campaign the UA system would probably work alright, it is when domain level play comes into consideration that it really breaks down, IMO. And since I lean towards a 'balanced' campaign - one with roughly equal amount of adventuring and domain actions my opinion is geared towards that.
We're on Turn 8 of using the BRCS/playtest rules version 1.0 and except for the questions Karen emails you, it seems to be going just fine. If you want input on anything, I now have over 12 month's experience with these rules. You know where to find me!
Derek
You looking for any players?