prtr02@scorpion.nspco.co
10-28-1997, 08:50 PM
Ed and board participants,
BR Economic Rules suggested changes:
Well, if the "official" ruling is that you don't need a guild holding in both to
establish a trade route, the BR economic rules definately need some retooling.
First, decide where BR should go as a campaign setting. BR realm rules are meant to be a simple
representation of kingdom dynamics. The kingdom dynamics were meant to serve as a generator for
stories and adventures. I don't think this has changed. If anything, I believe that the new BR
intends to emphasize roleplaying more, since marketing BR as a wargame didn't generate the level of
sales desired. Unless the original philosophy has changed, the realm rules must remain simple with
lots of room for DM interpretation/manipulation.
Second, you have to decide your philosophy of what or how powerful guild holdings
are. If a regent who controls a level 3 guild in a level 4 province really
controls 75% of the economy as stated in the rulebook, guilds should be very powerful. Those of you
who've read any of my stuff on the old aol boards dating back the last 3 years should be familiar
with some of my philosophies (love 'um or hate 'um as you will). One of them is this: One of D&D's
great strengths is the interdependence of the character classes. ie to have a good adventuring partyyou need characters with a variety of classes. The BR realm rules reflect this same strength and
should not be change. Thieves/Guilders SHOULD CONTROL MOST OF THE MONEY. This is the strength of
their class. It's what they have to offer/threaten the other regents with.
With this in mind, a clear change to the official rules should state that a guild holding (not necessarily controlled by the same person) is required at both the origin and terminus of a trade route,
with the route counting against the allowed number in both provinces. This is a simple, (more)
realistic representation of major trade routes. It should placate those who are (presumably) playingwith the flawed Trade routes that are giving Guilders too much power vs. Law regents and reduce the
number of routes going from every hick county to the City of Anuire.
Some counterpoints could be made. See the excellent post by relve of Helsinki for (what I would
consider) optional rules involving local or minor trade routes. Sadly, I better cut it short and getback to work, otherwise my economic condition will deteriorate significantly. Lots more could be
"said", but this one example will have to suffice. Why did the Iberians (Spanish and Portugese) desparetly sail west looking to establish trade routes with India and the Far East? Because the Italiansheld (in BR terms) the guild holdings and trade route slots in the eastern med and near east and usedtheir economic, political and military influence there to prevent others from establishing holdings there. Major Trade routes around Africa weren't established until the Portugese built bases (guild
holdings) in Angola, Mozambique and "factories" (guild holdings) at Goa in India. Why did they spendyears of national effort (RP, GB, ships, troops, diplomacy, exploratory trade, building,etc) when
they could have spent (by a present rules interpretation) one domain action, a few RP and GB and had the same cash flow as the Italians? And if you don't need guild holdings, and there's no limit to
the number of rich routes coming out of India, why didn't England, France, Holland and every two-bit
city state in the HRE jump on the bandwagon? Get rich quick! Spend a little effort and money! Be asrich as Venice overnight!
It's not just which ruling makes economic sense. It's which is easier to keep track of, helps
maintain play balance and, most importantly, is one heck-of-a-lot more fun to play.
Randax
BR Economic Rules suggested changes:
Well, if the "official" ruling is that you don't need a guild holding in both to
establish a trade route, the BR economic rules definately need some retooling.
First, decide where BR should go as a campaign setting. BR realm rules are meant to be a simple
representation of kingdom dynamics. The kingdom dynamics were meant to serve as a generator for
stories and adventures. I don't think this has changed. If anything, I believe that the new BR
intends to emphasize roleplaying more, since marketing BR as a wargame didn't generate the level of
sales desired. Unless the original philosophy has changed, the realm rules must remain simple with
lots of room for DM interpretation/manipulation.
Second, you have to decide your philosophy of what or how powerful guild holdings
are. If a regent who controls a level 3 guild in a level 4 province really
controls 75% of the economy as stated in the rulebook, guilds should be very powerful. Those of you
who've read any of my stuff on the old aol boards dating back the last 3 years should be familiar
with some of my philosophies (love 'um or hate 'um as you will). One of them is this: One of D&D's
great strengths is the interdependence of the character classes. ie to have a good adventuring partyyou need characters with a variety of classes. The BR realm rules reflect this same strength and
should not be change. Thieves/Guilders SHOULD CONTROL MOST OF THE MONEY. This is the strength of
their class. It's what they have to offer/threaten the other regents with.
With this in mind, a clear change to the official rules should state that a guild holding (not necessarily controlled by the same person) is required at both the origin and terminus of a trade route,
with the route counting against the allowed number in both provinces. This is a simple, (more)
realistic representation of major trade routes. It should placate those who are (presumably) playingwith the flawed Trade routes that are giving Guilders too much power vs. Law regents and reduce the
number of routes going from every hick county to the City of Anuire.
Some counterpoints could be made. See the excellent post by relve of Helsinki for (what I would
consider) optional rules involving local or minor trade routes. Sadly, I better cut it short and getback to work, otherwise my economic condition will deteriorate significantly. Lots more could be
"said", but this one example will have to suffice. Why did the Iberians (Spanish and Portugese) desparetly sail west looking to establish trade routes with India and the Far East? Because the Italiansheld (in BR terms) the guild holdings and trade route slots in the eastern med and near east and usedtheir economic, political and military influence there to prevent others from establishing holdings there. Major Trade routes around Africa weren't established until the Portugese built bases (guild
holdings) in Angola, Mozambique and "factories" (guild holdings) at Goa in India. Why did they spendyears of national effort (RP, GB, ships, troops, diplomacy, exploratory trade, building,etc) when
they could have spent (by a present rules interpretation) one domain action, a few RP and GB and had the same cash flow as the Italians? And if you don't need guild holdings, and there's no limit to
the number of rich routes coming out of India, why didn't England, France, Holland and every two-bit
city state in the HRE jump on the bandwagon? Get rich quick! Spend a little effort and money! Be asrich as Venice overnight!
It's not just which ruling makes economic sense. It's which is easier to keep track of, helps
maintain play balance and, most importantly, is one heck-of-a-lot more fun to play.
Randax