BR Newbie Questions

[Harri Kemppainen]

On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, David Sean Brown wrote:

> Not to get off topic, but where does it say this..I had thought our
> discussion was based on the fact the rule was never "written in stone" or
> the rulebook :)

It isn't explicitly said that there has to be guild in both end of trade
route, but if you read what is said on page 60 about trade routes, it
quite clear that there has to be guild in both ends.

Trade routes are neutralized if regent's guild holding in either province
is contested, ... or if the ruler of host province chooses to suppress it
by degree.

All this would be formulated otherwise _IF_ there had to be only guild in
either end of trade route.

Actually reading second and third time that passage, it isn't clear at
all.

Anyway GM is final judge and my degree is that there has to be guild on
both ends. There are few reasons for that. Trade routes give lots of
income so they should be hard to create. Holding in both ends makes routes
more vulnerable so players have to look after them and create there trede
empire more carefully.

- ---
Harri Kemppainen cshake@kastanja.uta.fi
Java-programmer Attila B288b
Information Studies, University of Tampere +358 3 215 7632

[Sepsis]

At 09:34 AM 9/22/97 -0400, James Abbiati(jaajr@mindport.net)wrote:
>
>1. Does a thief have to own both guilds to establish a trade route
>between them, or can two different owners set up a trade route?
>

According to the Rulebook A Guilder is supposed to own both Holdings in
order to set up a TR, but many of us on the List allow two different
Guilders to be part of a TR. The GHs must still be in different terrains,
or in different countries, and then the two Guilders must equally divide
the profit made from the TR. Also many of us use the GH levels in order to
determine profit made by a TR, instead of using Province levels. It seems
to make more sense.

>
>2. The RP's derrived from a holding are based upon the class
>of the regent. If a PC priest owns a law holding (therefore gaining
>1/2 RP's) and he wanted to ally himself with the warrior in
>the party (who would gain full RP's from the law holding), and the
>warrior agrees to give the priest 1/2 the RP's generated from the
>law holding, how would the 2 PC's go about cementing this relationship?
>

First off the Priest would need to turn his LHs over to the Warrior. Then
they two PCs would need to draw up an agreement between the two of them.
There are no guarantees that Warrior will uphold his end. Thats were trust
come in. In this way BR works just like real-life. You sign a treaty and
hope the other side honors it. Of course I believe there is something on
the Netbook about Bloodoaths that might seal this deal.

>
>3. Can a law holding in a province tax every eligible holding in
>that province each turn (i.e. tax the temple, guilds, and the
>province at the same time)?
>

Not that I know of. A LH can tax the Province, but the Regent controlling
the LHs can only demand a payment(or tribute, if you like)from the other
Holdings(not a tax). Its up to the various other Regents as to if they will
pay it. This situation can cause tension between various factions very
quick. But it should...shouldn't it.

>
>4. If a warrior regent changes class to become a thief
>(duel class character), does he gain all the benefits of both
>classes are far as being a regent goes? Another words, can he
>collect full RP's from both law holdings and guilds?
>

No. Its just like the other bonuses from your previous class, you can't
take advantage of them again until you exceed the level of your previous
class. Using your example: the PC can't get RPs from his LHs until his
Thief level exceeds his old Fighter level. Until then the PC can only get
RPs from his GHs. Once his Thief level passes his old Fighter level then he
can collect RPs from both.

>
>5. In our campaing, we have 4 players sharing rule of Roesone.
>3 players control 1 province each, and 1 player is the Baron of
>Roesone, controls 1 province, and has all the other provinces
>vassaled to him. The characters are mosty all good, consisting of
>a priest (the baron), a warrior, a ranger, and a thief. The priest
>owns quite a few holdings, whereas the other PC's own maybe 2-3
>small holdings each. The first time we played, some players took the
>attitude that BR is a board game, and the goal was to control as
>much as possible, even at the cost of other PC's. Others looked at
>it as a "collective rule under a high king" kinda thing. What
>stratagies would you recommend in order for the players to jointly rule
>Roesone under the Baron PC, and keep from stabbing each other in the back?
>

Usually each PC Regent controls a different Holding type, in a country. As
opposed to having the Regents control individual Provinces. But honestly
the PCs have to work it out amongst themselves. Backstabbing is part of the
big political game, so each PC is suggested to watch his/her own back.
Besides this type of internal conflict makes for good gaming. Although
going on a few Adventures together will most likely solidify their
alliance. Once someone saves your life a few times your unlikely to pull
any dirty deals on them later. But even thats not for certain. On the
political side all you can do is work out treaties and the consequences of
breaking them, and hope that all sides adhere to them.

Well I hope that helps some. But as always keep in mind that all the above
is MHO. Others may have a different take on these questions. But either way
you should check out the BR Netbook(URL is at the bottom of my sig)and see
if anything there might be of use. Many "questionable" subjects have been
answered there.


Sepsis, richt@metrolink.net

"War is a matter of vital importance to the State;
the province of life or death;
the road to survival or ruin.
It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied."
-Sun Tzu,(The Art of War)-

BR Netbook: http://webpages.metrolink.net/~veleda/birth.html