Domains

[zukie51262]

Ok heres a question, A regent is moving accross the land and starts a guild say in the Vos and has some guilds in the Rjurik lands. First can this be done and if it can then are there any penalties that need to be applied like he only collects regency points for the one holding and not the other.

In the past I told my players if they adventured more than a month they lose all domain actions (Now its 6 weeks 2 weeks per month) so if there away from there holding they would not get regency points or domain turns (except one for adventuring) and if gone long enough then they would lose the holding if someone had'nt already taken it over.

[Fearless_Leader]

I don't think there are really any rules for the situation you describe. Ultimately, it would be up to the DM to enact such house rules. Personally, I don't think putting limitations on RP collection between two different regions (such as Rjurik and Vosgaard) is such a bad idea.

[ryancaveney]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, zukie51262 wrote:



> A regent is moving accross the land and starts a guild say in the Vos

> and has some guilds in the Rjurik lands. First can this be done and

> if it can then are there any penalties that need to be applied



That can certainly be done, and no penalties need be applied. The

distance your holdings are from one another has no direct effect, except

that widely spread guild holdings in fact are *better* for trade routes.



> In the past I told my players if they adventured more than a month

> they lose all domain actions (Now its 6 weeks 2 weeks per month)



Adventure is on the list of standard domain actions. Therefore to

adventure a whole month, or even any one third of a whole season (four

weeks out of any twelve) should take just one domain action.



> so if there away from there holding they would not get regency points

> or domain turns (except one for adventuring) and if gone long enough

> then they would lose the holding if someone hadn`t already taken it

> over.



I think this is too harsh. Clearly, if they spend *every* domain action

Adventuring, they will be doing a very poor job of running their realms,

but they do collect regency normally until someone actually comes in and

Contests away their holdings while they`re not around to defend them.





Ryan Caveney

[ConjurerDragon]

Ryan B. Caveney schrieb:



>On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, zukie51262 wrote:

>

>>A regent is moving accross the land and starts a guild say in the Vos

>>and has some guilds in the Rjurik lands. First can this be done and

>>if it can then are there any penalties that need to be applied

>>

>>

>That can certainly be done, and no penalties need be applied. The

>distance your holdings are from one another has no direct effect, except

>that widely spread guild holdings in fact are *better* for trade routes.

>

Assuming that the distant provinces in which he has those guild holdings

are connected by roads. And as far as I understand it that this

connecting line of roads is not disturbed by wars between. From Rjurik

to Vosgaard highly unlikely.



> think this is too harsh. Clearly, if they spend *every* domain action

>Adventuring, they will be doing a very poor job of running their realms,

>but they do collect regency normally until someone actually comes in and

>Contests away their holdings while they`re not around to defend them.

>

>

However in the Rules for Vosgaard, Tribes of the Heartless Waste (2E) it

reads that regents are *expected* to do things personally and therefore

do even normal domain actions like create or rule or contest *in person*

as an adventure action.

bye

Michael

[ryancaveney]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Michael Romes wrote:



> Assuming that the distant provinces in which he has those guild

> holdings are connected by roads. And as far as I understand it that

> this connecting line of roads is not disturbed by wars between. From

> Rjurik to Vosgaard highly unlikely.



Yes, this land route is much too long and through too dangerous country to

work. Therefore, travel by sea! The reason I said distance was better

for trade routes is that if you`re trading between different cultures, you

no longer need to worry about making the terrain types different (CotS 71).

However, one of the ends does have to be a province of level at least 4,

and those are a bit hard to come by in Vosgaard and Rjurik, so you might

want to stop off in Brechtur in between.



> However in the Rules for Vosgaard, Tribes of the Heartless Waste (2E)

> it reads that regents are *expected* to do things personally and

> therefore do even normal domain actions like create or rule or contest

> *in person* as an adventure action.



Yes indeed! Therefore, since the original poster`s players sound like

they always want to adventure but he wants them to rule domains, Vosgaard

would be an ideal compromise location. You needn`t actually use the name

"Adventure" action every action round, if you`re just trying to accomplish

the same goal as another standard domain action -- go ahead and say that

in this domain turn, the regent does Create Guild Holding, then Rule Guild

Holding, then Create Trade Route, but then instead of just spending RP and

rolling a d20 to resolve each one, design and run three separate

adventures -- or one big one -- to decide whether the actions work. This

is officially (TotHW DG 59) what constitutes good rulership in Vosgaard.



Now, personally, I prefer playing lots of domain turns with few to no

adventures, so even in Vosgaard I just use normal resolution mechanics;

however, in this situation, it sounds like the players would prefer Ed

Stark`s recommended way.





Ryan Caveney

[zukie51262]

Ok here's my problem my players have holding in the Southern Brect lands. They very from trade routes to Law holding, but nothing tied to the land as of yet.

They went sailing one day (looking at the maps of the land) and discovered an Island above the Vos Guard. A nice size island where they can have land, holdings and such, just needs to be tamed.

Now when i informed them to do this they cannot be in both places at once to run the holdings in the Brect lands and the Vos Island, one of them they have to give up.

Boy did I get the glares on that announcement ( they did work very hard to get there holding and where they are now and dont want to give them up). I was then informed that there leutennants could run things for them. Again I informed my Mob that its not the same and again more glares, finnally we reached an agreement, I will research the argument and come up with a final rulling, this was acceptable to all.

[Mark_Aurel]

Having lieutenants run things while regents are in absentia sounds perfectly acceptable to me - that was pretty much what regents did do in the middle ages, after all. If Richard went on a crusade, he let his brother John (his lieutenant, for rules purposes) run things - and even do a better job of it than Rich himself.

There is generally no problem with this approach - unless the lieutenant proves more popular than the regent. Thus, a wise regent makes sure he has a strong claim to what he leaves for a while, and then he leaves an unpopular lieutenant in charge to boot, just to be doubly sure.

[zukie51262]

This is not a tempoary thing, they want to rule there domains in the Brect lands while setting up new ones in the Vos island and stay there.

[ryancaveney]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, zukie51262 wrote:



> Ok here`s my problem my players have holding in the Southern Brect

> lands. They very from trade routes to Law holding, but nothing tied

> to the land as of yet.



And Brechtur is the perfect place to launch the careers of adventurous

merchant princes.



> They went sailing one day (looking at the maps of the land) and

> discovered an Island above the Vos Guard. A nice size island where

> they can have land, holdings and such, just needs to be tamed.



Oho, Torova Temylatin! Think of it this way: there must be reasons that

island, so very close as it is, has *never* been settled by humans in

thousands of years. The challenges they face should be immense -- just

getting to the point at which creating a holding is even remotely possible

ought to take *decades* of game time, very hard work, the expenditure of

immense resources, and a hell of a lot of luck.



> Now when i informed them to do this they cannot be in both places at

> once to run the holdings in the Brect lands and the Vos Island, one of

> them they have to give up.



I think you should let them keep their Brecht holdings -- they will need

those as a base to amass the resources they need to even attempt taming

the island domain of their dreams. However, if clearing the wilderness is

their main goal, then their Brecht holdings should be pretty much a

sideshow. Let them expand them slightly, enough that they are a

reasonable source of gold for the troops and ships and supplies they will

need to carve their mark on the wilds, but then make them just background

for the main event, which will pretty much be a standard adventure

campaign of wandering through trackless forests and frozen mountaintops

hunting down and slaying the countless monsters who must inhabit the

island. Also, beware of interference from various groups who may already

live there in secret and wish to prevent any settlement being established

(e.g., elves, dwarves, giants, ice goblins, or the monastery of ancient

scions guarding the sielsegh of Basaia from the Book of Magecraft), or

other competing would-be settler groups.



> Boy did I get the glares on that announcement ( they did work very

> hard to get there holding and where they are now and dont want to give

> them up). I was then informed that there leutennants could run things

> for them. Again I informed my Mob that its not the same and again

> more glares, finnally we reached an agreement, I will research the

> argument and come up with a final rulling, this was acceptable to all.



Carving entirely new provinces out of utter wilderness is a truly

Herculean task; to have any chance of accomplishing it, they must devote

all their energies to it to the exclusion of all else. If they want to be

less ambitious, and just try to establish holdings outside Brechtur in,

say, Rjurik and Khinasi, that could be done without giving up significant

control over what they already have.





Ryan Caveney

[DanMcSorley]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, zukie51262 wrote:

> This is not a tempoary thing, they want to rule there domains in the

> Brect lands while setting up new ones in the Vos island and stay there.



Still not a huge problem, there were several late-medieval kings who

barely set foot in some of the lands they ruled. Charles (the fifth I

believe? Don`t have this particular history book handy, and I may be

mixing my monarchs.) inherited spain, austria, a good chunk of italy, and

was elected holy roman emperor. He was only in spain a couple of years of

his entire reign.



There are unique challenges to running large realms over long distances,

but it shouldn`t be impossible.

--

Daniel McSorley

[Birthright-L]

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=1924

>

> zukie51262 wrote:

> Ok here`s my problem my players have holding in the Southern Brect lands. They very from trade routes to Law holding, but nothing tied to the land as of yet.

>

> They went sailing one day (looking at the maps of the land) and discovered an Island above the Vos Guard. A nice size island where they can have land, holdings and such, just needs to be tamed.

>

> Now when i informed them to do this they cannot be in both places at once to run the holdings in the Brect lands and the Vos Island, one of them they have to give up.

>

> Boy did I get the glares on that announcement ( they did work very hard to get there holding and where they are now and dont want to give them up). I was then informed that there leutennants could run things for them. Again I informed my Mob that its not the same and again more glares, finnally we reached an agreement, I will research the argument and come up with a final rulling, this was acceptable to all.





I had kind of the opposite problem in my campaigns. My PCs wanted to

incorporate every single province of their domain under the rulership of a

vassal who would have three domain actions a turn specifically for

maintaining and defending that province, with perhaps occasional help in

terms of RP from the regent. It was annoying. There are only so many times

your vassal can turn out to be a thieving bastard...



-Lord Rahvin

[Birthright-L]

> There is generally no problem with this approach - unless the lieutenant proves more popular than the regent. Thus, a wise regent makes sure he has a strong claim to what he leaves for a while, and then he leaves an unpopular lieutenant in charge to boot, just to be doubly sure.



What would be the game effects of this?

That the regent controls law holdings in the province?

Or the player just makes the little speech above when investing the vassal,

"I make sure I`m the popular one."



Not critiquing. Just curious how you`d actually handle this in a game

situation.



-Lord Rahvin

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: <lordrahvin@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:54 PM





> I had kind of the opposite problem in my campaigns. My PCs wanted to

> incorporate every single province of their domain under the rulership of a

> vassal who would have three domain actions a turn specifically for

> maintaining and defending that province, with perhaps occasional help in

> terms of RP from the regent. It was annoying. There are only so many

times

> your vassal can turn out to be a thieving bastard...



They want to set up a traditional feudal state. The Rjurik start out with

those states. Even assuming every vassal is reasonably loyal (not a martyr,

but not a thieving bastard), the larger such a realm gets the more the realm

becomes divided against itself. A strong leader can usually hold such a

realm together, keeping disagreeing nobles cooperating, but even still

certain random events will be critical to such a realm. Assassination could

apply to any of the nobles, and they won`t be as well defended as the PC.

Remember, "Conspiracies almost always underlie asassination," so there are

political enemies at work. Feuds can literally divide such a realm in two.

Matters of justice might also put nobles on both sides of the camp. Great

Captains may have followers from among the nobility. This is why they put

heads on pikes.



Review the Rjurik realms for other ideas, as well as what can happen under

weak kings in history.



Lots of little courts are going to spend more on court expences than one

larger court. Lots of decision makers means the centerpedal forces

regarding state policy will come to the fore. Every local province has its

own likes and dislikes and local nobles will reflect those (or will become

disliked at home, another problem altogether) reams with divided temples

will be unable to form a realm-wide policy on the temples, likewise with

guilds. When things get really feudal, remember that all politics are

local.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[QuestingMage]

Zukie, why are you raining on your party&#39;s parade? Trying to convince them to not take over an island in advance?

You&#39;re the DM. Tell them--once--that they will be facing unknown, and probably very tough opposition. If they are clever, and arrange for intelligence gathering (divination, srcying, animal recon, human recon, etc) and provide themselves with escape routes (potions of obscuring mist, caltrops, magically preserved poisoned meat to leave in front of wild animals, up to and including helms of teleportation) let them have at it. If they die, from lack of preparation, they die. You can even rub in what they should have done :P

If they win, well, they have just proved the heroism of their bloodlines, and done deeds bards will be singining about for hundreds of years.

And after all, isn&#39;t that what this is really about? :D

[QuestingMage]

On Greatness:
One of my favorite authors is Lois McMaster Bujold. Her Vorkosigan series sould be interesting to a majority of Birthright fans. The protagonist, Miles Vorkosigan, was born with physical birth defects which rendered him short, four feet ten inches, and his bones unusually brittle. He is the official heir to Count Aral Vorkosigan, and is brilliant. But handicapped in a warrior nation that prizes physical dominance.

In this scene, his clone brother Mark Vorkosigan, created and raised by the enemies of the Count Vorkosigan and trained as an assassin, has come home. And Mark is trying to figure out what the *^&/&#33;# coming home means. Mark is talking with Miles&#39; mother, the Lady Cordelia. Who is either his mother, his grandmother, his clone grandmother, or some random person; depending on your legal, moral, and philosophical position on the status of a clone conceived for hostile purposes.


"Aral is a great man. I, a Betan [a native of Beta Colony, a nation of rational, psychologically oriented scientists] say this; but I don&#39;t confuse greatness with perfection. To be great anyhow is... the higher achievement." She gave him a crooked smile. "It should give you hope, eh?"
"Huh. Block me from escape, you mean. Are you saying that no matter how screwed up I was, you&#39;d still expect me to work wonders?" Appalling.
She considered this. "Yes," she said serenely. "In fact, since no on is perfect, it follows that all great deeds have been accomplished out of imperfection. Yet they were accomplished, somehow, all the same."
Yet they were accomplished, somehow, all the same.

[QuestingMage]

Oh, I should have said: that quote about Lord Mark and the nature of greatness comes from the book Mirror Dance pg 287.

[Mark_Aurel]

What would be the game effects of this?
That the regent controls law holdings in the province?
Or the player just makes the little speech above when investing the vassal,
"I make sure I`m the popular one."

Not critiquing. Just curious how you`d actually handle this in a game
situation.

-Lord Rahvin

Game effects? I was thinking purely in political terms - if the vassal is more popular than his regent, it is that much easier for him to rebel. In terms of mechanics, the regent should make sure that he&#39;s got a friendly or helpful province, while the people at best should be indifferent to the vassal.

In historical terms, the Russian Tsar is a good example - traditionally, the Russian peasants tended to blame the Tsar&#39;s advisors and lieutenants for bad rulings, harsh laws, and pretty much everything that went wrong. Not always the case, of course, but it was a pretty common pattern for a long period of Russian history.

[Birthright-L]

> Game effects? I was thinking purely in political terms - if the vassal is more popular than his regent, it is that much easier for him to rebel. In terms of mechanics, the regent should make sure that he`s got a friendly or helpful province, while the people at best should be indifferent to the vassal.

>

> In historical terms, the Russian Tsar is a good example - traditionally, the Russian peasants tended to blame the Tsar`s advisors and lieutenants for bad rulings, harsh laws, and pretty much everything that went wrong. Not always the case, of course, but it was a pretty common pattern for a long period of Russian history.





Yes, but could you reflect this well in the game?

Do provinces have different loyalty levels to the regent than to their

lieutenant. I thought only the vassal would have to worry about province

loyalty, and for a single province, that`s a pretty easy thing to maintain.



Would having a friendly or helpful province represent the kind of thing that

you were suggesting wherein you make sure you`re far more popular than the

vassal you place in charge? Or does the player still have to say, "I make

sure the people are popular to me" while he does the investiture?



It seems like a cool suggestion you propose and your examples seem like

something I`d really like to reflect in the game. Conceptual and historical

analysis is great, but if it can`t add to the game, what`s the point?



Any ideas?



-Lord Rahvin

[zukie51262]

As far as the Island a little bird told them they should try to take it over, the birds name (snicker snicker) zukie.

I have used this vos island in the past for an old group and they did set it set it up, as there realm, but they also paid for it, with blood and sweat, and it was a life long campaign, untill there pc retired. To this day a see a few of my old members now and then and yes they cry over the island, found memories of what they went through to get where they are now.

Thank for all your input. Let you all know how it turns out, (THIS IS GONNA BE FUN HE HE *EVIL GRIN*)

[Mark_Aurel]

Yes, but could you reflect this well in the game?
Do provinces have different loyalty levels to the regent than to their
lieutenant. I thought only the vassal would have to worry about province
loyalty, and for a single province, that`s a pretty easy thing to maintain.

The system in the BRCS allows for pretty much anyone with an interest in a province to have a popularity rating with the people there - there&#39;re some more effects that might be interesting to add to that section, though, like the ability to prevent or lead rebellions, and investing rebellious provinces.

[geeman]

At 08:11 PM 9/6/2003 +0200, Mark_Aurel wrote:



>
Yes, but could you reflect this well in the game? Do provinces have

>different loyalty levels to the regent than to their lieutenant. I thought

>only the vassal would have to worry about province loyalty, and for a

>single province, that`s a pretty easy thing to maintain.

>

>The system in the BRCS allows for pretty much anyone with an interest in a

>province to have a popularity rating with the people there - there`re some

>more effects that might be interesting to add to that section, though,

>like the ability to prevent or lead rebellions, and investing rebellious

>provinces.



I`ve been considering an optional rule for "regency" in the sense that one

regent is in charge of a province (or domain) in the name of a scion who

may not yet have reached his age of majority, might have become disabled,

or otherwise withdraws from public life. Something like that might work

for this kind of thing. Basically, the idea is an extrapolation of the

shared rulership models I wrote up many moons ago. Here it is in that same

format:



FIGUREHEAD

-------------------------------------------------

Description: A figurehead government is one in which rulership is

performed by one regent in the name of another regent. The regent who is

in nominal control of the domain (the figurehead) may not yet have reached

his age of majority, he may have grown incompetent or infirm, or he may

simply have withdrawn from public life. The regent who administrates the

domain (the Minister) remains in the background, performing his domain

actions and dealing with events in the name of the figurehead.

Regency: Average of Bloodline Score of figurehead + Character level of

Minister.

Requirements: None

RP/GB Spending Restrictions: Minister may not spend more than his

character level in RP in any domain turn.

# of Actions: Standard

Restricted Actions: None

Benefits: None

[Osprey]

RP/GB Spending Restrictions: Minister may not spend more than his
character level in RP in any domain turn.


Per domain turn, as in per season? That&#39;s an awfully limited amount of RP. How about per domain round (per month)?

Osprey

[geeman]

At 02:29 AM 9/7/2003 +0200, Osprey wrote:



>
RP/GB Spending Restrictions: Minister may not spend more than his

>character level in RP in any domain turn.

>

>

> Per domain turn, as in per season? That`s an awfully limited amount of

> RP. How about per domain round (per month)?



That might be better, especially given the "low level" nature of BR

regents. What I was going for there was that the minister would not be

able to assure more than one action per DT, and I assumed he would be of

relatively high level, but that`s not necessarily the case, so limiting the

RP spent in an action round would probably make more sense.



Gary

[soudhadies]

Ok, I realize that I&#39;m a little late on this topic, as a decision by the DM in question seems to have been reached already. However, I was dealing with a similar issue in the PBeM I&#39;m running. Seeing as I was trying to limit the scope of the game I instituted something called a regional "bubble" which includes the PC realms. Players suffer major penalties (-15) to actions they take outside the bubble. A small controversy arose as to the protection therefore granted for trans-bubble domains, although it was ultimately set aside, here was one solution I proposed:



I&#39;m starting to think the in bubble / out bubble vassalage relationships may be the way to go. I also don&#39;t think that I should force it upon people if they don&#39;t want to take it.

I think what I will do is institute a transbubble inefficiency penalty. This means that the costs of working both inside and outside the bubble cause an unreasonable burden on the bureaucracy of a domain, and cause it to suffer a penalty on all domain actions they take. The size of the penalty is based upon the proportion of the domain&#39;s holding&#39;s that are outside the bubble.

Domains with less than 10% of their holdings outside the bubble will suffer no penalty, those with 10 - 25% of their holdings outside the bubble will suffer a -1 penalty to all actions, those with 25% - 50% will suffer a -2 penalty, those with 50% - 75% will suffer a -4 penalty and those with more than 75% of their holdings outside of the bubble will suffer a -6 penalty. Otherwise no penalties would be felt in either gold or regency income.

Players who want to avoid such penalties would be able to negotiate the breakup of their domains into vassal relationships. The ones whose lieges are outside the bubble would have to pay a small amount of regency as per the terms the player decides, but in return will be able to expect some measure of support and protection from their liege based upon the regency paid. Those who will become liege lords will expect a resonable seasonal tithe. The outbubble domains would come under my control.

What does this mean? It means that transbubble domains do enjoy a measure of protection and prosperity not available to other domains. Yes, in bubble realms do not have to worry about their dormant neighbors, but transbubble domains also don&#39;t have to worry too much about their out-bubble holdings coming under attack by their in-bubble competition.

It also means that mostly foreign domains will suffer more penalties, but also that these penalties will decrease with time as their holdings inside the bubble expand and therefore make up a larger proportion of their total holdings. Furthermore, such domains will have incomes that far surpass those of the smaller inbubble domains, and will be able to overcome the penalties by burning off money or regency.

This way we balance the problems of the transbubble domains with a flexible solution that gives transbubble players the flexibility to pick their poison (penalties and the costs these incur, or reduction of domain size).


In this case, I think that the DM could divide the PC&#39;s activities into two regions: Brechtur and Torova Temylatin. In each region the players would suffer a penalty based upon the percentages above. So for example, in the beginning the players would suffer massive penalties in Torova due to the fact that they were so far away from their base of support. As they establish a greater presence and such the penalties eventually decrease there but increase in Brechtur ("What do you mean Gurten can&#39;t help keep the records in Muden?" "Um, sir, you sent him to Siberia,er, Torova Temylatin"). Eventually, once the PC&#39;s are so thuroughly ensconced in Torova Temylatin they will suffer the massive penalties in Brechtur because that will be their backwater.