Chap 5 - Fortifications and contest actions [Archive]

KGodwin

10-04-2005, 10:30 PM

Well, the influence you have is over all of the people who live in the province... and from what you just said for the fortifications to have any effect than all of the people would be needing to live in those holdings. That is obviously not the case. So you may want to reconsider your vote.

Just ...

1) Influence is based on population centers, directly contesting people's influence in the country side is hard because those people don't gather.

2) Forts, guard towers, castles, city walls, etc. would all result in a limitation of traffic along roads and entry/exit into most population centers through 'normal' means.

Fortifications (Province): Province fortifications include a province-wide system of fortifications dominated by a massive seat of military power (usually a castle or walled city).
Fortification (Holding): Holding fortifications are small systems of fortifications that are constructed to protect the holdings of one regent. This might include fortified cathedrals, armed warehouses, walled forts or small castles, or any other reasonably limited defensive structure.

3) This means that contestor's agents will have to avoid using virtually any roads in a heavily fortified province. Do you have any idea how much slower and suspicious looking it is traveling through farmer's fields and forests?

Of course, none of this would apply if the fight was internal. But contesting in a fortified province would be far more difficult than in something without such defenses.

irdeggman

10-04-2005, 11:18 PM

Just to point something out - a guild 1 (or any number greater than 1) is not a single building or shop but a series of them stretched over the entire province that are compiled/combined to yield that net result. Single shops are run by people with the profession skill while holdings are run at a greater scale, essentially network.

Guild holdings consist primarily of various guilds, especially of the primary economic activity of an area – artisan’s guilds being the most common, as well as merchant companies

Temple holdings represent an organized faith of worship and the itinerant clergy, shrines, churches, or cathedrals that preach to the masses.

Law holdings represent bureaucrats, constables, taxmen, highway bandits, rebel organizations, a system of feudal lords, or any other establishments whose primary purpose is to enforce laws/whims, collect taxes/tribute, and execute justice or injustice in their regent's name.

Osprey

10-05-2005, 04:28 AM

For the most part I agree with Irdeggman, Raesene, and Tchar, mainly for the sake of keeping things somewhat simplified and easy to manage. While there is some merit to fortifications standing as symbols of control and influence, ultimately there are too many ways for a contesting regent to simply bypass physical fortifications and their skeletal garrisons, and still achieve a measurable level of success (see my posts in previous threads for examples).

By keeping these things seperate we emphasize the difference between military and political struggles. Military conflict is is about the bottom line, who rules by force. It's no mystery that the easiest way to devestate an enemy's holdings is to simply march in, occupy the province, then pillage the living sh...t out of them. ;) This is a very good reason indeed to fortify one's holdings, especially those in high-threat areas (ex: in provinces bordering the Five Peaks, Markazor, Thurazor, Rhuobe's Domain, the Spiderfell, etc.). Expensive? Yes...but easily worthwhile if your holding is a frequent target of pillage.

Contest actions, otoh, are battles of influence, and influence in BR is primarily measured by regency - the power of rulership. Those with the most divine blood power and political might to back it up are the strongest. Start adding too many non-RP types of modifiers, and you will dilute the core essence of the BR domain system, what sets it apart from a straight-up medieval political RPG.

Fortifications provide enough benefit as is...if they're not profitable, then perhaps the owning regent should consider dismantling them....

Osprey

epicsoul

10-05-2005, 02:12 PM

Voted yes, but I am in favour of only a seriously minor bonus (+1 or +2). Either this, or really, the fortification rules for holdings should almost be removed. There is no real use for them, other than flavour. By the time they are built, the hostile regent will know what you intend.

The cost of them to maintain and build means that, should a regent actually be cooperating with one or more of the other powers in the province, it is actually better to build a castle, and share the cost of maintenance with your guilder or temple holder(s). If one of those pays half, and you pay the other half, then suddenly, you have the full effectiveness of protecting the whole province, with the guilders/temples paying the difference.

Either this or, at the least, you can't reduce beyond a 0 level holding without a save or something.

Give those non landed regents some kind of break.

tcharazazel

10-05-2005, 02:55 PM

Just ...

1) Influence is based on population centers, directly contesting people's influence in the country side is hard because those people don't gather.

2) Forts, guard towers, castles, city walls, etc. would all result in a limitation of traffic along roads and entry/exit into most population centers through 'normal' means.

Fortifications (Province): Province fortifications include a province-wide system of fortifications dominated by a massive seat of military power (usually a castle or walled city).
Fortification (Holding): Holding fortifications are small systems of fortifications that are constructed to protect the holdings of one regent. This might include fortified cathedrals, armed warehouses, walled forts or small castles, or any other reasonably limited defensive structure.

3) This means that contestor's agents will have to avoid using virtually any roads in a heavily fortified province. Do you have any idea how much slower and suspicious looking it is traveling through farmer's fields and forests?

Of course, none of this would apply if the fight was internal. But contesting in a fortified province would be far more difficult than in something without such defenses.

Heheh, you seem really intent on creating this new contest province action then? I mean why are you bringing up province fortifications into a discussion about holding fortifications?

The fortified holdings are like walled warehouses by the docks for guilds or walled church. That is what a holding usually is in a town or city. As the province consists of several of these small towns and usually 1 major city then there are several of them. Which is what irdeggman said, and for once I totally agree with him!

I also agree with Osprey as there does need to be a simplification of the ideas so the rules don't become too complex. So keep the military action of burning the holdings as a separate action to the political action of contesting the holdings.

So as you didn't understand what I meant before, this may have explained it in a manner easier for you to understand and like I said before you may want to reconsider your vote.

It's like the difference between Ringu and the Ring sometimes...

irdeggman

10-05-2005, 04:01 PM

There seems to be a falicy that all domain actions need to be useful to all regents all of the time.

Like 3.0/3.5 itself everything is situational. For example while all regents can raise troops is it advantageous for a guilder to do it? It is an extremely cost draining evolution and what would he gain by it? How about a temple holder? even more applicable how about a source regent?

Things need to be looked at situationally and determined whether or not is a good thing for the regent to do. In most cases it is not in a guilder's best interest to raise troops or build fortified holdings while it could definitely be in his interest to build roads and ships to move his goods. Just some examples of things that clearly fall into a range of situational advantage/disadvantage.

Now having fortified holdings for provinces that are theorcracies like Moedore it makes perfect sense to have fortified holdings since the realm regent (controlling the law, province and temple or in some cases just the temple and provonce) could greatly benefit from having a fortified temple (or temples) - because they function to halt all enemy troop progression and could be used to stop the regenthaving the law holdings from taking over the provincemilitarily. Again - situational use of domain actions.

Benjamin

10-05-2005, 05:33 PM

Well, I voted yes, based on my gut instinct. I figured "hey, a big castle with my holdings inside - hard to contest those!".

But after reading the discussions after I voted, I tend to agree that we have 2 overly simplified mechanics going on. Military bludgeon and political backstabbing. The forts are to defend against the military, not the political. The political is defended by RP and role playing.

So I've decided to switch my vote from "yes" to "no".

I would agree, though, with the idea that anyone with a fortified holding always keeps a level 0 holding - the infrastructure is there, just not the people to run it. Maybe have this as an optional aspect or a side-bar?

geeman

10-05-2005, 06:17 PM

A couple of points I`d like to address:

First, re: The definition of a "contest" action and how fortification is a
factor.

While "influence" is a factor (the end result) of such an action that does
not designate the action as being non-military or even "just political" as
has been suggested. Like most of the events/actions at the domain level
the action itself is broad enough to accommodate a wide range of
interpretations. It`s best not to be too specific in the description of
the contest action itself, but some guidelines as to it being things
ranging from the use of "hired thugs" to intimidate the individuals who
make up the holding to purely political infighting might be a reasonable
range. One could use the action to portray things that are in many ways
the equivalent of a "military" action but effecting the holding
alone. What is, after all, the difference between a barn burning performed
by a company of soldiers and one performed by a cadre of hired enforcers
ordered to simply attack the locations controlled by another regent,
intimidate those who patronize that holding, and otherwise disrupt the
processes that the holding represents?

Even a less violent interpretation of a contest action can still be (and
I`d argue should be) influenced by the presence of fortifications on a
holding. First of all, the fortification represents not only something
like wall, but the presence of guards or some such personnel. An
aggressive political attack can still be influenced by both the material
aspects of a fortification on a holding and the people it
represents. Fortifications render a holding more "permanent" in the same
way that, for example, a huge marble and steel bank looks more legitimate
than does one located in a local supermarket. From a political POV
fortifications symbolically represent the strength of the organization in
the same way that any other organization surrounds itself with the
trappings of wealth, power, influence, etc. A stone wall and guarded gates
around the warehouses and buildings of a guild holding, for instance,
suggest to the casual observer that the guild is there for the long
haul. Such a holding is more difficult to simply contest away from a
purely political standpoint.

Second, re: Simplification and Complexity.

This is one of those old saws that gets played far too often
IMO. Simplicity is, of course, an issue that people should be mindful of,
but in truth it gets used as an excuse to eliminate what are really already
pretty simple rules. Very few of the ideas I`ve seen as suggestions for
the updates of the domain level of play are anywhere near as complex as
things that are in the 3e+ rulebooks. Even in those cases where the
suggestions are complex the reasonable response isn`t to discount them on
the basis of complexity, but to try to simplify them while keeping themes
they suggest. In this case, I don`t think anyone is contemplating anything
more complex than a simple modifier on a die roll. That`s pretty
simple. Even if the means to determine that modifier have a couple of
steps so long as we stay within the realm of simple math the issue of
complexity shouldn`t really be used as an excuse to eliminate a rule.

Gary

tcharazazel

10-05-2005, 06:46 PM

In that case Gary are you then as RP and good skills are no longer the only factors for contesting, then what about for military actions against holdings? Should we then allow RP to influence such military actions because the regent excerts some more influence over the soldiers guarding it that they suffer a penalty to defending the holding?

What I mean is, where is the balance as you are not offering one a complete solution to your proposed fix. If RP is now a smaller part of the equation than intended, then how will we make more use of RP to compensate for it? Because then we might as well toss in RP into all types of military actions in the forms of influence over troop moral and ability to fight on either side for example. For If you want to say that big fortifications have such a strong effect on influence that it justifies a modifier than why wouldn't the leader be able to use their divinity in the form of RP to influence troop moral and their ability to fight?

geeman

10-05-2005, 08:46 PM

At 08:46 PM 10/5/2005 +0200, tcharazazel wrote:

>In that case Gary are you then as RP and good skills are no longer the
>only factors for contesting, then what about for military actions against
>holdings? Should we then allow RP to influence such military actions
>because the regent excerts some more influence over the soldiers guarding
>it that they suffer a penalty to defending the holding?
>
>What I mean is, where is the balance as you are not offering one a
>complete solution to your proposed fix. If RP is now a smaller part of the
>equation than intended, then how will we make more use of RP to compensate
>for it? Because then we might as well toss in RP into all types of
>military actions in the forms of influence over troop moral and ability to
>fight on either side for example. For If you want to say that big
>fortifications have such a strong effect on influence that it justifies a
>modifier than why wouldn`t the leader be able to use their divinity in the
>form of RP to influence troop moral and their ability to fight?

Let me make sure I`m clear on your argument. You`re saying that allowing a
modifier for fortified holdings against contest actions is, essentially,
the same as using RP to influence the outcome of that action. So if one is
going to allow a fortification modifier then RP should, thematically, be
used to effect all levels of military action, right down to individual
company level stats, not just the results of domain level actions. Is that
correct?

I don`t think it should necessarily work both ways, and we needn`t make
that extrapolation automatically. First of all, despite the fact that
there is interaction between them, we`re really talking about two different
levels of play; the domain level and the large scale combat
level. Fortifying a holding, the contest action and RP all are domain
level. The systems do interact with things like pillaging can reduce
holdings like the contest action, and that companies are actually mustered
at the domain level, but I don`t think that those interactions (or the
inclusion of another one like a fortification modifier) means RP should
operate at all levels of the large scale combat system the way they do at
the domain level. Morale checks and the stats of individual units don`t
happen at the month-long, province wide domain level that RP operate on, so
I don`t think it necessarily follows that because there are some
interactions between the two levels of play that domain level RP must
necessarily be used at the large scale combat level the way they are at the
domain level.

I don`t recall, can RP still be spent in lieu of GB to maintain units in
the update the way they could in the original rules? That`s a reasonable
interaction because that RP/GB spent is really at the domain level of play,
not the war move.

Anyway, if one is going to define the contest action broadly enough that it
could accommodate violent as well as non-violent attacks upon a holding
(and justify a fortification modifier on that basis) I don`t think it
necessarily follows that the door is opened to spend RP on all aspects of
the large scale combat level of play right down to the individual stats of
companies....

Gary

tcharazazel

10-05-2005, 09:12 PM

I'm saying that by opening the door to allowing something like fortifications effect influence significantly enough on a provincial scale to justify a bonus, than something that already has such an obvious influence on the opinions of people ie RP really out to be allowed to influence such things as the military actions against the holdings.

Now, if you were talking about building a low level wonder worth of spendour put into those fortifications, all those marble walls ect, then that expense would justify the increase in the regents influence. However, simply building regular fortifications that are built for discouraging and defending against military actions is not really going to significantly influence enough of the population to justify giving a bonus.

Hence my point is where you draw the line between the military and the political actions really ought to be clear and not have too much mixing on the basic level. Even though we all know how much the military was a part of politics and still is. We then can easily see what parts we want to keep separate and what parts we want to integrate and then use other means of integrating them, ie wonders as they don't have to be somthing that just generates RP.

geeman

10-06-2005, 02:20 AM

At 11:12 PM 10/5/2005 +0200, tcharazazel wrote:

>I`m saying that by opening the door to allowing something like
>fortifications effect influence significantly enough on a provincial scale
>to justify a bonus, than something that already has such an obvious
>influence on the opinions of people ie RP really out to be allowed to
>influence such things as the military actions against the holdings.
>
>Now, if you were talking about building a low level wonder worth of
>spendour put into those fortifications, all those marble walls ect, then
>that expense would justify the increase in the regents influence. However,
>simply building regular fortifications that are built for discouraging and
>defending against military actions is not really going to significantly
>influence enough of the population to justify giving a bonus.
>
>Hence my point is where you draw the line between the military and the
>political actions really ought to be clear and not have too much mixing on
>the basic level. Even though we all know how much the military was a part
>of politics and still is. We then can easily see what parts we want to
>keep separate and what parts we want to integrate and then use other means
>of integrating them, ie wonders as they don`t have to be somthing that
>just generates RP.

I still think fortifications and a modifier to contest actions from them
are primarily a domain level effect, while things like the stats of
companies of soldiers and the morale checks they must make are large scale
combat level effects. That`s where the line is drawn--between the domain
level and the large scale combat level--RP can be spent at one level but
not the other.

Gary

tcharazazel

10-06-2005, 05:03 AM

And yet you are saying that fortifications can then have an effect on both, as fortifications will then affect the domain level by adding a bonus to domain contest actions and to large scale combat levels. So, why can't RP then?

I offered a logical compromise, combining a wonder with the fortifications to give something more than just military protection. Hence as the most baseline wonder generates RP, having a small wonder be combined with the central Holding location, ie in the largest city of the province, would naturally justify the fortifications having a significant enough influence on the population to offer a domain scale bonus.

geeman

10-06-2005, 07:22 AM

At 07:03 AM 10/6/2005 +0200, tcharazazel wrote:

>And yet you are saying that fortifications can then have an effect on
>both, as fortifications will then affect the domain level by adding a
>bonus to domain contest actions and to large scale combat levels. So, why
>can`t RP then?

Let me see if I can say it another way that`ll make sense. Fortifications,
the contest action and RP are all domain level effects, while the stats and
morale checks of companies are at the large scale combat level. There is
some interaction between these levels of play in things like the mustering
of troops and the fortification of holdings are domain level processes that
have effects at the large scale combat level, but RP do not act at the
large scale combat level. Fortifications should have an effect on both (in
particular cases) because that`s their nature, and their effects are much
more limited than the broad, general use of RP at the domain level. The
suggestion that because fortifications should have an effect on both so RP
should also doesn`t hold up. It`s going from a particular case to a
general one that isn`t necessary.

RP have a much broader effect at the domain level than fortifications have
at either level, and a fundamentally different role in the campaign, so
it`s neither balanced nor necessary for them to effect both levels of
play. It wouldn`t necessarily hurt anything to allow RP to effect the
large scale combat level of play (I like the idea of using them as a sort
of "hero point" or "action point" at the adventure level to role-play out
the process of turning domain actions into adventure) but it`s not
necessary to make that extension to the system based on a ruling that
fortifications influence contest actions. There are a lot of actions that
fortifications do not have an influence upon, and only a particular
situation in which fortifications have an effect at the large scale combat
level.

>I offered a logical compromise, combining a wonder with the fortifications
>to give something more than just military protection. Hence as the most
>baseline wonder generates RP, having a small wonder be combined with the
>central Holding location, ie in the largest city of the province, would
>naturally justify the fortifications having a significant enough influence
>on the population to offer a domain scale bonus.

If you want to have such a system there`s nothing stopping you. It`s not
really necessary to tie it in with the issue of fortifications, RP at the
company level of play, etc. though is it?

Gary

ConjurerDragon

10-06-2005, 08:35 AM

Gary schrieb:

> At 07:03 AM 10/6/2005 +0200, tcharazazel wrote:
>
>> And yet you are saying that fortifications can then have an effect on
>> both, as fortifications will then affect the domain level by adding a
>> bonus to domain contest actions and to large scale combat levels. So,
>> why can`t RP then?
>
> Let me see if I can say it another way that`ll make sense.
> Fortifications, the contest action and RP are all domain level
> effects, while the stats and morale checks of companies are at the
> large scale combat level. There is some interaction between these
> levels of play in things like the mustering of troops and the
> fortification of holdings are domain level processes that have effects
> at the large scale combat level, but RP do not act at the large scale
> combat level. Fortifications should have an effect on both (in
> particular cases) because that`s their nature, and their effects are
> much more limited than the broad, general use of RP at the domain
> level. The suggestion that because fortifications should have an
> effect on both so RP should also doesn`t hold up. It`s going from a
> particular case to a general one that isn`t necessary.
>
> RP have a much broader effect at the domain level than fortifications
> have at either level, and a fundamentally different role in the
> campaign, so it`s neither balanced nor necessary for them to effect
> both levels of play. It wouldn`t necessarily hurt anything to allow
> RP to effect the large scale combat level of play (I like the idea of
> using them as a sort of "hero point" or "action point" at the
> adventure level to role-play out the process of turning domain actions
> into adventure) but it`s not necessary to make that extension to the
> system based on a ruling that fortifications influence contest
> actions. There are a lot of actions that fortifications do not have
> an influence upon, and only a particular situation in which
> fortifications have an effect at the large scale combat level.
>
>> I offered a logical compromise, combining a wonder with the
>> fortifications to give something more than just military protection.
>> Hence as the most baseline wonder generates RP, having a small wonder
>> be combined with the central Holding location, ie in the largest city
>> of the province, would naturally justify the fortifications having a
>> significant enough influence on the population to offer a domain
>> scale bonus.
>
> If you want to have such a system there`s nothing stopping you. It`s
> not really necessary to tie it in with the issue of fortifications, RP
> at the company level of play, etc. though is it?
> Gary

Necessary is neither his nor your argument.
Your argument that Fortifications should have an influence on contest
actions is not compelling to me - you could as well say that a regents
AGITATE action is more likely to succeed if he agitates from the height
of a dark castle towering over the peasants village or that the big
castle which is a fortification is acting like a law holding and allows
the regent to collect more taxes without rebellion (because the
population will not rebell out of lost hope seeing the impenetrable
walls of their master) or that a castle or fortified holding will make
enemy ESPIONAGE actions less likely to suceeed. I am sure that using
reallife logic we can find a reason that a big castle should give a
bonus to every action imaginable (big castles have towers, towers most
often in fantasy are the home of wizards with their laboratories, so
castles should give a bonus on a wizards research action) ;-)

Certainly there are real examples of that, that castles/fortified
holdings offer more than just physical protection from military assaults
- but that is not their purpose in the Birthright rulesystem.
bye
Michael

geeman

10-06-2005, 04:00 PM

At 09:54 AM 10/6/2005 +0200, you wrote:

>>If you want to have such a system there`s nothing stopping you. It`s not
>>really necessary to tie it in with the issue of fortifications, RP at the
>>company level of play, etc. though is it?
>
>Necessary is neither his nor your argument.

Well, it actually is my argument.... Aside from the fact that I made it,
it`s not necessary to elaborate upon the use of fortifications to defend
against a contest action in order to have an extrapolation of wonders into
the system of fortifying. At least, I don`t think one needs to rationalize
it that way, particularly if one is going to extend the use of other
aspects of the domain level in the same way.

>Your argument that Fortifications should have an influence on contest
>actions is not compelling to me - you could as well say that a regents
>AGITATE action is more likely to succeed if he agitates from the height of
>a dark castle towering over the peasants village or that the big castle
>which is a fortification is acting like a law holding and allows the
>regent to collect more taxes without rebellion (because the population
>will not rebell out of lost hope seeing the impenetrable walls of their
>master) or that a castle or fortified holding will make enemy ESPIONAGE
>actions less likely to suceeed. I am sure that using reallife logic we can
>find a reason that a big castle should give a bonus to every action
>imaginable (big castles have towers, towers most often in fantasy are the
>home of wizards with their laboratories, so castles should give a bonus on
>a wizards research action) ;-)
>
>Certainly there are real examples of that, that castles/fortified holdings
>offer more than just physical protection from military assaults - but that
>is not their purpose in the Birthright rulesystem. bye

I think those are very different beasties, so the comparisons aren`t
apt. For instance, the agitate action comparison has several fundamental
differences. First of all, an agitate action is a regent acting alone. A
contest action is a regent acting against the interests of another
regent--the domain equivalent of an opposed action. Second, the agitate
action effects loyalty (a very different stat) not the holding
itself. Third, agitate alters a province`s stat rather than a
holding. Fourth, and most importantly, I think the contest action has a
much more militaristic origin than appears to be the assumption here, and
the role of fortifying holdings is meant mostly to defend against that
militaristic contest action. Those examples above are all things that are
definitively non-violent. Where an agitate action is political (or, at
least, generally non-violent) the contest action actually does have a much
more direct link to violence. The original Fortify action (RB 55)
describes the process mostly as having to do with the holding being
preserved when the province in which it is located is invaded during a war
move. It seems inconsistent to me that it would automatically cancel one
type of contest action, but not affect the other. Contested provinces are
_rebellious_ ones (RB 48) so unless one is viewing medieval rebellion as a
more democractic and passive process than I think is the common conception
it`s a bit of a stretch to think that contesting is the non-violent, purely
political process that seems to be the assumption in this thread.

So, sure, one could extend the theme of fortifications into other
non-violent roles if one wanted--but I would suggest that this is exactly
an example of how the contest action is being misinterpreted in the first
place rather than a slippery slope.

Gary

soudhadies

10-06-2005, 11:13 PM

Ok, I said I was through with arguing, but now that it has gotten to be a close vote, and I see that my opinions are not completely disregarded, I think is important for me to give my view on this discussion.

The deeper issue here is not about whether a fortification should do in relation two a holding. It is about a fundamental disagreement as to what a holding is. What follows is my discussion based on what I have read into many of the arguments posted on this site. I make no claims as to infallibility.

I hate to be two simplistic, but there are two theories being posited. The first I shall call the mainstream theory, if only because it appears to be the theory governing the current incarnation of the BRCS, at least in the eyes of its designers. My theory I shall call the radical theory, because even though it seems self evident to me, it had caused quite a stir. Both theories acknowledge that there are two elements that are some how related to holdings: an abstract element of influence and a concrete element of assets. Neither side appears to contend that assets include both human and material resources.

The disagreement is over which of the two elements actually is the holding. The main stream view is that the holding is the influence, and that it is therefore distributed over the entire population of the province it exists. I'm not precisely sure what the relationship of the assets to the influence must therefore be, but it seems to be only tangential to the holding itself. I'm sure that one of the people advocating this position will be able to give a better explanation.

The radical theory is that the holding is the assets, and therefore much more limited in its physical extent. This view connects the influence to the holding by stating that the assets create the influence. For example, the fact that El Hadid is the only guilder who controls warehouses, merchants, caravans, trade guilds, et cetera, in Ilien means that if a resident of that province wishes to conduct an economic activity there, he must do so through El Hadid's agents and assets, and that gives El Hadid influence over that person.

Why is the conflict between these theories important to this vote? Because if the mainstream theory is true, then those people who have been arguing against my position are absolutely right, and one must vote against my proposition. It is exceedingly obvious that you cannot fortity the hearts and minds of the people. If on the other hand, the radical theory is true, then it is possible to make the argument that fortifications should aid against contest actions. However, it does not guarantee that such an argument would pass muster.

Thus, if the vote passes it is an outright rejection of the mainstream theory. If it fails, the matter is still somewhat open, as there is still the possibility of disucssion, because there is no logical neccessity to reject the radical theory in voting against the present proposition. This should but advocates of the traditional theory on notice that they have to strongly argue against the radical theory if their theory is to be maintained. You want a wider margin of victory than the one the numbers presently show if you wish to quash my radical ideas outright :)

Of course, I am a proponent of the radical theory, so I suppose I should try to make a case for it. If you expected me to be entirely even handed, well think again :)

1. If the destruction of assets by warfare results in the destruction of influence, which is what happens when an unfortified holding is pillaged, then it seems to follow that the influence cannot exist without the assets, and is derived from the assets.

2. In an earlier argument, an example of a contest action was described as "propoganda undermines the people's trust in EH's merchants and goods". This could also be explained as a reduction in loyalty to the level of hostile which denies the regent the ability to collect regency and gold. The mainstream attitude thus directs both agitate and contest actions at the population of the province. The actions become to similar in scope and function, as they both apparently are a direct attack on the hearts and minds of the population. The radical theory solves this problem by saying that agitate actions are directed at the general population and contest actions are directed at the holding.

3. While a contest action is still an attack on the influence of the regent in the radical theory. However, instead of being a direct attack on the influence, it is an indirect attack which targets the source of the influence.

4. Regency points have been defined as influence. Holdings produce regency points, but they are not regency points.

5. The original definition of a law holding in the Birthright Rulebook was that they "are any entities (ranging from marauding vigilantes to the king's royal guard), that affect a ruler's ability to control a province and the loyalty of his government servants, including bureaucrats and constables. [p.35]." A temple holding was defined as "monastaries, shrines, temples, and cathedral's of the character's faith. [p. 35]." Implicit in the definition of the temple holding is the people that live in and work at these institutions. Guild holdings are defined more imprecisely, but are still said to "control trade [p.34]" rather than to be something more abstract like consumer preference. It appears that the radical theory of holdings is also the original theory of holdings.

Now I would like to address some points on the actual vote and why I believe that fortifications should, under the radical theory, offer some protection against contest actions.

1. The protection offered to holdings against military is absolute until the fortification is destroyed by force. The proposed protections have all been limited, with disagreement as to the degree of limitation.

2. Implicit in a fortifications are the people required to man and maintain it to protect the holding. This people are an extra layer of control over the holding but again not absolute control. They are as subject to the effects of a contest action as are any other of the agents of the holding.

There it is. I have to go run my Birthright game, for which I am now already late. I hope I have at least gotten people to think on the subject a little. Those of you who wish to oppose me to your dying breath are now free to do so. I've even laid it out point for point to make it easier :)

Raesene Andu

10-07-2005, 04:38 AM

Bearcat,

You have a well-thought out argument, but I believe there is a serious flaw in your arguments. You are looking at what holding is and using it to justify your stance on fortifications stopping contesting, rather than looking at what the contest action is and then determining how it effects holdings.

First, let me say that I agree almost completely with your radical theory. A holding is primarily made up of assets (warehouses, trading posts, caravans, agents, etc in the case of guilds, or temples, shrines, and priests in the case of temple holdings). It is these assets that create infleunce for the regent (RP) and earn him gold. I have no argument with this at all, it rings true for me so I'd hardly regard it as radical.

However, despite the fact that these assets are the holding, and they earn the regent RP and GB, they are completely irrelevant in a contest action and it does not matter if they are fortified or not. A contest action is primarily an attempt to convince the people of the province to trade with a new guild or worship a different god it is not a physical assult or military campaign on the other holding's assets.

To use a real life example, consider two brands of breakfast cereal, one the old and established brand and the other a newcomer to the market. The new brand wants a share of the limited market that is currently dominated by the old brand, but to do so it has to convince the people to buy its product over the old brand. It does so with advertising, trying to convince the population that its brand is better than the old one. If it is successful, the market share of the old brand drops and the market share of the new brand rises. The old brand therefore isn't making as much money, so it might have to fire some staff, or close down a warehouse, while the new brand now is making more money so it can hire more staff and open a new warehouse or factory.

This is exactly how a contest action works. There doesn't need to be any violence, no warehouses need to be burned to the ground, nor agents harrassed (although these activities may be part of a contest action, especially if one side has the support of the local law regent). A contest action is all about convincing the people of a province to trade with the new guild, or worship the new faith instead of the old. By spending RP on the action (or to oppose it), the regent try to use their influence (RP) to convince the people of the province that they are the best regent to look after that holding type. It makes no difference at all how many of the current regent's warehouses, temples, or watchouses are fortified, as the physical assets of a holding do not feature in a contest of this type. At the end of a contest action the physical assets of a province are generally unharmed, but they just aren't servicing as many of the people as they were before. The holding then probably sacks a few employees or closes down some of its buildings because it cannont continue to support them on its newly reduced income.

To answer your specific points about why fortifications should provide protection against contest actions.

1. You also cannot use the fact that a fortification provides protection against military assult to justify that it can also prevents contesting, because they are two completely different types of action. Sending in the troops is when a holding's assets are destroyed, and its employees rounded up and imprisoned/killed. Contesting is a action where each regent tries to convince the people of the province to support them. Violence is NOT a certainty in a contest action, while a military action by its very nature is obviously going to be violent.

2. A fortification will need addtional people to maintain it (hence the maintenance cost). However, these people are required to maintain the fortification not the holding. They are not subject to the contest action at all, and even if the regent's holding in the province is reduced to level 0, he can still maintain the fortification by paying for its maintenance. This means the two are not linked in any way whatsoever. You can fortify a level 0 holding with a level 10 fortification if you want, it doesn't mean that the people of the province are suddenly going to turn up and want you are their new guilder/high priest/lawman.

I would suggest that anyone who is thinking about voting yes in this poll seriously consider exactly what a contest action is and then see if you can think of any way where a fortification could prevent it taking place. I know I can't...

Osprey

10-07-2005, 01:33 PM

A response to Geeman:
Re. violence in Contesting: in 2e, the means of contesting provinces via military occupation was quite different from contesting holdings in peacetime situations...don't throw them all in the cookpot together and use the province contest as justifying the style of contesting a holding. My reading has always been that these were two quite distinctly different actions.

Holdings may very definitely have a province-wide effect - otherwise, their level wouldn't be limited by the province level.

Agitate may be opposed by the affected regents as surely as a contest action is...the largest holding of the affected regent provides a penalty tot he check, and any regent with holdings in the agitated province may spend RP to support or oppose the action. Hardly a "regent acting alone."

Also, to define contest as a primarily militaristic action makes pillaging seem to be the only worthile form of contesting at all, in which case you might as well throw out the Contest Holding action altogether, at least within the BRCS system.

Contest Holding is meant to be a non-military means of eroding a regent's control of a province's law, temple, guilds, or sources. It is a political, social, and economic battleground, not a military one.

Osprey

10-07-2005, 02:26 PM

Bearcat:
While it might be nice to neatly divide the argment into 2 opposing camps, I don't think the votes represent such a simplified decision.

For exmple, I voted against guilds providing a bonus to resisting contest, but have previously mentioned that I would be OK with them providing a small bonus due to their symbolic value. This is still true, but I was afraid if I voted "yes" then things would get quickly carried away (like providing a 1:1 bonus to resist contest, which is I believe more what you had in mind, given the importance you have attributed to fortifications and their role in controlling medieval populaces).

The main stream view is that the holding is the influence, and that it is therefore distributed over the entire population of the province it exists. I'm not precisely sure what the relationship of the assets to the influence must therefore be, but it seems to be only tangential to the holding itself. I'm sure that one of the people advocating this position will be able to give a better explanation.

This isn't quite accurate re. my own views on the subject. I don't have this simplistic a view of it. My own understanding lies somewhere between your two "theories" (definitions). But I will use some of your terms to help define my own view below.

A holding is both the assets and the influence of their controlling regent over the provincial population. The levels of holding represent a general level of assets (i.e., all level 3 holdings are roughly similar in terms of infrastructure, number of employees, and beauracratic complexity), independent of the province where it's located.

A holding level also represents a relative degree of control (influence) of that aspect of a province - the holding level relative to the province level. Ex: A guild(3) in a province(4) can be assumed to control roughly 75% of mercantile interests in the province.

The 1st aspect, assets, are generally assumed in BR to be kept at a profitable, efficient level. If a holding level increases, it assets increase proportionally to support the new level of activity. This is subsumed in the cost and time required by the rule holding action. In the BRCS, the maintenance of these is subsumed in the adjusted income of the holding.

Similarly, if a holding level drops, it is also assumed that excess assets are relinquished (layoffs of personell, closing down or selling off buildings, etc). Otherwise, the regent would suffer from excesss maintenace costs.

So in sense, I suppose you could say that the influence, or control, represented by holding levels determines the assets of said holding.

If it were the other way around, as in your "radical theory," then why wouldn't it be possible for say, three guild(3) holdings to exist in the same province(3)? I mean, what (other than artificial means) would prevent all 3 from owning enough assets to have the equivalent power? Each guild could own the same number of warehouses, hire the same number of merchants, bring the same number of goods to market, etc.

The answer is that the market itself is limited - only so many goods can be sold for profit in a given population. The given population/market limit is the province level. Guild levels must then represent controlling shares of that market - but there cannot be more shares than the total market limit. Assets do not generate the profits any more than they generate the influence of that market - they only support the garnering of influence and profit.

The same holds true for law and temples - only so many people to be controlled/regulated via law, only so many people to go to church and give tithes. Building more structures and hiring more personell won't necesarily convince more people to come to your church or follow your laws, unless there is a vacuum already waiting to be filled (in game terms, open holding levels within the province). If such a vacuum exists, then building those assets might increase your influence if they are used well (as represented by the Rule Holding action). Then again, if certain forces oppose you, such an investment might end up being a big waste of time, regency, and gold.

One could argue that such a "zero-sum", closed system is overly simplistic and unrealistic, but I think it must be so for the sake of playability and ease of use. Geeman might think this is a dead horse being beaten, but then again I can't recall Geeman ever proposing any systems that could be called simplistic. Let's face it, the man likes detailed intricacy. ;)

For me, striking a balance between simplicity, believable simulation, and general ease of play is a guiding rule of game design. Achieving such a thing, of course, is never so easy, but we try, we try...

Osprey

Osprey

10-07-2005, 02:38 PM

Raesene:

Just wanted to point out something I thought was pretty important. Your definition of the Contest action seems to include Contesting and Ruling at the same time - in effect, not just eroding a target holding's influence, but taking it over. In BR, both 2e and the BRCS, Contesting was pretty strictly limited to offensively neutralizing or destroying an enemy regent's holding. Actually winning over the populace to your law/guild/temple is one or more Rule actions, each with a seperate chance for success.

Thus it seems to me that Contest Holding should be a bit more narrowly defined as eroding a target regent's control of law, commerce, religion, or mebhaighal within a province, rather than competing for that control. The actual competition for control seems to fall more directly under the auspice of the Rule Holding action.

Osprey

soudhadies

10-07-2005, 03:06 PM

"A contest action is primarily an attempt to convince the people of the province to trade with a new guild or worship a different god it is not a physical assult or military campaign on the other holding's assets."

See this is also a point where I disagree, although I can certainly understand your side of the argument. As I have said before, I see the contest action as an attack on the holding assets, but not neccessarily a physical attack.

I am not entirely conversant in business, but I hope my Hollywood understanding of it will be enough to support a counter example.

In the original version of the game, a contest action was an attempt to wrest control of the holding from the other regent. In this case it would be like the second brand's company quietly buying up a large stake in the local subsidiary of the first company and then trying to launch a hostile takeover. Suddenly chaos looms. The people working at the subsidiary don't know who they are working for. They get contradictory orders from both of the rival companies and any actions they take are contradictd by members of their own hierarchy. The subsidiary is effectively paralyzed until the situation resolves itself as its employees jockey for position and engage in petty backstabbing and infighting. The situation is resoved when: the rival cereal company withdraws its bid for control, the first cereal company reestablishes a firm grip on the the subsidiary by ruling the holding, eliminating the holding that launched the attack, etc. Other possible outcomes are that the attacking company suceeds in another contest holding and is able to dissolve the subsidiary outright, or it suceeds in an investiture action and thus effectuates the hostile takeover.

The new version of the contest action changes the picture dramatically. Now the action is an attempt to dismantle the subsidiary company piece by piece. How would you do this in a cereal war? Look at what pieces go into the cereal line: you need people to produce raw materials for the cereal, people to produce the cereal, people to distribute it, people to sell it. How could you deal a severe blow to the company then? Creating a teamster crisis by gaining control of their union would paralyze the lines of distribution and deal a severe blow to the holding's ability to produce, manufacture, distribute and sell the cereal. You could buy up farmland and ensure that the supply of raw materials going to the rival is severly hampered. You could force individual merchants to sign contracts that the only will carry pepsi products instead of coke products (off topic, but a realworld example). You could buy off the loyalty of warehouse managers, induce factory workers to strike, and do any number of underhanded and dirty things to get your way, but essentially you are trying to get the people who administer portions of the holding to stop acknowledging the authority of the rival regent and take the physical assets that they control with them. All this becomes more difficult to do if there are guards in towers with shotguns (modern example of fortification of course) around who are paid to ensure that those assets do not leave the owner-regent's control.

I still think that advertising and propaganda smacks of an agitate action. The end result of agitation now, by the way is very similar to the contested state of original edition: denial of regency and gold until the situation is rectified.

The version of the contest action that I have adopted in my campaign is an amalgamation of both. A successful contest action puts an uncontested holding in the contested state, in the same way that the original one did. Each sucessful contest action thereafter deals 1d3 levels of damage to the holding. Each successful divestiture action transfers 1d3 levels of the holding to the agressor. Removing the contested state is accomplished in the same way as in the original rules, so it is easier to remove the contested state if the agressor is trying to outright destroy the holding (because there will be an open slot into which the defender can rule his holding). This solves in my opinion the unfairness in the original rules of a level 10 holding being outright destroyed or taken over.

soudhadies

10-07-2005, 03:14 PM

"The version of the contest action that I have adopted in my campaign . . ."

This is not by the way, an assertion that I believe that the rule in the BRCS should be changed outright. It is merely a discussion of what I have done in my campaign as, actually, was the original post about fortifications and contest actions. I did not intend for that conversation to proceed this far, but since there was agressive escalation in the form of a vote request, I engaged.

Is this not the appropriate forum to discuss houserules derived from the BRCS? It is the BRCS "discussion" forum, so I just assumed . . . I could obviously been wrong though . . . ::confused::

Osprey

10-07-2005, 03:24 PM

The version of the contest action that I have adopted in my campaign is an amalgamation of both. A successful contest action puts an uncontested holding in the contested state, in the same way that the original one did. Each sucessful contest action thereafter deals 1d3 levels of damage to the holding. Each successful divestiture action transfers 1d3 levels of the holding to the agressor.

Not to distract from the forum topic too much...but why would a regent ever contest rather than divest? Why destroy, then rule, rather than simply steal the holding levels? Seems to me, unless there's something I'm not seeing here, that your rules make contesting for damage pretty much pointless. is divestiture harder than contesting?

soudhadies

10-07-2005, 06:05 PM

"Not to distract from the forum topic too much...but why would a regent ever contest rather than divest? Why destroy, then rule, rather than simply steal the holding levels? Seems to me, unless there's something I'm not seeing here, that your rules make contesting for damage pretty much pointless. is divestiture harder than contesting?"

In my game I still have not abandoned the more traditional view of investiture/divestiture that requires an Investiture realm spell to be cast in order to make the transfer of power "official". In such a case divestirure is harder than destruction because you need the saction of a church character to perform the action. Even then, there is a certain amount of a social stigma among regents (read peer pressure) against divestiture, because it is analagous to a domain level equivalent of bloodtheft: you are stealing someone's birthright. If you are in single combat with another regent you can still kill him without committing bloodtheft (In my campaign I still require the "pierce heart" rule, basically you need to perform a coup de grace). So there are political considerations that must be taken into account.

So here are the options as I see it:
1. If you think you can get away with it, steal it outright.
2. If you think it is feasible, destroy it.
3. If the holding is bothersome, but you haven't decided which way to go, or neither of the other two options is available, leave it contested and tie up your opponent's resources.

This means that there are three consideraions at play instead of just one. Flexibility is good in my opinion, as it deepens the element of strategy. However, as you can see it is predicated on some other house rules I have made, including some that overrule "sanctioned" portions of the BRCS, which is why I disclaimed intentions of reform.

irdeggman

10-07-2005, 06:26 PM

Is this not the appropriate forum to discuss houserules derived from the BRCS? It is the BRCS "discussion" forum, so I just assumed . . . I could obviously been wrong though . . . ::confused::

Actually no it isn't.

Discussions focused on the development of the “Official” D&D 3.5 rules.

This thread is supposed to be devoted to development of the BRCS itself.

If all you had intended was to discuss the viabiiity of your house rules and not propose them as means of changing the BRCS then you should have used one of the other forums( either Midnight Cauldron - dedicated to home brew things) or The Royal Library the genral catch all.

Currently there are only 2 chapters that are "sanctioned" Chap 1 and Chap 2. So everythng else is up for discussion although some specific things ahve already been voted on.

Raesene Andu

10-07-2005, 10:42 PM

The new version of the contest action changes the picture dramatically. Now the action is an attempt to dismantle the subsidiary company piece by piece. How would you do this in a cereal war? Look at what pieces go into the cereal line: you need people to produce raw materials for the cereal, people to produce the cereal, people to distribute it, people to sell it. How could you deal a severe blow to the company then? Creating a teamster crisis by gaining control of their union would paralyze the lines of distribution and deal a severe blow to the holding's ability to produce, manufacture, distribute and sell the cereal. You could buy up farmland and ensure that the supply of raw materials going to the rival is severly hampered. You could force individual merchants to sign contracts that the only will carry pepsi products instead of coke products (off topic, but a realworld example). You could buy off the loyalty of warehouse managers, induce factory workers to strike, and do any number of underhanded and dirty things to get your way, but essentially you are trying to get the people who administer portions of the holding to stop acknowledging the authority of the rival regent and take the physical assets that they control with them. All this becomes more difficult to do if there are guards in towers with shotguns (modern example of fortification of course) around who are paid to ensure that those assets do not leave the owner-regent's control.

A fortification does not give a regent control over all the economic activity in an entire province though, it just protects the phsysical assets (warehourse, trading posts, distripution centres, etc) of the holding. A fortification also doesn't give the guild any extra ability to effect any new holdings. Certainlly the current guild can do something to try and prevent this and this is represented by the fact that the guild (and the province law regent) can use their holding levels to increase the DC of the action. The current guild already has this advantage even before RP are spent!

Continuing with the example, if a new guild was to enter the market, they would ensure raw materials by speaking to the farmers who currently supply the old guild and convince them to sell to the new one instead. They would then hire new people to cart the goods, build a new factory to manufacture the end product, and new warehouses to store it in. The fact that the old guilds warehouses and factories are fortified just doesn't matter in terms of this contest.

This discussion and poll is only on the issue of fortifications preventing contesting (or giving a bonus against). So much of what is now being dicussed in the rest of your post is getting off this topic and I won't address it here. Create a new thread if you want to propose a change to the contest action.

ShadowMoon

10-08-2005, 10:36 PM

I voted No...

I liked the idea of Raesene Andu, but I wouldn't let the holding 0 if its totally contested (destroyed). If fortified holding is contested below 0, I would let contested holding owner to have an asset in that province (Fort). So he/she could later use it for some other holding there, or sell it. He would still be required to pay some upkeep for retaining the asset, if he chooses to keep it. Unless the holding was destroyed by enemy forces, then that would meant that fortifications are destoyed too.
But I would give some bonus on defense against espionage used against fortified holdings...

Cheers...

geeman

10-13-2005, 03:03 PM

At 03:33 PM 10/7/2005 +0200, Osprey wrote:

>Re. violence in Contesting: in 2e, the means of contesting provinces via
>military occupation was quite different from contesting holdings in
>peacetime situations...don`t throw them all in the cookpot together and
>use the province contest as justifying the style of contesting a holding.
>My reading has always been that these were two quite distinctly different
>actions.

Well, I can appreciate why you`d want to describe them as different
actions... but unfortunately I`m going to have to fall back on the
walks/quacks like a duck then it`s a duck argument. They have the same
(not similar--the same) effect. That makes it reasonable to compare them
in terms of both effect and definition.

>Agitate may be opposed by the affected regents as surely as a contest
>action is...the largest holding of the affected regent provides a penalty
>tot he check, and any regent with holdings in the agitated province may
>spend RP to support or oppose the action. Hardly a "regent acting alone."

OK, you`re correct, an agitate action can be opposed or initiated by other
regents, but the faults of my characterization do not vitiate the overall
point about the differences between the two actions. My point was really
just that those two actions are really much more different than was being
suggested, so using the description and interpretation of Agitate as the
basis for a description of Contest doesn`t really hold up.

>Also, to define contest as a primarily militaristic action makes pillaging
>seem to be the only worthile form of contesting at all, in which case you
>might as well throw out the Contest Holding action altogether, at least
>within the BRCS system.

I don`t think I did defined it as primarily militaristic.... My
description is that BOTH violent and a more political version is possible.

>Contest Holding is meant to be a non-military means of eroding a regent`s
>control of a province`s law, temple, guilds, or sources. It is a
>political, social, and economic battleground, not a military one.

Well, I`m not suggesting that the contest action is "military" but it can
be violent, as it demonstrated by the fact that the results of other
military (or similarly violent) activities are equated. The non-violent
interpretation of the action could be employed, but to suggest that the
process is entirely non-violent (and that fortification should, therefore,
have no influence) is, I think, a very limited view. The opposite view is
inclusive, where the non-violent one excludes many interpretations of the
action, and is somewhat at odds with the effects of the action in other
areas of the original domain system, so it strikes me as being doubly faulty.

Gary

tcharazazel

10-14-2005, 06:16 PM

irdeggman

10-14-2005, 09:00 PM

So, does the Contest action require the regent have troops to perform it?

Of course not, so why are you insisting that it can be violent? The regent merely has to exert political influence, ie bribing officials and putting out enough advertising, to win enough favor to reduce the opposing regent's holding. That is the Contest action.

If you are going to have thugs beat up buyers or raid shipments then you need military units to do it and it is a military action. That is the simple distinction and it is very clear.

I sort of differ on this.

It is possible to have a violent action without using troops. But in order to affect a province or holding (remember that when the term holding is used it is not a single location but an aggregate of several - except for sources, but that doesn't really come into play in this discussion).

It is possible to send thugs to harrass a shop (character level) but in order to harrass the entire business organization (domain level) it takes more than a few thugs. They must be organized and coordinated - hence troops (or at least so similar that they should be treated as troops).

The difference between income earned by a shopkeeper (i.e., profession skill check) and a "guilder" (domain income - once per season) is the equivalent of the difference in "scales" IMO.

geeman

10-14-2005, 10:33 PM

At 08:16 PM 10/14/2005 +0200, tcharazazel wrote:

>So, does the Contest action require the regent have troops to perform it?
>
>Of course not, so why are you insisting that it can be violent? The regent
>merely has to exert political influence, ie bribing officials and putting
>out enough advertising, to win enough favor to reduce the opposing
>regent`s holding. That is the Contest action.
>
>If you are going to have thugs beat up buyers or raid shipments then you
>need military units to do it and it is a military action. That is the
>simple distinction and it is very clear.

The violence that CAN be used as an interpretation of the Contest action
need not be military. Thugs, those incited to violence and intimidation,
etc. are not always military units. There are several random events that
are violent, yet not necessarily military and the interpretation of more
than a few domain actions assumes a certain amount of guards, constables
and other personnel to account for the processes at the domain level. Such
guards and personnel of another holdings can be people who are very capable
of attacking another holding. Those who follow another regent can also be
people who attack another holding. An unfortified holding is vulnerable to
even the attacks of peasants and commoners. A fortified one is difficult
to attack by either (or even by military units.) Those things are also
possible interpretations of the Contest action, particularly in light of
the other things that have the exact same effect as that action. Why limit
the interpretation when a more inclusive one (and one that goes along with
the original rules) is possible?

Out of curiosity, what is the motivation for limiting the scope,
interpreting (read: role-playing possibilities) and purpose of the Contest
action? Aside from trying to tell OTHER people how to game, why would
someone want to set such limitations at all? More importantly, is there
any tangential evidence to support that opinion (such as the evidence
already cited that describes the opposite?)

Gary

Osprey

10-15-2005, 04:50 AM

Out of curiosity, what is the motivation for limiting the scope,
interpreting (read: role-playing possibilities) and purpose of the Contest
action? Aside from trying to tell OTHER people how to game, why would
someone want to set such limitations at all? More importantly, is there
any tangential evidence to support that opinion (such as the evidence
already cited that describes the opposite?)

Um...how else do you create definitions, rules etc.? In other words, how is one to design any sort of coherent game system at all unless there are some clear definitions of rules, terms, and relationships?

It is quite simply impossible to create any sort of game system without limitations. It is not a system at all at that point.

Even envisioning a game as only a set of loose guidelines (minimal limitations), you'd still be without any relevant dice/rules-set for representing the outcome of chance and probability.

Getting way more specific, this is D&D Birthright, and D&D is easily one of the most rules-heavy, detail-oriented RPG's on the market, so don't you think it's rather likely that a domain-level adaptation for 3.5 D&D will strive to be equally detailed, rules-oriented, and limited?

This rather broad explanation is pointing toward the general tendency in the BRCS project to narrowly define every aspect of the BRCS revision project. Hell, we're taking polls on the most narrow of details within far larger systems...if this weren't grounded in a D&D project, the whole idea of taking several weeks to run polls about such details as this would have been thrown out as ludicrous long ago.

But D&D is the heaven (or hell) of rules lawyers and power gamers, number crunchers and staticians. It is no wonder to me that it fosters such a microscopic examination of every detail and every possible relationship of each piece of the rules. And, of course, endless debate and argument as we are all caught up in the whirlwind, losing the forest for the trees...

In the end, I'll restate what I've been saying all along. I don't have that strong an opinion on the matter, I wouldn't mind if fortified holdings were a bit harder to contest than usual, I just think it's simpler to have it not be one more modifier to remember when performing domain actions.

What I'd really prefer to see is an end to such exhaustive effort wasted on such miniscule points of debate, and much more energy expended in hammering out the larger pieces of the BRCS. At our current pace, 3.5 D&D will be obsolete by the time the BRCS is finished. Sounds like doom and gloom, I know, but it's the friggin truth. If we keep polling on miniscule details while not polling on things like "Hey, can we live with this version of Chapter 5?", we ain't gonna' see the end of the BRCS project. Fact.

Osprey

geeman

10-15-2005, 06:45 AM

At 06:50 AM 10/15/2005 +0200, Osprey wrote:

>>Out of curiosity, what is the motivation for limiting the scope,
>>interpreting (read: role-playing possibilities) and purpose of the
>>Contest action? Aside from trying to tell OTHER people how to game, why
>>would someone want to set such limitations at all? More importantly, is
>>there any tangential evidence to support that opinion (such as the
>>evidence already cited that describes the opposite?)
>
>Um...how else do you create definitions, rules etc.? In other words, how
>is one to design any sort of coherent game system at all unless there are
>some clear definitions of rules, terms, and relationships?
>
>It is quite simply impossible to create any sort of game system without
>limitations. It is not a system at all at that point.
>
>Even envisioning a game as only a set of loose guidelines (minimal
>limitations), you`d still be without any relevant dice/rules-set for
>representing the outcome of chance and probability.
>
>Getting way more specific, this is D&D Birthright, and D&D is easily one
>of the most rules-heavy, detail-oriented RPG`s on the market, so don`t you
>think it`s rather likely that a domain-level adaptation for 3.5 D&D will
>strive to be equally detailed, rules-oriented, and limited?
>
>This rather broad explanation is pointing toward the general tendency in
>the BRCS project to narrowly define every aspect of the BRCS revision
>project. Hell, we`re taking polls on the most narrow of details within far
>larger systems...if this weren`t grounded in a D&D project, the whole idea
>of taking several weeks to run polls about such details as this would have
>been thrown out as ludicrous long ago.
>
>But D&D is the heaven (or hell) of rules lawyers and power gamers, number
>crunchers and staticians. It is no wonder to me that it fosters such a
>microscopic examination of every detail and every possible relationship of
>each piece of the rules. And, of course, endless debate and argument as we
>are all caught up in the whirlwind, losing the forest for the trees...
>
>In the end, I`ll restate what I`ve been saying all along. I don`t have
>that strong an opinion on the matter, I wouldn`t mind if fortified
>holdings were a bit harder to contest than usual, I just think it`s
>simpler to have it not be one more modifier to remember when performing
>domain actions.
>
>What I`d really prefer to see is an end to such exhaustive effort wasted
>on such miniscule points of debate, and much more energy expended in
>hammering out the larger pieces of the BRCS. At our current pace, 3.5 D&D
>will be obsolete by the time the BRCS is finished. Sounds like doom and
>gloom, I know, but it`s the friggin truth. If we keep polling on miniscule
>details while not polling on things like "Hey, can we live with this
>version of Chapter 5?", we ain`t gonna` see the end of the BRCS project. Fact.

While I guess I can understand the frustration here to some extent, but I
feel obliged to comment that I find it misplaced and, essentially,
egoistic. What you describe in largely pejorative terms is, in reality,
exactly why many people engage in the hobby; it could even be used as the
definition of the hobby. Gaming (not just D&D--every single major RPG
gaming system extant) is an ongoing process of development, interpretation
and innovation. Now, that sometimes seems to tick off people who claim to
be avid practitioners, but it strikes me as odd that people would dedicate
so much time to the process without recognizing the fundamental (ongoing)
nature of it--even when things like the licensing agreement and the
introductory texts of the books proclaim that it is part of a continuum for
all to see. If this is something that is troubling, then one is probably
better engaging in hobbies that have more clearly defined goals. Jigsaw
puzzles, for instance, or knitting. If one wants to engage in an ongoing
process (which just about anything intellectual, for that matter) then its
best to recognize that one is not going to really "finish" as such. That
it is ongoing is, in fact, one of the primary merits of the process.

That aside, I was looking for something a little more specific than the
above screed about the pitfalls of gaming and design philosophy. To reiterate:

"...what is the motivation for limiting the scope, interpreting (read:
role-playing possibilities) and purpose of the Contest action? Aside from
trying to tell OTHER people how to game, why would
someone want to set such limitations at all? More importantly, is there any
tangential evidence to support that opinion (such as the evidence already
cited that describes the opposite?"

That is, in THIS CASE (the Contest action) what is the basic inspiration
for the interpretation that contest must only be viewed in a non-violent
way and game mechanics must consequentially be based on that limited
interpretation? How did the interpretation come about in the first
place? From what materials is it derived? What are the merits of the more
narrow description? There have been a lot of posts insisting that the
Contest action is non-violent, but no actual support for that opinion that
I`ve read. What is its basis?

I`ve cited materials from the original Rulebook that support the broader
(and, I think, more playable) interpretation of the process. What supports
the narrower view?

When it comes to the comments at the beginning of the quoted text above
(here again)

>Um...how else do you create definitions, rules etc.? In other words, how
>is one to design any sort of coherent game system at all unless there are
>some clear definitions of rules, terms, and relationships?

I`m going to suggest that this issue has really very little to do with such
a dynamic. There`s no reason why the rule itself can`t be inclusive AND
clear; all the terms, rules and relationships defined and still
useful. The suggestion that people are going to have trouble remembering a
single modifier strikes me as being... well, not much of a concern. It`s a
simple modifier of the kind that appears in all levels of the game and
something that anyone with the ability to count on their fingers can handle.

Gary

irdeggman

10-15-2005, 12:39 PM

At 06:50 AM 10/15/2005 +0200, I`m going to suggest that this issue has really very little to do with such
a dynamic. There`s no reason why the rule itself can`t be inclusive AND
clear; all the terms, rules and relationships defined and still
useful. The suggestion that people are going to have trouble remembering a
single modifier strikes me as being... well, not much of a concern. It`s a
simple modifier of the kind that appears in all levels of the game and
something that anyone with the ability to count on their fingers can handle.

Gary

I will respectifully disagree with this.

In essence because Birthright was (in 2nd ed also) the single most detailed and bookkeeping RPG in existence. IMO it pretty much still is even with the efforts to streamline as much of the maintainence and random rolls of the 2nd ed system.

To open things up as you suggest makes for a game without structure (except as created by a DM - hence a huuge amount of house-rules) and as Osprey pointed out does fly against the premise of D&D in general.

As far as the Contest action specifically - well 2nd ed was very very clear on the subject. Fortifications had a single function and a singel function only - to defend against troops. Troops were used to occupy a province (a self-declared war action). Contest actions did not involve any troop movement.

The BRCS terminiology is amazingly similar to that used in the BoR (hmmm I wonder why) so it attempts to remain consistent with the 2nd ed game to the maximum extent possible.

People are constantly asking for rules specific details on just about everything pertaining the to system. That is why, while it seems like I am micromanaging the project - there is in fact some semi-Intelligent design to the process,

Osprey, I did ask for volunteer to ovesee (i.e., edit) individual chapters with the hope of getting things done quicker but. . .

(Yes I do remember your semi-volunteer e-mail, and appreciate it).

Still looking for volunteers by the way. You must be able to separate what you want in a game and what the masses want - that is to say this can't be a means of writing your own house-rules into "Official" ruleset. I have had many things that I felt strongly about get overruled by the masses and went with the overall decisions made.

soudhadies

10-15-2005, 06:02 PM

As far as the Contest action specifically - well 2nd ed was very very clear on the subject. Fortifications had a single function and a singel function only - to defend against troops. Troops were used to occupy a province (a self-declared war action). Contest actions did not involve any troop movement.

The vote has clearly gone one way so it may be moot to continue the argument. However, I will lay out once again what my reasoning was:

1. You are completely right about the relationship between the contest action and fortifications in 2nd ed.

2. In 2nd Ed the most similar parallel in the rules to the contest action was rebellion or great captain/heresy, e.g. denial of regency and gold collection with the threat of total loss of control.

3. Fortifications do not protect against rebellion (rebel troops maybe, but not rebellion itself) or great Captain/Heresy.

4. In the revised rules, the most similar parallel in the rules to the contest action is the pillaging rules, e.g. reduction of a certain number of holding levels.

5. Fortifications do protect against pillaging.

6. Hence, a change in the contest action itself may suggest a change in the relationship between that action and fortified holdings.

I realize that a "looks like a duck/quacks like a duck" argument about parallel game mechanics doesn't always make sense. And it looks like in this case it does not make sense to about twice as many people as it does make sense to. However, I think that when certain parts of the game are fundamentally changed, such as the contest action was, we should at least be willing to entertain arguments that point to the possible ripple effects of the change.

irdeggman

10-24-2005, 04:11 PM

Alright this poll is finally closed.

Here are the results:

Should fortifications provide a bonus when defending against contest actions?

Yes 18

No 28

Abstain 3

Moving RaspK_Fog and Benjamin’s votes from Yes to No makes it:

Yes 16

No 30

Abstain 3

Very, very close to clear majority (twice as many in one side or another).

Issue decided. Fortifications do not provide a bonus against contest actions.

doom

10-28-2005, 01:54 PM

<Unlurk>

For what it is worth, I think that there are three general actions which attempt, in toto, to provide abstract mechanisms for interfering with someone's power base. These categories are supposed to be catchalls for representing (abstractly) pretty much everything. There will always be situations that don't fit exactly into one category.

(1) The most extreme action is "Occupy Province". This action actually involves sending around mustered forces (trained or untrained, military or mob) to burn, sink, or otherwise savage the physical resources and key personnel of a holding. Currently, this is the only action for which fortification level plays a role.

(2) "Contest holding" is relatively tame by comparison. The contest action is an attempt to undermine the power base of a holding by providing a competing option that fills the same need (that is, a holding of the same type is required). The sentence about this action being like "declaring war" is completely lame and the person who wrote it should be shot (probably me). Fortifications should play no role whatsoever in this particular abstraction. Your assets might be safe, but you cannot protect your more diffuse powerbase (the general populace) with walls and soldiers.

(3) "Agitate" represents any attempt to actually sway public opinion against the regent of a domain (or the domain itself) without actually erroding the permentant physical or social power base. Agitate does no direct damage to the holdings, but the holdings power may be temporary erroded if the public actually becomes hostile to the regent or domain. The administration can, of course, attempt to control any negative spin or, perhaps, eventually hand over the holdings to someone in better public favor. Again, it wouldn't seem that hiding safely behind walls would necessarily help here.

</unlurk>

- Doom