Stjordvik vassals

[Sorontar]

I was checking various domain tables in the wiki and I noticed that Stjordvik has Djursund Njalgrimsson as the Jarl of Udvika (abbreviation Dj, which for now conflicts with the abbreviation of the Jarl of Havliik in Svinik). However, the bio page for Djursund and his daughter Hrafnhild Djursunsdotter (which possibly should be Djursundsdotter) indicates that due to his frailty, she is acting as Jarlless. This is supported by the text on the wiki for Stjordvik. However, I cannot see any mention of her in canon publications. In fact, the Stjordvik domain table in The Rjurik Highlands has Djursund as regent. Which is right? Who is in charge of the province?

Once I know, I can decide how best to resolve the abbreviation conflict.

Sorontar

[Sorontar]

I have spotted another irregularity in The Rjurik Highlands. In the entry fro Stordvik, it says the White Witch has 1 Guild holding in Saerskaap. However, in the same book the entry for the White Witch says she has 2 Guild holdings in Saerskaap. It is a 4/2 province and the only other guild is Storm Holtson (Stjordvik Traders) with 1 holding. The text says "The White Witch continues to maintain a small but significant interest in the area".

Sorontar

[Athrasis]

I have spotted another irregularity in The Rjurik Highlands. In the entry fro Stordvik, it says the White Witch has 1 Guild holding in Saerskaap. However, in the same book the entry for the White Witch says she has 2 Guild holdings in Saerskaap. It is a 4/2 province and the only other guild is Storm Holtson (Stjordvik Traders) with 1 holding. The text says "The White Witch continues to maintain a small but significant interest in the area".

Sorontar

On this one, the games I have done have always run this as being a level 1 Guild Holding, following the Realm description. As far as I remember, our own consensus was that if there was a conflict to follow the Realm description. It is more detailed, and the sum up lists are more prone to error.

In this case, it also aligns with the description. If it was a level 2, it would not be small but significant in my opinion. It would then be the largest guild.

[Witness3]

Djursund is reported giving up the jarldom to his daughter hrafnhild in the player's secret of stjordivk aourcebook. Her name is indicated in the sourcebook. This is more like an added detail rather than a .mistake, I think it should be canon - at least that is what I did when I wrote stjordivk's doom.
The witch holdings are a different problem. They are reported as being *secret*, as no one knows their presence. But there is no secret holding game.mechanic, hiwever we have brcs spy networks now, which should be more appropriate, although they do not generate profit.

[Osprey]

Djursund is reported giving up the jarldom to his daughter hrafnhild in the player's secret of stjordivk sourcebook. Her name is indicated in the sourcebook. This is more like an added detail rather than a .mistake, I think it should be canon - at least that is what I did when I wrote stjordvik's doom.
The witch holdings are a different problem. They are reported as being *secret*, as no one knows their presence. But there is no secret holding game.mechanic, however we have brcs spy networks now, which should be more appropriate, although they do not generate profit.

As a regent I would far rather have secret guild holdings with levels than a spy network. The former generate income and could even anchor a trade route (can secret guilds create a secret smuggling trade route? Why not, with Espionage to cover it up!).

I know we have been back and forth over the secret holdings issue before with the BRCS project, but I feel like this is one of quite a few references to secret holdings in the source material. I feel that we should just note with an asterisk after any holding that is said to be secret in the source material, then denote the asterisk's meaning after the regent abbreviation list at the end of a holding table (if you all follow what I mean).
Then DMs/groups are free to decide for themselves how to handle the hidden holding mechanics.

[AndrewTall]

As a regent I would far rather have secret guild holdings with levels than a spy network. The former generate income and could even anchor a trade route (can secret guilds create a secret smuggling trade route? Why not, with Espionage to cover it up!).

I know we have been back and forth over the secret holdings issue before with the BRCS project, but I feel like this is one of quite a few references to secret holdings in the source material. I feel that we should just note with an asterisk after any holding that is said to be secret in the source material, then denote the asterisk's meaning after the regent abbreviation list at the end of a holding table (if you all follow what I mean).
Then DMs/groups are free to decide for themselves how to handle the hidden holding mechanics.

I suspect that the easiest way is to say not commonly known as being part of a 'formal' holding (i.e. perhaps seen as small guilds without central organisation at 'holding' level) and susceptible to discovery of the central organisation with espionage / adventure / luck - but to each DM their own, as you note we don't have to give hard answer, the entire holding system is deliberately somewhat vague on the details of what holdings represent.

[Sorontar]

Indeed, one of the considerations I have had when writing up the Burrows is that there are two main guilds - one known as an producer/exporter and the other as an importer. The Burrows doesn't have major cities and is made up of mainly localised villages, hamlets and small farms. The issue is then what a guild holding represents.

I wrote "Much of the Burrows is a semi-rural environment. There are few grand buildings in the towns and little heavy industry. What manufacturing does exist tends to be in allied workshops, licensed to supply the main guilds, rather than a centralised factory. Of course, there are plenty of small and medium businesses who are independent, but they have a more limited clientale."

The guilds will have in place a system and structure that will include warehouses, delivery systems and agents so clients can order and review stock. Not all of a holding is about what it physically has though. A lot of it will be about what it knows and how it utilises that knowledge. Some systems are more mature than others.

Sorontar

[Witness3]

I think that Holdings, as a concept, are vague enough to be just about anything. The problem is with action rules, such as holding limit per province level, that makes this secret easy to find out without any espionage. I can actually imagine the conversation:


Player: I want to bring my Lv 2 Guild up to Lv 3!
DM: Erhm... you can't.
Player: Why? I'm the only guild inside this province, and the province is Lv. 3, So there is at least one slot open... unless..
DM: Unless...

[Michael Romes]

I think that Holdings, as a concept, are vague enough to be just about anything. The problem is with action rules, such as holding limit per province level, that makes this secret easy to find out without any espionage. I can actually imagine the conversation:


Player: I want to bring my Lv 2 Guild up to Lv 3!
DM: Erhm... you can't.
Player: Why? I'm the only guild inside this province, and the province is Lv. 3, So there is at least one slot open... unless..
DM: Unless...


The DM could simply have him try to raise his guild and fail automatically (as the hidden holding takes up the space) or
the DM could in secret treat the rule action to rule up the players holding as a contest action vs. the hidden holding.
and there always can be hindrances like old laws, defenders of nature, spoilage rules like for Talinie or opposition of temple, law or source holdings against the attempt to rule up the holding without giving away who exactly does what exactly to prevent the ruling to work.

e.g. the gnarly old and revered Druid of Erik to the great surprise of the guilds leaders one morning comes personally, accompanied only by two acolytes to the guild main hall and calls him out to the open to scold him for putting money above nature and to attempt or even think about expanding business instead of honouring Eriks ways...

[Osprey]

The DM could simply have him try to raise his guild and fail automatically (as the hidden holding takes up the space) or
the DM could in secret treat the rule action to rule up the players holding as a contest action vs. the hidden holding.


I like your 1st option a lot better. Presumably hidden holdings are far harder to create, rule up, and keep operating at higher than level 0 without getting noticed (+20 DC to Create and Rule secret holdings sounds about right). So it feels reasonable that one of the only ways to even know to run an Espionage mission to look for them is because your rule holding action failed without apparent cause.

So a regent would fail the Rule action, then need a successful Espionage domain action in the correct province to actually uncover the secret holding, then either Contest the holding or use troops to occupy and raze the holding (which is expensive and unsettling to the populace).

Suggestion: Maybe a hidden holding of level 1 or higher needs an Espionage action once per season to set the DC of any espionage checks to find them that season.
Any regent could then use a Spy Network there to make it a free or court action to maintain. In the core BR rules a Thief regent could use their bonus domain action each season to maintain 1 hidden holding of level 1+ as well.

[AndrewTall]

If following a 'the law/guild/temple activity is known, but not its organisation approach', then perhaps even most of the members of the organisation don't know who the ultimate regent is, which would make them more vulnerable to being swayed to a heroic leader.

GB and RP are vague enough not to be really tied to a specific holding, in practice even 'regular' holdings would complain if their taxes/tithes/dues/etc were always spent elsewhere so an argument that there's no need to hit the hidden holding in either regard is not unreasonable, and similarly a 100% vassalage arrangement would in theory be possible and permit a puppet to funnel all profits and regency to the ultimate lord (ask the Raven or Gorgon), so while a hit to RP or GB could be justified I don't think either is necessary.

To reflect my preference that contest is not obliterating an existing holding and creating a new one, but persuading minor leaders to switch allegiance, the hidden holding could then be penalised by:
1. Increased difficulty to undertake rule actions and contest actions
2. Chance of discovery if significant regency spent by the regent
3. A 'hostile' rule action that would require the hidden holding to convert being treated as a contest action (rather than just wasted)

Another alternative to reflect a hidden holding is to use a 100% vassal approach, so have the holding known like any other, but in the name of a puppet vassal - less obvious if vassals are relatively common.

[Osprey]

To reflect my preference that contest is not obliterating an existing holding and creating a new one, but persuading minor leaders to switch allegiance...

So...why doesn't the Contest action convert holdings from one ruler to another in a single domain action if that is the intent?

Or are you stating here that this is what you wish the Contest action did mechanically? Is that a house rule you use?

Normally it is one or 2 actions to knock down (Contest) and a totally separate and later action to Rule, which might take a fair bit longer than contesting depending how many levels are being replaced.

[AndrewTall]

So...why doesn't the Contest action convert holdings from one ruler to another in a single domain action if that is the intent?

Or are you stating here that this is what you wish the Contest action did mechanically? Is that a house rule you use?

Normally it is one or 2 actions to knock down (Contest) and a totally separate and later action to Rule, which might take a fair bit longer than contesting depending how many levels are being replaced.

Presumably the designers wanted 2 actions, the first knocks down, the second is then a race to see who can build up. The mechanics obviously impacts the perception of what has occurred but being broad enough to cover multiple interpretations.

My preference comes from the speed of change, costs, and bloodshed involved. If you need to persuade small sub-holding level groups to shift allegiance to or from a regent, then the cost and time is persuasion/coercion, etc, not birthrate and the time to build bricks and mortar. And while I can see the 'traditional view' working for guild holding changes where loyalty is generally seen as relatively fluid, people's loyalty to their religion, nation etc tend to be very hard to shift.

By taking the view that the holding is the focal point of sub-holding-level groups, and changes in holdings represent shifting loyalties in those groups, it becomes much easier to see how it can cost far fewer GB to take over a large law holding than it does to build a port, or even a bridge - the regent isn't tearing down the old, they are just displacing the previous focus.

This also of course makes domain actions far more easy to explain as susceptible to heroics, makes holdings far less homogeneous - a 'temple of Haelyn' could have temples of other gods in it, or orders focusing on different gods, the holding and 'Haelyn-ness' then representing the political/economic control of those sub-churches rather than a single unifying creed), it is also however much easier for a DM to justify a great captain event.

So for example if a temple of Avani and a temple of Haelyn contest and rule, the holding taken by the victor wouldn't represent the slaughter of the priests, burning of churches and switching of faith by thousands of people, but a shift in view amongst the leaders of the relevant sub-churches between whether 'the advisor' or 'the king' is the active driving force, which central cathedral they seek theological wisdom from, etc, there might still be some bloodshed and breakages, but nothing mandates such in the rules.

[Fizz]

So for example if a temple of Avani and a temple of Haelyn contest and rule, the holding taken by the victor wouldn't represent the slaughter of the priests, burning of churches and switching of faith by thousands of people, but a shift in view amongst the leaders of the relevant sub-churches between whether 'the advisor' or 'the king' is the active driving force, which central cathedral they seek theological wisdom from, etc, there might still be some bloodshed and breakages, but nothing mandates such in the rules.

That is how i understand things as well. This happens in one of the adventures in Legends of the Hero Kings, where a priest of Belinik is trying to make inroads (doing so via non-Belinik-y ways, if i recall). He knows he's not strong enough to challenge the regent from the start, so he's trying to build his followers (temple level) before he becomes overtly aggressive.

-Fizz