Domain Actions - Attitude Effects

[irdeggman]

Let's see if we can capture some more potential modifiers to domain actions.

In this case should the domain attitude affect actions in the province? The assumption is that there could be a bonus or penalty depending on the attitude.

The other assumption is that the attitude should be calculated on a province by province level. That is a ruler may have different attitudes for each province he rules based on the conditions in the province.

Let's also use another assumption - otherwise the poll choices get way to involved and complicate. That this modifer applies to actions not directed against the province ruler. Actions against against the province ruler gain a bonus for negative attitude modifiers and a penalty for positive attitude modifers. If you disagree with this assumption please include that in a post so I can determine if we need another poll. But it seems pretty clear and logical to me (which probably means that I'm off-base on it :o ).

[Raesene Andu]

Why do so many people think that the loyalty of the province's population towards its ruler should also affect other regents with holdings in the province? Sorry, but that doesn't make sense, yet out of 5 voters, I'm the only one who has voted for 1) or 3).

[ConjurerDragon]

Raesene Andu schrieb:



>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=36&t=2856

>

> Raesene Andu wrote:

> Why do so many people think that the loyalty of the province`s population towards its ruler should also affect other regents with holdings in the province? Sorry, but that doesn`t make sense, yet out of 5 voters, I`m the only one who has voted for 1) or 3).

>

If you already state that it doesn´t make sense then why do you ask why

so many people voted for that option? Obviously all those people don´t

have a clue ;-)



My opinion is that the loyalty of the population to the province ruler

affects every regents actions in that province. Regents who are openly

closely allied with the province ruler should receive the same bonus or

penalty as the province ruler as the population would see them as allies

of their good/bad regent. And regents hostile to the province ruler who

try to achieve something, e.g. agitate in that province should have a

harder/easier time achieving their goal if the population is more or

less loyal to their province ruler.

bye

Michael

[Raesene Andu]

Regent hostile or allied to the province ruler would already recieve a benefit/penalty due to the support or opposition of the province regent's holding level and province levels to their domain actions.

And what about neutral regents, or regents who are a little bit allied with the province regent, or a little bit hostile. In 2E the regent who ran the province was allow to apply his province levels as a modifier to any domain actions performed by other regents. This represented the infleunce of the regent's subject over the actions of other regents.

Loyalty/Attitude should not affect other regents. It is the way the people of a province feel about their ruler, not about his allies or other regents who may happen to have holdings in the province. If you do go with the idea of loyalty affecting all holdings, the you would have a very complex system. It would add another layer of complexity where the DM would have to work out which regents were allies or opposed to the province regent, how much of the loyalty modifier applied in each case, and so on.

It would be easier to give each holding type (except sources) a loyalty rating if you thought it necessary, but I don't. Province rulers are different that holdings regents, they have to be concerned about the loyalty of their peoples, for other holding types most of their people are simply employees and it is the actions of regent himself who determines the disposition of their holdings.

The people of a province may be very loyal to their ruler, but dislike his heavy-handed guards. Example, is Ghoere. The people there may disagree with the presence of his Iron Guard, but then go around say "Gee it's good that there's no crime these days." Or in Medoere the people may be all faithful followers of Ruornil, but his like the High Priestess as a weak, infectual ruler.

Saying that the provinice's loyalty rating effects every holding in the province is another example of making a blanket statement that doesn't make sense. It would be better to introduce a rule that allows the province regent to use a positive loyalty rating as a modifier to other regent's actions (except sources) in that province. This would need to replace the 2E rule where the province regent could use his province levels as a modifier (which often made actions very easy) and give regents another reason to boost loyalty to maximum. This way the province ruler desides who to support and who not to. It is the equivalent of calling together his loyal subjects and pointing to another regent and saying "this guy is OK, please support him instead of that evil Guilder Kalien".

[geeman]

At 07:36 PM 10/16/2004 +0200, Raesene Andu wrote:



>Why do so many people think that the loyalty of the province`s population

>towards its ruler should also affect other regents with holdings in the

>province?



I think the issue here is a transformation of what was called "loyalty" in

Birthright is most closely related to the "attitude" system of NPCs in 3e,

so the concept has been reinterpreted into a sort of generalized "morale"

or "happiness" rating for a province rather than the "loyalty" of the

population towards their ruler. In truth, there wasn`t a whole heck of a

lot of personal loyalty involved in the Loyalty system (other than the word

"loyalty" used to describe it) so it could be easily seen as expressing an

overall attitude rather than something having to do with the relationship

of the population to the regent who controls the province in which they

reside. In any case, this poll really only addresses the new, BRCS

update`s "attitude" of the population, sans any 2e loyalty of the

population towards the province ruler, and that seems to be what the votes

so far are reflecting.



In the past I`ve used in my homebrew campaign a system of loyalty for all

regents that have holdings in a province. That is, every holding gets a

loyalty rating along with the province itself. It makes for more

bookkeeping but did interact nicely with the now obsolete reaction checks

and morale check rolls. So maybe something like that is in order?



Gary

[Raesene Andu]

Originally posted by geeman@Oct 17 2004, 12:10 PM
In the past I`ve used in my homebrew campaign a system of loyalty for all regents that have holdings in a province. That is, every holding gets a loyalty rating along with the province itself. It makes for more bookkeeping but did interact nicely with the now obsolete reaction checks and morale check rolls. So maybe something like that is in order?
If it is decided that the attitude of a province's population is going to apply to all regents (except source regents) then something like this would be my preferred option. It does mean a little bit of extra bookkeeping, but also allows for more flexibility in attitudes.

This would also help with Great Captain type arrangements, where someone with a small holding could be as popular or more popular than the province's ruler, and therefore be entitled to a greater loyalty modifier than the province regent. William Moergan springs to mind as the most obvious case, but there are also the Jarls in the Rjurik kingdoms, they would likely be more popular in their home provinces than the king.

It does raise the question, however, of how you handle the whole attitude issue for non-landed regents. What factors would increase or decrease the populations attitude towards them? Province rulers have a number of factors, including taxation, troop deployments etc that can effect the province's attitude, other holdings don't really have anything like that at the moment.

[Athos69]

Gary, that is exactly the system I was thinking of -- yes, it may be more of a hassle for the DM, but all in all, it makes sense for the populace to have differing opinions of the various regents present in a province.

It is because of this that I have voted 'Other'. In essence, the loyalties of the province towards each individual regent in question, be it Ruler, law holder temple of regent should affect that particular regent's holdings and domain actions.

[ShiroAmada]

I voted Other. Here is my reasoning:

I am running my second PBEM with over 30 players. In each one, I use a separate Domain Attitude for each Holding Regent (except for Source Regents). With spreadsheets or graph paper, it takes not much more effort for a lot more realism.

Take for instance, Medoere.

Suris Enlien is generally well liked by her people. Thus, the Attitude for her should be Friendly.

In Caerwil though, Guilder Kalien has corrupted the justice system to favour his cronies. Thus, the Attitude for him should be Unfriendly.

The IHH, a Haelynite church, which the free and happy people of Medoere have lingering bad memories of Haelynites, might have an Attitude of Indifferent.

And if the OIT went in, well, that would be Unfriendly if not downright Hostile.

Now, if you are a Holding Regent, so long as the Law or an army unit is present, there is no fear of a Hostile people burning down your house. But if you ever get on the wrong side of the Law Regent and he decides to look the other way.........

[Arius Vistoon]

Originally posted by Raesene Andu@Oct 17 2004, 12:45 AM
It would be easier to give each holding type (except sources) a loyalty rating
why not ? it seems good.
Effectively, for me loyalty of people affect only the regent of province not regent of holding.
but, if each regent of holding have self-attittude rating with less impact ( because it's just an holding with less people compare the whole people a province have ) it will be more good no ?

[Don E]

Originally posted by geeman@Oct 17 2004, 03:40 AM

I think the issue here is a transformation of what was called "loyalty" in

Birthright is most closely related to the "attitude" system of NPCs in 3e,

so the concept has been reinterpreted into a sort of generalized "morale"

or "happiness" rating for a province rather than the "loyalty" of the

population towards their ruler.
I think it would be a good idea to rewrite the description along these a
lines for the BRCS. In RoE we have renamed it to Prosperity and is a mix of the general happiness and level of progress in the province. Works very well, and it doesn't add any more bookkeeping.

E

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Raesene Andu@Oct 16 2004, 12:36 PM
Why do so many people think that the loyalty of the province's population towards its ruler should also affect other regents with holdings in the province? Sorry, but that doesn't make sense, yet out of 5 voters, I'm the only one who has voted for 1) or 3).
I think that Gray summed it up better.

It is called attitude not loyalty in 3.5.

There are mechanics present in 3.5 involved with attitude.

I think the core problem here is people still holding on to conceptions from 2nd ed and not letting go to embrace the mechanics/concpets of 3.5.

Now in 3.5 attitude applies to a relationship with someone in particular and not in vague atmosphere towards everyone.

Refering to it as coming from prosperity might make things have a better perspective. When things are going well people tend to support those who support what is happening and can continue the status-quo. Hence applying the bonus to neutral or friendly actions but not those against the province regent (who is the person most keenly associated with the status of the province at the time). {Works in almost all political situations from historical to present day, that is the person in charge is blamed/given credit for things going on whether or not he is actually responsible.}

[The Jew]

Nothing I state will apply to Sources. I agree with the little green guy. I'm in his campaign, I like having a seperateattitude rating for each holding type. It reflects the different attitude which people have towards different powers within their realms. Right now in america the scandals involving the catholic church have shredded the attitude of a decent chunk of the population against the catholic church regardless of what is going on in the rest of society.

The most important and consistent modifier would be the rate at which money is sucked from the populace. A ruler taxes the populaces, the guild holdings charge higher or lower prices for their goods, while the temples demand higher or lower tithes and may also set aside portions of their tithes for charity work.

If people wanted a simpler system, then I do rather like Ians. One loyalty check for the landed regent and then he can apply any bonus he recieves against or for other regents checks like a law holding. I would also add that if loyalty/attitude was negative that any new regent building up holdings should recieve it as a bonus. If you dislike what is going on in the realm, then a new untainted regent could easily play on that, and regardless will look better by comparision. It also would create conflict between an incompotent/high taxing landed regent and the guild and temple regents, since they would see their own base threatened by the prevailing attitude within the realm by any possible competitors. This could better explain the success of Ruornil against Diemed and the OIT.

[geeman]

The Jew writes:



> I like having a seperateattitude rating for each holding type.



It does reflect a certain amount of detail as your example describes; a

ruler might be popular while a guild, temple or even law holding in the same

province might not be so popular. IMO, that kind of thing is worth

portraying at the domain level.



Arguably, such things should be portrayed in the holding levels themselves,

as they represent the amount of allegiance the population of the province

has towards a particular regent, or the amount of control that regent has

over that aspect of the population. That is, a regent who controls temples

that becomes "unpopular" or otherwise suffers a hit to what is the loyalty

rating for the province ruler can be portrayed by him losing holding levels

rather than having an abstracted "attitude" rating for himself. On the

whole, however, I don`t think that`s the best solution because the same

basic premise could apply to the province ruler, and I think the seperate

ratings make more sense if the score is meant to portray either "happiness"

or "loyalty" towards a particular regent since it`s not very difficult to

view either of those things varying from regent to regent in a province.



The other issue was that in the original BR system, "Loyalty" only had

negative consequences for the province ruler. That is, if the people

rebelled they rebelled against him alone, while the other holdings in the

province might be unaffected by the events. Given that clerics had a free

agitate action, and one could interpret one of the uses of the Espionage

action as affecting loyalty (clerics got a free agitate and rogues a free

Espionage) that made province rulers vulnerable to a "loyalty attack" if you

will which no other regent was affected by. It seems like a guilder could

be rebelled against (things like bread riots, boycots or looting) just as

much as a province ruler might be.



Gary

[Osprey]

Yep, I prefer seperate loyalty ratings for each regent in a province, though I generally had holding regents go realm by realm rather than province by province as a landed regent does. This is definitely easier on the bookkeeping if running a campaign that spans an entire cultural region and more (like Anuire and its nearby neighbors).

I agree that taxation should be the single largest modifier affecting provincial loyalties - far more so than in the BRCS, where a landed regent with all of the law holdings could easily lay on permanent heavy taxes and rarely worry about the consequences.

On the flip side, populaces are generally more resentful of negative things than they are greatful for positive things. As such, high taxes should cause a larger penalty than low taxes add a bonus to seasonal attitude checks. Working from the 3.5 attitude tables (the same as are in the BRCS), I'd go with something like this:

High Taxes: -2 attitude per +1 GB in tax rate
Low Taxes: +1 attitude per -1 GB tax rate

This way high taxes season after season are highly likely to cause a downward slide in provincial attitudes - which is as it should be, given the harshness of life for medieval commoners, and the frequency of peasant rebellions precipitated by those conditions.

Also, effects of domain attitudes: I would prefer a set of modifiers that matches the actual attitude descriptions ("friendly" should have a positive effect, not a neutral one; indifferent should be the neutral). On the other hand, negative attitudes should have some serious consequences. This makes Agitiate a much more important action.

Helpful: +2 bonus to domain actions
Friendly: +1 bonus
Indifferent: no modifiers
Unfriendly: -2 penalty to domain actions, no levies
Hostile: -4 penalty, no levies, no tax collection, 30% chance of rebellion each month
Rebellious: This should be an additional category: if a Hostile province is further agitated, it should automatically become rebellious (where levy units muster themselves and make demands on the landed regent). Also, a Hostile province that makes a dismal seasonal attitude check should also be able to drop to rebellious immediately. A rebellious province should be treated as Contested until the rebellion is ended either through military force or successful diplomacy; the rebels seize the tax money/goods, and no RP is gained from the province or holdings which are the target of the rebellion. Rebellions put down by force should cause severe attitude penalties throughout the realm for some time to come - tyrants may cause quite a bit of trouble by squashing one rebellion only to have three provinces fall into rebellion the following season.

Note: rebellion against holding regents should also be possible. With holding attitudes in place, it could be quite interesting to have the populace rise up against a certain guild or temple (or a series of guilds or temples in a realm).

Osprey

[RaspK_FOG]

Would you mind explaining the options to me, Irdeggman, for I got somewhat confused...

[Athos69]

Originally posted by geeman@Oct 18 2004, 01:20 PM
Arguably, such things should be portrayed in the holding levels themselves, as they represent the amount of allegiance the population of the province has towards a particular regent, or the amount of control that regent has over that aspect of the population. That is, a regent who controls temples that becomes "unpopular" or otherwise suffers a hit to what is the loyalty rating for the province ruler can be portrayed by him losing holding levels rather than having an abstracted "attitude" rating for himself. On the whole, however, I don`t think that`s the best solution because the same basic premise could apply to the province ruler, and I think the seperate ratings make more sense if the score is meant to portray either "happiness" or "loyalty" towards a particular regent since it`s not very difficult to view either of those things varying from regent to regent in a province.
Gary, holding levels represent the concept of 'Market Share'. Bill Gates may hold 90% of teh Computer Holdings in the world, and Linus Torvalds may hold 1%, but I'd bet that their popularities are complete opposite (well maybe not, but you get the idea).

Holding levels and domain attitude towards are completely unrelated. Another good example is if you are a Haelynite in a province with a Haelynite and a Laerme temple in it. Even if you don't particularly *like* the leaders of the Haelynite temple, you aren't going to go and abandon the faith you grew up with -- the Gods are eternal, church leaders will eventually die.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Oct 19 2004, 02:55 AM
Would you mind explaining the options to me, Irdeggman, for I got somewhat confused...
(1) It should affect only the province ruler's actions
(2) It should affect every regent's actions in the province
(3) (1) above, except for actions involving sources
(4) (2) above, except for actions involving sources
(5) (2) above except that there is a lesser effect on non-province ruler's actions
(6) (4) above, except that there is a lesser effect on non-province ruler's actions
(7) It should not have any effect on doman action checks
(8) Other (please specify in as much detail as possible)
(9) Abstain


Let's see if I can paraphrase them (I knew this was complicated from the get go).

Choice (1) is that domain attitude only affects the rovince ruler's actions (that is yes domain attitde has an effect)

Choice (2) Same as (1) domain attitude has an effect on domain actions for every regent in the province

Choice (3) - has an affect on only the province ruler's actions that do not involve sources

Choice (4) - has an effect on every regent's actions in the province that don't involve soruces

Choice (5) - has an effect on all of the province ruler's action in the province and affects the actions of all other regents in the province to a lesser degree (to be decided)

Choice (6) - has an effect on all of the province ruler's actions in the provnce (except for sources) and actions of all other regents in the province to a lesser degree (to be decided) again except for those involving sources.

Choice (7) domain attitude has no effect on domain actions in the province

The rest should be self explanatory.

[geeman]

At 03:59 PM 10/19/2004 +0200, Athos69 wrote:



>>Arguably, such things should be portrayed in the holding levels

>>themselves, as they represent the amount of allegiance the population of

>>the province has towards a particular regent, or the amount of control

>>that regent has over that aspect of the population. That is, a regent

>>who controls temples that becomes "unpopular" or otherwise suffers a hit

>>to what is the loyalty rating for the province ruler can be portrayed by

>>him losing holding levels rather than having an abstracted "attitude"

>>rating for himself. On the whole, however, I don`t think that`s the best

>>solution because the same basic premise could apply to the province

>>ruler, and I think the seperate ratings make more sense if the score is

>>meant to portray either "happiness" or "loyalty" towards a particular

>>regent since it`s not very difficult to view either of those things

>>varying from regent to regent in a province.

>

>Gary, holding levels represent the concept of `Market Share`. Bill Gates

>may hold 90% of teh Computer Holdings in the world, and Linus Torvalds may

>hold 1%, but I`d bet that their popularities are complete opposite (well

>maybe not, but you get the idea).Holding levels and domain attitude

>towards are completely unrelated. Another good example is if you are a

>Haelynite in a province with a Haelynite and a Laerme temple in it. Even

>if you don`t particularly *like* the leaders of the Haelynite temple, you

>aren`t going to go and abandon the faith you grew up with -- the Gods are

>eternal, church leaders will eventually die.



I`d generally agree with that. As I indicated, I think holdings should

have an attitude or "loyalty" rating, but I felt the idea that holding

levels themselves represent such things needs to get mentioned since it

seemed to be one of the arguments against the concept when I first

suggested it many moons ago.



To express that argument more fully (for the sake of full disclosure) the

population levels of a province are not affected by a change of loyalty (or

attitude.) That is, if a province goes into rebellion the province

population level does not decrease. Conversely, one could portray the

increase or decrease in loyalty more easily by raising or lowering the

level of a holding. Holding levels being more dynamic, the argument goes,

means they represent more temporal and situational issues like the loyalty

or morale of the population in relation to the regent who controls that

holding.



IIRC, the other arguments against the idea were that it increases the

workload of the DM, and/or the mainstay argument: that it is too

complicated/doesn`t need to be defined at all/not everything needs to be

adjudicated, etc.



Now, personally, I find using holding levels themselves to portray

attitude/loyalty/morale is a bit too abstract for my taste. I think a

morale or attitude rating for each regent`s holding in a province makes

sense because it can be used to portray the kinds of things like your

example of the conflict between a population`s personal like or dislike of

an individual ruler and the more lasting relationship of that population

towards the organization as a whole. It also reflects a sort of third

estate, or the effects of a "public regent" if you will making the

population a bit more than a simple, faceless statistic.



The whole system of loyalty that I used is a bit long but it basically

worked like this:



"Loyalty is measured on a scale from 1-10 with five descriptions of loyalty

levels: rebellious, poor, average, high and fanatic. Loyalty 1 or 2 is

rebellious, 3-4 poor, 5-6 average, etc."



"Loyalty is expressed by noting the province or holding followed by the

loyalty description with the loyalty score in parenthesis. If the province

Xampal(3/5) in the land of Frinstance has a loyalty score of 7 it would be

described as Xampal/Frinstance(3/5)-Good(7), or Xampal 3/5-4. A guild

holding in that province is described similarly as a guild(2)-poor(4), or

guild 2-4."



Each of the loyalty ratings rebellious through fanatic had its own

description of effects. For instance:



"Poor: Provinces or holdings with poor loyalty have a surly, distrustful

populace. They only grudgingly give their loyalty to their ruler. The

population or level of a province or holding with poor loyalty is halved

and rounded down for the purpose of determining [RP] and GB collection at

the beginning of a domain turn. A regent can muster only half the amount

of troops in a province with poor loyalty that is normally available to

him. A regent`s reaction adjustment benefit of the Majesty Score is

negated in provinces where his he has a poor loyalty rating."



The "reaction adjustment" would, of course, now have to be changed to

3e/3.5, but that`s the basic idea. I also used a few more conditions that

affected loyalty that accompanied some other tweaks to the BR domain system

(an additional level of taxation called "crushing" for example) and some

that made ten levels of loyalty a bit more practicable, but that`s the gist

of it.



The discussion of loyalty for holdings is available in the "Loyalty and

Domains" thread of the birthright-l archives mostly in weeks 4 and 5 of

July 2000.



Gary

[ShiroAmada]

Holding levels represent the % share of the population (temples) or market (guilds) that you control or influence. It has nothing to do with Attitude/Loyalty.

I think that the Attitude effects for Helpful, Friendly, Indifferent, Unfriendly and Hostile should also be written for Temples/Guilds.

As for Attitude for holdings, it is easier to do per province due to interactions with the Agitate domain action since Agitate is on a province by province basis. Hell, in Canada, the Bloc Quebecois are loved in Quebec province, but hated in the rest of Canada :o

[Hrandal]

I think there should be a Domain Attitude towards each of the organisations present in each province.

However, I also think that for non-source, non-land holdings it should remain at default of neutral unless specifically either Agitated, "overcharged" in some way or suffering from a random event.

This would mean you can get election style "mud-slinging" between Guilders as they ruin each other's reputation - decreasing the profit margins of both as people become disillusioned. It would also lead to a lot of money being spent on "spin-doctoring" in an effort to try and boost your flagging reputation.

Maybe if they managed to get their "brand loyalty" to fanatical level, they could have Levy units mobilising themselves to burn down each other's holdings without the Regent's permission.

[irdeggman]

The down side to this would be the complexity involved. It is fairly easy to assign a single attitude to a province but exponentially more difficult to assign separate attitudes to each holding (and regent). So is it better to sacrifice realism for ease of play? IMO it would do more to bring in "new" players if we simplify the process as much as possible.

[Hrandal]

That was why I was stressing that I didn't think it should change as often or as arbitrarily as Province loyalty.

I would rather have a complex rule, or even no rule at all than have a rule I thought just misrepresented the situation.

I mean sure you can lure the newbie in by making a simple rule, but once they realise its limitations, they'll likely just substitute a house rule for it anyway.

Perhaps one way to make my previous suggestion more palatable would be to refer to it by realm. Say I'm playing the WIT and I have a the attitude for six different realms to worry about, Avanil, Tuornen, Alamie, Endier, Taeghas and the Imperial City of Anuire. You could up the costs for trying to sway opinion across a large realm, or decrease it for a small realm. Or just charge based on how many provinces you have a presence in.

[irdeggman]

I only brought it up because one of the most complained about things from the 2nd ed rules was the bookkeeping involved. In fact the bookkeeping aspect actually drove many people away from playing the game in the first place. Collections (from holdings) caused the most problems which is probably why that portion of the BRCS-playtest was generally well received. It greatly simplified the system so that it represented what was happening but didn't bog the DM down with an inordinate amount of book work.

This attitude thing is really new ground, being a 3.5 concept, and there needs to be a balance between accuracy (i.e., detail) and ease of use. Not everyone wants to rely on having a computer to keep track of all of the details involved.

Note there is no real province loyalty anymore that is point of using the 3.5 mechanics (or terminology of attitude) was about. It is actually a pretty good use of the newer terminology/mechanics and only when being applied at a broader perspective (i.e, to regents other than the province ruler) that these questions come up.

[Hrandal]

Yeah, book-keeping can be a pain. I find that people have different expectations of the game, and that lots of people who enjoy it for the background are put off by the book-keeping.

Personally I quite like having a lot of detail, and wargaming elements to my games, but not every roleplayer thinks that way.

Maybe keep the basic province attitude rules and then have a bunch of optional rules to flesh out the stuff for other vested interests if it becomes desired or applicable?

What I prefer not to have is a rule that's going to only be aimed at a low common denominator. I think some people are just always going to be put off by book-keeping, so the book-keeping rules shouldn't really be aimed at them. Ultimately, you've got to give your players what they actually want in a game.

I have to say that the book-keeping rules do seem a lot clearer than the 2nd Ed rules. But then, I'm not a big fan of 2nd Ed D&D in general. Which is not to say that I didn't enjoy both running and playing 2nd Ed games, but only because I ignored huge chunks of it and took what I liked from the backgrounds.

[irdeggman]

It had crossed my mind to have a variant for keeping attitudes at the holding level. But let's see what people want to do before we start to get too far into the weeds here.

First thing is a general feel for the broad then a more specific detailing of mechanics or applications.

[geeman]

At 07:49 PM 10/20/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



> The down side to this would be the complexity involved. It is fairly

> easy to assign a single attitude to a province but exponentially more

> difficult to assign separate attitudes to each holding (and regent). So

> is it better to sacrifice realism for ease of play? IMO it would do more

> to bring in "new" players if we simplify the process as much as possible.



It does take more effort to determine loyalty/attitude for each holding in

addition to each province, especially if one is dealing with a lot of

regents--like someone DMing a PBeM, for instance. In the context of a

small P&P game it probably can also be an issue if one is running a lot of

realms and regents.



Having said that, it`s not _a lot_ more effort. One already does a

loyalty/attitude shift check for regents who control provinces, so it`s not

particularly more complex or confusing for players than the existing system

is. This increases the number of such checks done, of course, but since

one is already computing income for those regents it folds pretty easily

into that part of the domain level of play. One does need to clarify or

expand a couple of the modifiers but not a lot.



Gary

[geeman]

When it comes to the bookkeeping issue I think the thing that would be the

most help would to be to come up with a nice, complete domain sheet. I

know that`s probably easier said than done, but when it gets right down to

it the actual math isn`t particularly hard for determining loyalty, it`s

just a bunch of little notations that need to get made through the domain

turn (agitate action results, troop mustering, etc.) that needs to be kept

track of so they can be tallied up at the proper point in the next domain

turn. Might it be as simple as having two boxes on a domain sheet next to

each holding and province, one for positive attitude shifts and another for

negative ones that occur during the domain turn?



Gary

[irdeggman]

Gary,

It can actually be much more complex.

Say for instance a guild holding in a province. Should there be 2 separate attitudes - one for the province ruler and one for the guildmaster? How about attitude towards other holdings in the province? That (separate attitudes towards the province ruler and holding ruler) is the logic that people seem to be inserting into the discussion. So like I said earlier it is expontially more complex at that level - albeit more realistic.

[RaspK_FOG]

There is always the option of giving a baseline for what happens on the province level and then include a sidebar or footnote that explains the reasons this could be done at the holding level, make clear that this requires more bookkeeping, etc. I know you have already made a great deal of effort not to make this thing a matter of variants, but that's the best way to handle this, I think.

[geeman]

At 05:12 PM 10/22/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>Gary,It can actually be much more complex.Say for instance a guild holding

>in a province. Should there be 2 separate attitudes - one for the

>province ruler and one for the guildmaster? How about attitude towards

>other holdings in the province? That (separate attitudes towards the

>province ruler and holding ruler) is the logic that people seem to be

>inserting into the discussion. So like I said earlier it is expontially

>more complex at that level - albeit more realistic.



Pardon me for quibbling, but the vocabulary here seems to beg for a little

clarification.... When one brings up issues of complexity I consider that

more geared towards rules that are elaborate or otherwise difficult to

comprehend. In this case the same rules are going to be used, they are

just going to be applied to additional regents, meaning that (at a guess)

the modifiers for attitude shifts would have to be kept and counted up for

around four to six more regents per realm on average. That is certainly

more stuff to keep track of, but since there`s no new information or rules

being added its not any more complex than what one was doing before. The

issue here is really the amount of record keeping that is being done not

complexity.



It`s also worth noting that in a campaign in which there are province

rulers one is already keeping tracking of attitude, and during the time one

is doing so nothing is going on for other regents, meaning this particular

expansion would be more likely to take up what would otherwise be down time

for those running other regents. The additional effort on their part is

still not as likely to be as much as that of province rulers, however,

since fewer of the factors that affect loyalty/attitude are going to

influence holding regents, so the amount of effort required is not really

exponential in either complexity or record keeping.



Gary

[Osprey]

I think attitude is best handled by on a regent by regent basis - that is, only one attitude per prpovince for a given regent, which keeps landed regents from having to make 2 attitude checks for every province (1 for land, 1 for law). Just use holdings as modifiers to actions, not the actual target of an attitude check. In BR we are most concerned about the character regents, not the organizations.

If we're talking about regents, then we need to decide:
1. Does a regent need to determine loyalty province by province or realm by realm?

2. Should all non-source regents check attitude by province or by realm?

3. Should source regents have attitude checks as well? What about in provinces where they have virtual guilds?

The discussion here is good, but these are pretty quantifiable concepts (can be polled), esp. #1 and 2. No. 3 is really more pthere for discussions' sake, 'cause no one's really mentioned it.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Hmmm Gary let's see if I can explain the level of compexity a bit more in detail.

There is a province A (level 5), ruled by regent A.

There are 2 different guilds in said province, B and C, ruled by regents B and C.

Regent A controls 4 levels of law holding in said provnce while regent C controls 1 level of law holds.

Should province attitude apply to regent A for his province and law holdings?

How about regent B? Should the province attitude apply to his guild holdings? Should he have a separate attitude of his guild holding towards him?

How about regent C? Should the province attitude apply to his holdings? Guild and Law? Should he have separate attitude for his holdings? All of holdings have the same attitude? Should he have a separate attitude for his guild and law holding?

What should the effects of guild B have on regent C's guild holding?
Regent A's province and law holding on regent C's law holding?

Should they be the same mechanic? What should that be at the holding level?

It is pretty easy to have a court affect domain attitude (BRCS-playtest). But should this affect all of the regent's holdings and provinces?


Should each province have its own court? Should each holding? Should courts be competing or complimentary (i.e., subtract from each other or add up).

Sorry Gary, but it is a rather complex issue. For one it is a bookkeeping nightmare (thus more complex). {I define complex as how much effort is required to do something not on the mathematical calculations since effort is what really matters. If the math is easy but has to be done over a lot of different iterations then the problem becomes complex.} For another should there be different formulas to use for landed regents than non-landed ones? It makes a lot of sense to have them be different - if we are going into an individual regent/holding distinction.

I tend to agree with Osprey on this one.

[geeman]

At 08:46 PM 10/24/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>Hmmm Gary let`s see if I can explain the level of compexity a bit more in

>detail.There is a province A (level 5), ruled by regent A.There are 2

>different guilds in said province, B and C, ruled by regents B and

>C.Regent A controls 4 levels of law holding in said provnce while regent C

>controls 1 level of law holds.Should province attitude apply to regent A

>for his province and law holdings?How about regent B? Should the province

>attitude apply to his guild holdings? Should he have a separate attitude

>of his guild holding towards him?How about regent C? Should the province

>attitude apply to his holdings? Guild and Law? Should he have separate

>attitude for his holdings?

>All of holdings have the same attitude? Should he have a separate attitude

>for his guild and law holding?What should the effects of guild B have on

>regent C`s guild holding?Regent A`s province and law holding on regent C`s

>law holding?Should they be the same mechanic? What should that be at the

>holding level?It is pretty easy to have a court affect domain attitude

>(BRCS-playtest). But should this affect all of the regent`s holdings and

>provinces?Should each province have its own court? Should each

>holding? Should courts be competing or complimentary (i.e., subtract from

>each other or add up).Sorry Gary, but it is a rather complex issue. For

>one it is a bookkeeping nightmare (thus more complex). {I define complex

>as how much effort is required to do something not on the mathematical

>calculations since effort is what really matters. If the math is easy but

>has to be done over a lot of different iterations then the problem becomes

>complex.} For another should there be different formulas to use for

>landed regents than non-landed ones? It makes a lot of sense to have them

>be different - if we are going into an individual regent/holding

>distinction. I tend to agree with Osprey on this one.



The reason this isn`t really a complex issue is that almost all of the

above questions can be answered with a single ruling. "All holdings and

provinces have an Attitude rating" addresses the majority of the questions

asked above. If one is going to extend the concept of attitude to holdings

it seems like the simplest and most logical extension of the concept. A

regent who controlled a province and two types of holdings would then have

an attitude rating for all three, and have three different attitudes

towards him.



"Prelate Jaffa is a great ruler... but he`s not a very good sheriff or

businessman."



Some of the other questions (regarding courts) don`t actually seem very

much related to the issue at hand unless I`m missing something. Is there a

reason why the attitude function of courts should be altered? I can`t see

any change that would be required for that or for the effects of the domain

actions that altered the original loyalty score. Why is that a problem

that adds to complexity?



Frankly, there are very few things in gaming that can`t be expressed in a

very detailed manner a la some "Sage Advice" column, but the reality of

this situation is that the issue can be pretty easily addressed. Yes,

there are decisions that have to be made regarding how the expansion of the

system should be applied. Despite every possible permutation being

described above, these questions really are not that complicated. None of

those questions posed above are particularly difficult to answer, and in

fact more than one person has presented ideas that address them in this

thread. When all is said and done, the text required to clarify exactly

how the system would be expanded might take up (at a guess) about 75-100

words, probably quite a bit less because the same rules that apply to

province attitude can also be used to describe holding attitude.



Bookkeeping is certainly an issue, and keeping track of loyalty shifts can

be a problem if one doesn`t have some sort of system. One does have to

have an additional box (or a value expressed after the holding or province

level--which is how I did it.) Since Attitude shifts are pretty much

single positive and negative points that system, as I noted before, need

only be a place to make tally marks next to the holding level in order to

account for the positive and negative shifts that occur during the domain

turn so that they can be counted during the attitude shift portion of the

domain turn after revenue is collected. One need not use a spreadsheet or

some other computerized way of tracking attitude if one can just keep

tallies next to the individual province and holding. It`s hardly the

"nightmare" you describe. Sure, people will have to keep track of shifts

for holdings, but if one takes a look at the kinds of things that affect

Attitude they are generally less likely to be at issue for holdings, so I

think this suggestion that the amount of bookkeeping will reach a level of

complexity that will be a problem isn`t true as long as the players in

question are able to count on their fingers....



Noting Attitude is quite simple:



Province Name (Population Level / Potential Source) - Attitude



Holding Type (Level) - Attitude



Keeping tally marks next to those notations is similarly easy. It`s no

more difficult or complex than several parts of the standard D&D character

sheet.



I feel obliged to note again that these issues were discussed pretty

thoroughly four years ago. Nobody thought it too complex then, nor did

anyone have any trouble grasping the issue. In my house rules I actually

did increase the complexity of the loyalty system much more than has been

discussed here. In addition to giving holdings a loyalty rating, that

rating had five fully articulated levels rather than the original four and

they were based on a 10 point sequence, I added several new modifiers,

etc. That system worked fine, so my experience is that extending the

system isn`t a problem.



Gary

[irdeggman]

This is another poll I'd normally be closing, but again with the recent board access problems. . . .

[irdeggman]

I'm closing this poll.

Based on the comments made I think maybe we need to relook at how to capture what domain actions should work like.

I might just leave that to Ian - but we need to make some progress here and can't just spend our time talking.

Here are the results of this poll:


How should Domain Attitude affect domain action checks?
(1) It should affect only the province ruler's actions [ 1 ] [5.00%]
(2) It should affect every regent's actions in the province [ 2 ] [10.00%]
(3) (1) above, except for actions involving sources [ 2 ] [10.00%]
(4) (2) above, except for actions involving sources [ 7 ] [35.00%]
(5) (2) above except that there is a lesser effect on non-province ruler's actions [ 0 ] [0.00%]
(6) (4) above, except that there is a lesser effect on non-province ruler's actions [ 3 ] [15.00%]
(7) It should not have any effect on doman action checks [ 0 ] [0.00%]
(8) Other (please specify in as much detail as possible) [ 4 ] [20.00%]
(9) Abstain [ 1 ] [5.00%]
Total Votes: 20