Rulers and Styles of Play [Archive]

kgauck

02-18-2007, 02:45 AM

Whether you rule a guild, a temple, sources, or provinces, there are three ways to play Birthright. Players can adventure exclusively (and adventures can be realm oriented or not, players can focus on the wargame aspect of the game, aquiring GB, RP, and spending time (both IC and OOC) on the realm as the instrument of play, and of course you can combine them into a hybrid style of play.

When considering characters, the D&D game itself is designed for the adventure style of play. The realm part of the game was all new, and characters were not designed to win at this level of play. They are designed to do something else. A good realm character would be good at doing realm things, getting more GB, or RP, or really holding on to the loyalty of his people, planning and implementing realm actions, and commanding units in warfare. Given the way classes are designed in D&D it would make sense that a character would be really good at one of these and decent and another one or two, and weak at another two or three.

I know that people who play the adventure style of play see no use for these kinds of characters. But for those who either play Birthright like the old computer game, or like some PBeM's in which play is based on the realm, not the adventure, there is the question of the character who is good at non-adventuring things.

Its also the case that many people just don't like to see characters who are bad at what they are doing just because no one has devised a class for that activity. In most games, any activity outside of adventuring, is poorly or just not represented by class skills or abilities. But, in fact its just as easy to suppose that the commoner class isn't someone who is bad at everything, he's someone who is good at non-game things, like being a good parent. But in the BR setting, some of these activities make sense. A financier, whether a guilder, templar, or province ruler, someone who can really get the GB to come in makes sense, especially if play revolves around aquiring and allocating GB rather than the dungeon crawl.

Perhaps rather than looking at guilder and noble (which isn't a really good governing class, but just a noble fighter), I suggest we look at functions pf the realm experience, and we should get natural classes based on these things. An Int based financier, who brings in the money, and may have secondary benefits in organing realm actions. A Wis based figure who is deeply connected with their realm. Not only do they get better regency collection, but they are more aware of what is going on in their realm. Charisma based beloved ruler, who has bonuses to increase and avoid decreases to their loyalty, and may get some minor benefits to RP collection as well.

AndrewTall

02-18-2007, 05:06 PM

One possibility I have flirted with is similar to the old Dark-Sun idea of a character tree with each player having a realm-level character and an adventure-level character.

This does however have great-captain type issues, and players who identify with the regent exclusively might find the system unsatisfying. The big problem is probably going to be with source holders where realm-level play tends to be limited, if explosive - the wizard winds up using the same character at both adventure and realm level play and therefore advance more swiftly than other characters.

Alternatively all characters could have classes in both realm-level and adventure-level classes, if the two types of class did not impact on each other (i.e. being a charisma-based ruler had no impact on adventure level play) then the level of one could be ignored when looking at the progression of the other - although this could have issues relating to skills and the like.

To make a 'two-lane' class system like this work, realm-level characters would need to have no or minimum hit points and saves, BAB, etc - although they should have no use for them; otherwise the realm levels will impact adventure level play and distort challenge ratings and the like. That does however beg the question of what such characters do have beyond skills, feats and abilities - although what else do they actually need?

The problem area in two-lane characters will probably be skills useful to both adventure and realm level play. Diplomacy based characters (bards, priests, etc) would be the most likely characters to have skills which overlap.

One final problem is how to deal with characters with very high levels in adventure/realm classes and very low levels in the other - are your players going to be happy that their veteran L15 fighter is no better at running a kingdom than a L1 fighter fresh off the farm? I can see arguments both ways.

blitzmacher

02-18-2007, 08:37 PM

Or play non-class based systems.

kgauck

02-18-2007, 08:45 PM

This is really interesting, Andrew.

Alternatively all characters could have classes in both realm-level and adventure-level classes, if the two types of class did not impact on each other then the level of one could be ignored when looking at the progression of the other [...].

To make a 'two-lane' class system like this work, realm-level characters would need to have no or minimum hit points and saves, BAB, etc. That does however beg the question of what such characters do have beyond skills, feats and abilities - although what else do they actually need?

Suppose it works this way, every scion character (someone with a bloodline) gets and additional 2 regency skill points per level, and an additonal feat based on character level (just like on table 3-2, pg 22 of the PHB) that is only good for Regency feats.

Then go through the existing skills and BR feats and identify any that are really good for rulers of domains (Knowledge (Law), Administration, &c) and call them Regency skills, which means you can spend regency skill points on them. Any character can also buy them with regualr skill points, but regency skill points can only be spent on regency skills (BTW, here is your guilder with 10 skill points if he's a rogue). Likewise with regency feats. Any general feat can aquire a regency feat, which makes the Noble suddenly able to purchase Regency feats, if he likes. But the feats aquired by a scion can only be used to aquire feats with the regency descriptor. Then make feat trees that acomplish what I was describing, a finance feat tree, a realm loyalty feat tree, a realm-sensitive feat tree, and so on. So that every scion character would simultaneously get better at ruling a realm, and adventuring. At the same time the NPC classes would get the same regency progression. So the 9th level Expert or Aristocrat would still be as good a ruler as the 9th level PC, but not in adventuring.

This is intriging. We need to keep Andrew around.

mayiuchung

02-18-2007, 09:16 PM

On the discussion concerning player characters at realm-level, I want to make some comments.

I am sorry to raise the question that where is the fun if we operate Birthright exclusively on realm-level? Imagine at first, maybe it is fun because the players can clearly know their achievement by checking the number of their total holding level. What is next? Blindly working for a bigger number until the re-unification of the old empire? As a DM, I will try to move away from that kind of mentality.

Whether a PC ruler be a good one, it depends on the DM. I think the DM is somehow like a god in developing the history of the player's realm. The history can be deterministic: The player's realm will be progressive, static or in decline. And I think after several domain turns, your players will feel the general trend of the history.

For exmaple, in a province (0), 4 or 5 blooded PCs make themselves regents of holding (0). Through the first few adventures, the priest regent spreads his teaching in the province, the fighter regent gains acceptance of his leadership from the local people, the wizard regent accidentally discovers some locations of source holding and the party makes friends with more and more mportant NPCs in the province. The players will feel they are in a progressive trend. In this case, making progression makes good ruler.

On the other hand, a PC ruler may have a realm with 7 provinces with all types of holding. There are several power struggles between different regents at provincial level or regional level. Then, Lieutenants get assassinated, Treasure was robbed, One or two provinces are being invaded and one is under rebellion at the same time. These may even force each PC to work individually on different events at the same time. Then, the PC rulers will know ... in this case, slowing down the decline can be regarded as a great achievement.

vota dc

02-18-2007, 09:44 PM

But these stats exists?I see only the classic strenght,dex,const,int,wis and charisma!

AndrewTall

02-18-2007, 10:05 PM

If you make regency feats based around a military commander-type ruler then these could be fighter feats as well.

I'm not sure how the regency skill points and feats would go down in a scion/unblooded mixed party - you already have the 'freebies!' issue on bloodline abilities (allow Irdeggman has fixed this to a degree in the brcs) and this will amplify the 'favouratism'. Although if the regent skills have little use in adventure play it shouldn't be a problem.

Possible regent level skills: Administrate (brcs), Gather information (brcs version, in your own domain only), bluff, diplomacy, knowledge (regional and local from brcs only or nature if a wizard), lead (brcs), warcraft(brcs), all seem appropriate, with possibly possibly sense motive from the phb...

A regent could probably take a feat to allow them to spend regency skills on standard skills - but they would almost certainly get a shocking reputation for neglecting their realm... This wouldn't impact a non-regent though so probably should be banned as munchkinism.

The use of regency skills, etc would allow fighters and the like to be reasonable regents without needing to use all their skill points on the above skills - although bluff and diplomacy could be issues - unless the regency skills ony stacked at realm-level. I.e. he's mostly an ok diplomat, but he's great when talking with an army at his back and a treasury full of gold...

Another possibility is moving away from character levels at all for regency skills/feats - if only regents got them they could get regency points/feats based on time spent running a domain, or as a reward for success. That way a scion only gets the 'extra' skill points if they actually spend a reasonable amount of time on realm level play, and even unblooded characters could get these skills and feats if they ruled a realm - although they would still be at a severe disadvantage to a scion, an unblooded regent with decades of experience could have a chance in a contest with some of the variant regency collection systems.

mayiuchung, on why play mainly at realm level it depends what type of game you are playing.

I have the privilege of playing in the Rjurik Winds PBEM; the game centers around realm level play almost by necessity - although the GM ran an online adventure yesterday its not easy to do. I assume that other PBEM's are similar - it takes a long time to play out a combat via email (Charles had us use Y! messenger and invisible castle for rolls...).

In many ways realm-level play is like standard play without the combat - lots of negotiation and planning with some shopping and character creation thrown in. (And still with the odd bout of terror, Hruthvar just got a letter from the Gorgon)

A tabletop game can still have a lot of realm-level play - although to me it is primarily an excuse for adventure in that case. hmmm, want to forge a trade route do you? well its either +10 DC for the known impossibility of the task or you role-play negotiating with the varsk-raiders and seek the lost mountain pass yourself...

Overall I would suggest that play that is exclusively one or the other is less satisfying than one that mixes, or at least acknowledges, the other.

kgauck

02-19-2007, 01:38 AM

If you make regency feats based around a military commander-type ruler then these could be fighter feats as well.
In general, I think there are plenty of military commander PrC's out there to cover this. That's not to say BR couldn't add something to what's out there, but I would wait to see what the needs are. Recruiting and training would probabaly be an area where BR stuff could fill gaps in D&D stuff already out there.

[...]this will amplify the 'favouratism'. Although if the regent skills have little use in adventure play it shouldn't be a problem.
I think we should have a hard line test. If its useful in adventure play, its not a regency skill or feat. Buy Bluff and Sense motive normally.

cyrano24100

02-20-2007, 03:02 AM

I have the privilege of playing in the Rjurik Winds PBEM; the game centers around realm level play almost by necessity - although the GM ran an online adventure yesterday its not easy to do. I assume that other PBEM's are similar - it takes a long time to play out a combat via email (Charles had us use Y! messenger and invisible castle for rolls...).

I'm guilty as charged of having moved a PBeM into the realm of Instant-messenging for adventures - and I had a blast DM'ing five or the Rjurik Wind players on Saturday.
I REALLY liked the duality of Birthright's Realm-based play intermixed with character Adventures and I insisted on group adventures; I'm glad I did.

One problem I was faced with was how to reward players: They are spending a character action; (or lieutenant) for barely any treasure (by realm standards) -- and level advancement is really not going to help realm play: you can be Fighter 3rd level, and do as good of a job as a Fighter 12th level; it's more about domain power/regency/Blood scores even now-weapon abilities and basic stats (say good administration score)...

Some options were:
1. Rewarding players with increased loyalty: Regent or lieutenant finished a quest; the population is proud and happy
2. Couple extra GBs - especially for temples or guilds or realms strapped for cash
3. Couple new Lieutenants: inspired by the quest, they ask to come in the regent's service bringing much needed skills

Id love to see if any of you had other "benefits" to suggest..

Sorontar

02-20-2007, 04:04 AM

In the the world of politics, a key factor is always information. If the players do well in an adventure, slip them little bits of information about the world that may benefit them. While they could possibly have found out similar information through actions, you can put them down as rumours heard on the road, things they have seen or things any new "friends" have told them. The sort of things that the regent wouldn't necessarily learn unless they did a bit of travel themselves amongst the commoners. This could be as simple as new clerics or soldiers appearing in certain towns, or major price changes of certain products in the markets.

Of course, some of this information might be about other players :^) And it will be up to the player to make use of the new information as best they can at the domain level.

Sorontar

A_dark

02-20-2007, 05:59 AM

Some options were:
1. Rewarding players with increased loyalty: Regent or lieutenant finished a quest; the population is proud and happy
2. Couple extra GBs - especially for temples or guilds or realms strapped for cash
3. Couple new Lieutenants: inspired by the quest, they ask to come in the regent's service bringing much needed skills

Id love to see if any of you had other "benefits" to suggest..

Good ideas. You can have Bloodline increases or RP gains, due to reputation and admiration. It would be exactly the reverse of RP losses when the players don't deal well with random events. You can also have them protected from random events (if you are using them) for a period of time. For example, if the adventure involved dwarves, perhaps an architect comes over and gives a few pointers to protect the realm of earthquake. If they get a Nat disaster event, you can inform them of it and tell them that they can afford to ignore it.

When I was DMing, I found events a good way to keep players occupied, have them work for their alignments etc. Usually they weren't random, but consequences of actions. Ie if the player had a rebellious province, it would not be difficult for a Great Captain figure to emerge or if the player decided that his benevolent temple would launch a Jihad, perhaps a Heressy would spring up. I used events to reward consistency and sticking to alignment (whatever alignment the player had chosen) and "punish" the opposite.

cyrano24100

02-20-2007, 02:37 PM

Good ideas. You can have Bloodline increases or RP gains, due to reputation and admiration.
Ah yes, of course; totally forgot that one! Absolutely, I guess that characters are also allowed a bloodline increase once in their life -- so I would have to limit that to repeated adventures, or the favors of the kinred god (or blood type of the old god)

You can also have them protected from random events (if you are using them) for a period of time.
Yup, that's a good one too; or solve a current random event that is lingering...

Good.. let me go back to my Characters whom I've not rewarded yet...

AndrewTall

02-20-2007, 11:13 PM

I think the bloodline increase of one per lifetime relates to the strength of the bloodline: minor/major/great/true rather than bloodline points / regency - regency in particular makes a great adventuring reward as for non-landed regents it can be in shorter supply than gold.

Another old favourite of mine was 'free' lieutenants or rare hirelings, the chance to obtain an alliance with a reclusive race, obtain a favour from a powerful person, the chance to obtain a rare item such as dwarven platemail, a mighty warhorse, etc.

These types of reward don't have to be from the DM, Hruthvar owes Storm a favour for his support and Ragnar in particular would give short shrift to anyone who claimed the aaolfer was a coward or lacking in Rjurik ways due to Storm's support. For that matter a certain 'Thaelesian' might be able to wrangle a favour despite her possible true loyalties...

Dargal admittedly failed to win Ragnars favour, something about the goblin king playing the flute while he was cleaving the minions of evil in twain and failing to stand on a tile when requested despite there being no reason whatsoever not to, aside from a slight smell of ozone and burnt Sviniker...

Btw, the only bad thing about the adventure was not remembering to copy it and paste it into a word doc at the end...

Spent two hours afterwards instant messaging other players (had 3 separate conversations going at once and nearly told the white witch about the invasion plans.. oops...) sure sign of a good evening is when you talk about the game so much afterwards. :)

cyrano24100

02-21-2007, 12:59 AM

Btw, the only bad thing about the adventure was not remembering to copy it and paste it into a word doc at the end...

I'm still kicking myself for not having copied that whole coversation string; I'd forgotten about Dargal playing the Flute!.. that's right!... And he didn't want to go first into the corridor (he's the smallest, so we can shoot over his head!)

The Swordgaunt

02-22-2007, 10:19 PM

For those of you considering this idea, I can reccommend it. I've used it, occationally in BR, but have real good experience with the Magus/Compannion/Grog-model from Ars Magica.

This frees the high-power (Ruler) character to do high-power stuff, while it allows the GM and players to explore other aspects of the scenario. Say, after a tense game of thrones, the Ruler (Magus) descides to send an envoy or a spy (Compannion) to another court. The success, or failiure, can influence the outcome of the next Realm Action. This can be expanded by running an encounter involving men-at-arms (Grog) on pallace guard duty, or even on the field of battle. I've found that this can open up new dimentions to the story.

Also, should the need arise to have one of the main characters do something on their own, in stead of running this as a one-on-one session, the other players can sit in with Compannions or Grogs. This can be helpful for spinning plots around single charactersm or give less dominating players a spot in the limelight.

kgauck

02-23-2007, 12:48 AM

I've also found that with multiple domain rulers (or even only jarls, vassals, or officers of a full domain) the players often feel they need to split up and deal with a variety of time schedules. In addition to the Magus/Companion/Grog-model, or as an alternative, I've also had players develop heir PC's or just new PC's so that when their ruler PC is busy, they have a lower level PC to play with. It also allows a campaign to continue beyond the original PC's.

The Swordgaunt

02-23-2007, 04:11 PM

kgauck>
A friend of mine ran a game a while back using this Dynasty-model, to great success. IMO, this allows for a more laid back approach where you can run through years of relatively peaceful times (lots of realm actions, and little Real Time-consuming adventuring), thus building the strenght of the Realm.

I can also see the advantages of building the plot over a few generations. Characters will have more insight in the workings of the Realm, and he can also invoke the name of his great grandfather, the Hero of the Realm who slew the Giant King of the North.

To coin a phrase, the Ars Magica-model could be called the Hierarchical model to avoid copyright infringment and confution.

Trithemius

02-26-2007, 05:01 AM

*throws off the leafmold and cobwebs!*

Did someone say Ars Magica?

[/Ben Gunn]

Trithemius

02-26-2007, 05:31 AM

I think the key to developing character archetypes for realm-based play is in pinning down, in general terms, what makes a good leader. As part of my thinking about BR -type games using non-D&D systems I have been trying to do this.

Obviously you don't want to have one archetype being good at everything, since this would make choices about character very dull and totally inconsequential. At the same time you don't want to have too many choices as this needlessly (in my opinion...) complicates things. Another advantage of having several archetypes is that if you go for a cooperative realm-based game you can then have different PCs doing different, but still useful, things.

The real issue is then what are these basic archetypes? How many problem solving techniques are there in real-based play?

kgauck

02-26-2007, 09:25 AM

Nice to see you, Trithemius.

One of the subjects generating a lot of ink from way back is that a party of adventurers should have a warrior, expert, divine spellcaster, and arcanist. When looking at society, where are the places to find spheres of action for realm based play?

Societies are actually federations of organizations
The earliest and most basic locus of power is physical force. The state originated in warfare.
Early socity saw the simultaneous development of hierarchy and exchange mechanisms. As the chiefdoms gave way to more formalized social forms, the barracks and the market split, and two power centers emerge.
Maintenence of these inequalities would be much easier with an ideological support, especially one with divine sanction. Enter the temples.
Temples and their ideologies provide for legal regulation, and the rise of the law court.
Temples also provide a learned class, and the rise of knowledge as power.
Whatever we call the knowledge locus, university, academy, college, whatever, the power of knowledge is greatly magnified when knowledge begins to include the arcane, and in Cerilia, that locus is the source.

This explanation, whatever its utility for analysis in the real world, provides an excellent context for realms. Each of these loci of power; barracks, market, temple, court, and source, is actually a BR domain; province, guild, temple, law, and source.

The barracks is a natural for the fighter, and the number of PrC's for military command complete the picture. The fighter is an individual combatant, and whether a campaign tends toward heroic combat or medieval combat, some fighter certainly makes sense for the captain, but leadership, morale, and teamwork abilities are also a part of the mix.

The market is an extensive, diffused organization, almost the opposite of an army, where discipline and proximity are essential. Markets operate by negotiation, across the distances of trade routes, without direct supervision because every part of the organization has a similar motivation - profit from cooperation.

The temple is powerful because it provides three things, meaning, norms, and ritials. If my temple tells me that knowledge is power and that reason and discipline are the highest pursuits, I think you can tell what patron I have selected. Meaning is generally a role play aspect, but it provides a common context for human action. If I share values with others, I can more easily cooperate than I can if my partner values only physical strength and a test of dominance. If my comrade and I share either set of values, we can organize a hierarchy, provide a context for action, and shift from values to action. If I want knowledge and order, and the other guy wants me to submit to his physical strength, we haven't even agreed on the basis of our interaction, let alone cooperation. Whatever rituals do for people in the real world, in D&D ritual includes concrete game effects, most often through spells and supernatural powers. If a temple can monopolize meaning, norms, and rituals, it has consiserable control which is both intensive, like an army command, and extensive, based on common goals and desires. The weakness of temple power is the danger that someone down the road may offer a better set of meanings, norms, and rituals. After all that person talking about luck and prosperity, and their happy descriptions of material comfort are backed up by the spells and powers just as potent as the priests of knowledge and discipline. All that remains is what I want - knowledge or wealth.

The law court is another kind of ideological power. Its based on shared values, but its applied mostly to those who would deviate from norms and the group meaning. As such it has to be backed up by punishment. This could be in the form of physical force, rituals, or confiscations of wealth. Law can support the province, the temple, or the market by asserting their values and norms as regulations subject to enforcement. Where the temple is mostly persuasive, the court is mostly about punishment and enforcement.

Sources certainly have their mystical aspects, as do the connections of all domains to their rulers, but what I am interested here is the utility of knowledge. Knowing how to manipulate arcane energies is a very personal source of power, since it only extends to where the wizard is or can be expected to be. Knowledge by itself is the weakest form of power, but it can be a potent force multiplier when connected to any other locus of power.

kgauck

02-26-2007, 10:49 AM

One area I have considered fruitful is forms of combat other than physical. Political debates, academic disputations, legal trials all offer a mostly verbal and mechanically similar style of non-physical combat.

Commerce is mostly just a series of negotiations, either in bulk, or on a customer by customer basis. This kind of stuff is only interesting if the stakes are high, otherwise it will mosty be represented as extended tests, like the monthly profit check.

Some interest can be added by making things more complex. Keep ear to the ground to discover arrival of scarce goods, get their first, negotiate. Only of a deal can't be reached do late-commers show up and muddy negotiations. This would provide for Gather Information and Diplomacy checks, and perhaps some Sense Motive, if you want insight on how to structure a deal. I spend more time than I would like doing exactly this kind of stuff, and generally the interest comes from knowing something concrete about both your organization and the other guy's. Negotiations often are not about money, but other kinds of advantages you can provide to one another. Maybe what you really want is help setting up a holding in a new province, and maybe what the other guy really wants is an exotic cargo to take home. If you confine the deal to just cash (or cash value) its just a number and the bigger the number the better. This isn't terribly interesting for many players. If I know that the other guy wants high quality brews and wines, then perhaps I can do the best deal not by offering the best price, but the right cargo.

Where I see no difficulty in making courtly politics interesting, temple politics, religous doctrinal disputes, and nearly anything idelogical interesting enough to get players interested in winning, money is just a means to an end. If you have a player who is content to just see their treasury grow a few skill checks to get more money may do the trick.

The only thing that seems to be a great motivator for commerce (if money itself doesn't do the trick) is rivalry. Every kind of play benefits from rivals, but business rivals may be better than others because of the many levels a business rival may operate on.

Consider the temple campaign. Generally rivals will be inside the temple, competing with you for offices, resources, or policy; in a similar type organization, like a rival temple of the same or a different got, and competing for followers, influence, treasures (like the Amulete of Justice), and relics; or from a totally different organization, like the duke who prefers the other temple. In a guild campaign, not only can you get all of that, but you can't even count on your own organization to be cohesive the way you can expect a temple to be. After all, if you're just in it for money, then the other guy can steal your customers, suppliers, and carriers just by offering more money. The clerics of Belinik won't join the Impregnable Heart of Haelyn just because the IHH has a dental plan. The temple campaign is probabaly at one extream in terms of a cohesive and reliable organization. Players serve the organization selflessly, and often can expect others in the organzation to be motivated by the same service to the diety and the ideals of the diety. The noble courts may be full of intrigue or may be dedicated with loyalty to a single ruler and their vision. And while a noble's court can get pretty messy with intrige and back-stabbing, a guild would seem to have more potential for intrigue. Part of this is just that when an organization is based on mutual benefit and the patron godess of commerce is Chaotic, organizational discipline, loyalty, and cohesion isn't going to be as strong as other kinds of organizations.

As such, it may be that the guild campaign should be based on these kinds of intrigues and rivalries rather than simply the accumulation of wealth.

irdeggman

02-26-2007, 12:07 PM

Perhaps rather than looking at guilder and noble (which isn't a really good governing class, but just a noble fighter), I suggest we look at functions pf the realm experience, and we should get natural classes based on these things. An Int based financier, who brings in the money, and may have secondary benefits in organing realm actions. A Wis based figure who is deeply connected with their realm. Not only do they get better regency collection, but they are more aware of what is going on in their realm. Charisma based beloved ruler, who has bonuses to increase and avoid decreases to their loyalty, and may get some minor benefits to RP collection as well.

I would agree that the sanctioned noble is more warrior oriented then I would have liked (but the masses voted and wanted to go that way) {I had preferred a 3 pronged approach (like the psion or ranger) where the noble was forced to pick a path (either warrior, guilder or scholar) which focused his area of expertise. But the noble is the best domain level ruling class there is. It is not a holding level ruler but rather a domain (read province level) ruler. The class gets all of the domain level BR feats on their bonus feat list (that is significant in its own right) and gets almost all fo the pertinent domain level skills as class skills too.

I do think that the current RP colection system focuses on placing skill points in the skills that are relative to rulership rather than adventuring.

Domain: Dilpomacy + Warcraft

Guild: Appraise + Bulff + Diplomacy + Gather Information + Intimidate + Profession + Sense Motive

Law: Lead + Warcraft

Source: Knowledge (arcane) + Knowledge (nature)

Temple: Knowledge (religion) + Lead

Now other than for sources the important skills have much lesse of an effect on the adventuring level - which forces a character who is desiring to be a good regent to focus on skills that have a lesser impact on adventuring.

While rogues have a lot of skill points - their most often used adventuring level skills (Move Silently, Hide, Search, Use Magic Device) are not on the the list of pertinent domain level skills.

Wizards/sorcerers and clerics/druids have a much better time because of the skills that are applicable. Knowledge (arcane) and knowledge (religion) have a much broader use at the adventuring level.

Now to the question of how to handle adventure/domain level balanced characters. I would suggest using the Gestalt rules from Unearthed Arcana. This allows a multiclassing system that should work fairly well. Using noble and scion would balance things out quite well IMO. If one really wanted another option (for gestalt) than a guilder-type of class would work as well.

Gestalt games tend to run at a higher "power" level than non-gestault games but I think that is the point attempting to be made here - that a BR game shold actually be at a higher "power" level than a non-BR game due to the bloodlines and the domain level game.

cyrano24100

02-26-2007, 11:03 PM

One of the subjects generating a lot of ink from way back is that a party of adventurers should have a warrior, expert, divine spellcaster, and arcanist. When looking at society, where are the places to find spheres of action for realm based play?

This sounds a lot like the conversations we have in our company; to head this new initiative we need at least one person from marketing, one from engineering, and one from support... and of course one "project manager"; These are the "aristocrat" class; they earn RPs, they have "province-level" advantages... Man I do like being Director of Marketing: I get to DM people around all day long!

>> your next adventure: Find a concept for a referal program for our members with a carrot/stick incentive; one person from each department; you have 5 days.

Trithemius

02-27-2007, 11:20 AM

It's nice to be back, kgauck! ;)

As ever, your points are good. What remains then is to decide how best to model these different cardinal archetypes. Plainly the Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard are poorly equipped for arenas other than tactical combat. This isn't so much a flaw with the system, as it is in attempting to - essentially - force a square peg into a round hole.

For instance...
The Fighter is more about personal prowess than command and authority and the rules reflect this. There is extensive detail and options for personal martial combat, but much less for the aspects you identify - and those which do exist are poorly modelled since they are less interest or importance in the typical game in which a Fighter plays a major role. Rather than trying to transmute the Fighter, or graft on new broader competences, it might be better to start again. In many of the games where realm-play is central the Base-Attack-Bonus is almost irrelevant. Even such previously critical statistics as Hit Point totals recede into the background (or instead of monitoring personal status, might start to represent the integrity of one's bodyguard or security apparatus?). The skill system too seems aspected towards personal actions, rather than oversight of organisations or delegation; the effects of advisors and well-maintained effective bureaucracies (this is a fantasy game afterall! ;)) are not always factored into mechanics.

Instead of a Base-Attack-Bonus, perhaps some other statistic could be invented to deal with the most common sort of interaction; a kind of Base-Politics-Bonus or something? Different Archetypes could even have a rating in one of four different forms of interaction, like those mentioned in your posts. Hybrid archetypes or multi-classing could allow for those who wish to try a magician-king or merchant-prince.

Public

02-27-2007, 05:45 PM

Hi all,

The issue of realm based skills not being very useful in the adventuring world just seems a bit off to me.

Sure, you may not use them if you are doing nothing but dungeon crawling, but since that only is a small part of most long run campaigns (ones in which holdings really should be realized) it just seems a bit off.

Warcraft, Diplomacy, Law and such are a good part of any long run group that will ever interact with other NPCs. The value of appraise is it's own reward (it sure is nice to get what a gem or item is actually worth when selling it!). If you adventure and travel at all with your brain as a PC instead of just the hackfest that some folks offer as a DM (yeah, I know this isn't as easy, but we all know it is worth it) then you PCs will devise traps, monkeywrench politically or spiritually and have to know the laws of the land well enough to justify their deeds not just to the constables of the area but also themselves and their respective dieties.

It just seems like it really shouldn't be that much of an issue as it stands.... or maybe I am really missing something and don't realize it yet.

could be... let me know, OK?

Public

kgauck

02-27-2007, 08:56 PM

The issue of realm based skills not being very useful in the adventuring world just seems a bit off to me.

Skills like those listed in the BRCS are not realm based skills, AFAIC, they are standard dungeoneering skills adapted in a new way. I'll make an exception for Leadership, Administration, and Warcraft. The rest are simply not skills for governance. Running organizations requires an entirely new skill set for operating in organizations and performing tasks. Being a noble and being a knight are not just the difference between a few more fighter levels.

First, I'll nuance the schema a bit. Sure there are two extremes, pure dungeoneering and pure realm based play. But there is also a level of play that involves interacting in society with people in a pro-social way (as opposed to seeing all NPC's as XP not yet harvested). Skills like appraise, sense motive, and most of the other charisma based skills, are really handy here. Since role playing a realm event would really look like this style of play, these are really useful skills for a ruler. But they are not sufficient to reflect a ruler's skill set.

Let's consider an assumption. When comparing a ruler and an adventurer, there are three ways their skills can interact. I can have both, so that being both makes me more powerful. It can be an opportunity cost, so I have to select one, and being good at one means I passed up an opportunity to get good at something else, like adventuring. Or are they two seperate skill sets, and the D&D game, being designed for dungeoneering simply ignores things not part of the game (there are no parenting rules, for example, with feats and skills accordingly.) So when we add something, like rulership, we can just add governing skills and governing feats, and add them without getting more powerful, because when we consider domain management, we get a whole new set of troubles, challeneges, time demands, and things that require us to apply our additional skills and abilities.

Both ruler and adventurer, and more powerful by the combination
Both ruler and adventurer with seperate spheres of actions
Either ruler or adventurer, being both means being less good at both

This is probably a good poll subject.

My own assumptions have tended towards "Either" but I've been intrigued by Andrew's suggestion of both with seperate spheres of action.

Certainly there are skills that are only good for ruling realms, like Administrate, and I think there are too few skills, feats, and abilities that operate in this arena. Certainly there are skills that are only good during adventures (mostly physical skills, like disable device and jump). And I think there are skills that are useful in both arenas because there is a middle ground of social action, where skills like bluff, and gather information are useful.

Does that make sense?

AndrewTall

02-27-2007, 11:06 PM

One reason I like to make a separate skill set etc is partly because I like borrowing other peoples PC's etc.

If you use the ruler or adventurer choice then the power of the character can be out of kilter simply because the setting in which it was played has a very different mix of realm play to adventure.

A similar problem can occur with characters designed for hackfests and talkie's, however most games I've played in have a similar enough mix that a good player can always get by.

By making the realm system essentially an add-on you avoid any issues of game-balance with existing characters - the two systems come into play in different arenas and simply use a similar D20 mechanic to express utility.

The charisma skills are admittedly an issue as they fall between the two styles of play - I would suggest a synergy bonus for some skills at least, although the charismatic priest who is a swine in private, the great general who can send a thousand men into a diplomatic fervour with a speech but stammers in the presence of a lady, etc suggest that skill at personal diplomacy and in 'organisational' diplomacy are not the same thing.

Whether you continue the flavour of classes would be up to the GM in question - i.e. fighters have an air of competence in military surroundings, lead men into battle easily, etc and as a result have few skills but several 'battle leadership' feats. Rogues have a wide array of skills, priests have quasi-mystical abilities to sense and influence the well-being of their flock, wizards are figures of fear and awe who can sense the shiftings of the world, and possibly influence certain random events (natural and mystical disasters) and so on.

My issue with the BRCS (and its only a quibble) is the ruler or adventurer choice almost forces the use of a character tree for 'specialised characters'.

I would avoid the use of a gestalt character for two reasons - firstly it assumes that a high level adventure character is also a high level realm character and vice versa - I prefer to permit people to have very different skill levels in each - purely personal preference. The second is the munchkin effect, I'd rather not face the whining from a players that X has a gestalt fighter/general, why can't I have a berserker/wizard?

kgauck

02-28-2007, 01:44 AM

If you use the ruler or adventurer choice then the power of the character can be out of kilter simply because the setting in which it was played has a very different mix of realm play to adventure.
With multi-classing, its possible to have classes shifted all the way to from financier to rogue, from scholar to wizard, and so on, so that depending on the nature of the campaign, you can build a Financier 12, or a Financier 8/Rogue 4, or a 6/6 or a 4/8, or a Rogue 12.

Trying to find a happy balance in each class individually probably isn't the way to go. I think that there are BR campaigns in which the sensible character goes from Rogue 12 to Financier 12.

kgauck

02-28-2007, 06:58 AM

Instead of a Base-Attack-Bonus, perhaps some other statistic could be invented to deal with the most common sort of interaction; a kind of Base-Politics-Bonus or something? Different Archetypes could even have a rating in one of four different forms of interaction, like those mentioned in your posts. Hybrid archetypes or multi-classing could allow for those who wish to try a magician-king or merchant-prince.

This is an interesting approach. I think it should be explored.

Trithemius

03-01-2007, 05:28 AM

This is an interesting approach. I think it should be explored.

Adding a system of Base Realm Bonuses (BRBs) [a working title!] would mean that existing adventuring classes could attempt work alongside realm-oriented classes, albeit with a serious disadvantage as, obviously, their BRBs would be +0.

Instead of relying on the skill system, as many other have, this would use the combat mechanic and the feat system.

Holdings could be treated like "equipment", adding their rating as a bonus to offensive and defensive actions.

Passive characters would also roll, instead of "taking 10" like AC typically does, although GMs might wish to assume that NPC domains "take 10".

--

Somewhat relating to this, I have decided that I will only emphasise conflicts which are important. Decision about what exactly is important depends on the number of players, the scale of the game, and the level of detail the participants wish to involve themselves with.

In some games every Rule Holding action might need to be a hard-fought struggle; in other games it should be a routine occurrence. However, this should not be determined by the abundance or paucity of RP and GB, but rather by the factors I mention earlier. For example, unless a major motif of the game is the struggle between centralisation (the regent raising law holding levels) and independence amongst the gentry (the "empty slots"), then the ruling of law holdings that are not contested by other regents might be deemed trivial and an automatic success if the active players bonus exceeds the passive bonus.

blitzmacher

03-03-2007, 08:57 PM

{Adding a system of Base Realm Bonuses (BRBs) [a working title!] would mean that existing adventuring classes could attempt work alongside realm-oriented classes, albeit with a serious disadvantage as, obviously, their BRBs would be +0.}

Why not just leave it as a BAB, and call it a Base Apptitude Bonus. As a fighter in a dungeon it acts as his attack bonuse, but for a noble conducting diplomacy it acts as his bonus for his verbal assualt. Since BABs increase with gained levels, it shows how well they have addapted to their chosen form of combat. It also avoids creating yet another skill and or feat which have long since grown way out of control.

kgauck

03-04-2007, 01:24 AM

Why not just leave it as a BAB, and call it a Base Apptitude Bonus. As a fighter in a dungeon it acts as his attack bonuse, but for a noble conducting diplomacy it acts as his bonus for his verbal assualt. Since BABs increase with gained levels, it shows how well they have addapted to their chosen form of combat. It also avoids creating yet another skill and or feat which have long since grown way out of control.
Because the ability to attack better doesn't translate into verbal combat, nor any of the other abilities required to govern domains.

In the very good Arthurian setting, Legends of Excalibur, there are two noble classes: knight and noble. The knight is a fighter variant, the noble gets the ability to issue quests (very Arthurian), Aura of Courage 10 ft and scaled to improve as the character gains noble levels, a smite ability called Divine Wrath, ability to get favors from the temple in his domain, and ability to absolve sins like a priest, and at 20th level they get an ability called "the lord and the land are one" which would basically turn any increase in nobility score into a realm action bonus.

Further there are two background packages, lesser nobility gets a +2 Ride bonus and a +2 Consititution, upper nobles get a +2 Intimidate bonus, a -2 Strength, and a +2 Charisma.

As you move up the scale of nobility, the character shifts from knightly combat and fighting, to leadership, command, and rulership.

In another really good book, Green Ronin's Medieval Players Handbook, there are several excellent classes for priests and scholars as well. A Canonist is a poor adventuring priest, but very formidable in the halls of power. A PrC Prelate is even more focused just on wielding power and less on dealing with men with sharp sticks.

My own approach is to encourage players to multi-class, so that a landed ruler is some kind of fighter X/noble Y, and the proportion is to his liking, but very clearly is a trade off, because my noble, like the Excalibur noble, is a ruler, not a fighter, and the fighter is no ruler. Players will encounter pure fighters who can defeat them in combat if they are not smart, and they will encounter pure power characters who can defeat them in diplomacy and intrigue if they are not smart.

blitzmacher

03-04-2007, 01:55 AM

[Because the ability to attack better doesn't translate into verbal combat, nor any of the other abilities required to govern domains.]

Base Apptitude Bonus translates quite well. The character can choose to use it as either his base attack bonus, or as a bonus to domain governing skills.

George, the 6th level fighter, has a BAB of +6 and +1. He chooses to use 3 of his 6 BABs to use for governing domains, and still have an attack at +3, and his second at a +1. Therefore since george not only goes on adventures, which increases his prowess at arms, but when he is not adventuring he is maintening his domains. The BAB is a bonus given for attaining experience george has achieved doing both.

If your playing a strictly domain game, then the BAB may only be a bonus to your domain governing, since you don't go out and fight.

If you play just an adventuring game, then the BAB is just an attack bonus.

Take your legends of arthur setting. As the fighter goes from fighting to a governance roll, as he levels, instead of getting an increase to his attack, give that same bonus to his governing skills. I believe this does pretty much the same thing as your examples, without having to multiclass.

kgauck

03-04-2007, 02:57 AM

So a wizard scource regent, who has a low BAB, has an inferior ability to effect a realm, compared to every other class, and fighter types with the best BAB has the best ability to effect a realm?

blitzmacher

03-04-2007, 07:39 PM

Yes. A wizards normally higher Int, and more skill points even it out, as the character will be buying ranks that they actually use. Or drop the d20 system and use a d100 system, where only the skills you use increase.

Fayed

03-05-2007, 07:58 AM

kgauck

03-05-2007, 06:33 PM

The Prince of Avanil is a standard character and a good place to show what a noble looks like. I invite everyone to write up Darien Avan as a 9th level character using whatever mix of classes strikes you best. Consider the write up in Ruins of Empire as your guide. Invent classes or feats that you think necesary, but keep to the spirit of Darien in RoE.

Alder

03-05-2007, 10:28 PM

I enter in the forum for the first time, and this thread about styles of play look very interesting.

I prefer a style of play that can be adaptative for any combination of adventure and realm playing.
Either use a ruler or a adventurer, or even shift between the two. Or sometimes even roleplay a ruler and his council of advisors, then roleplay the heralds of the ruler in a mision (maybe a lower level party), then return to the ruler and his council of advisors.
A ruler Y/fighter X multiclassing also sounds great.

And Base Realm Bonuses sounds great for me. The D20 rules are not suited well for realm game, so it is easier to add rules more effective.

I use the same BAB for adventure and realm playing, only the modifiers change total bonus in the different styles of play.

vota dc

03-06-2007, 11:45 PM

I think everything should be left as it is.The system is good. Not everyone can be good at everything. A fighter can be a good ruler, he just needs to neglect some of his skills(like jump, climb- skills that have a purpose but are rarely used). Spend your skill points on lead and warcraft, and if you can throw in a few ranks in diplomacy and administrate. You should be able to do it if you have at least a +1 int bonus, which you should because in order to be a good ruler you have to be smart(at least a little above average).
Nobles are the best regent class because it is balanced in hit points, skills, proficiencies and feats. But thats the way it should be. Any character can be good at running a domain, but you have to divert something from it. The payoff is great...

But a good fighter is a better tactician than a noble?In the pc game fighter class means only a stronger character for adventure mode.A Rambo regent is not very useful....
I think that in all case a fighter that lack on diplomacy and administration skills but rules the reign only by the force should be at least a decent tactician.A bad tactician and politician with a great strenght is not very realistic.For example Massimino the Thrace was a very strong man,a bad politician but a good tactician.

irdeggman

03-07-2007, 01:53 AM

But a good fighter is a better tactician than a noble?In the pc game fighter class means only a stronger character for adventure mode.A Rambo regent is not very useful....
I think that in all case a fighter that lack on diplomacy and administration skills but rules the reign only by the force should be at least a decent tactician.A bad tactician and politician with a great strenght is not very realistic.For example Massimino the Thrace was a very strong man,a bad politician but a good tactician.

And Anuireans, Brecht and Khinasi get Diplomacy as a class skill via cultural background skills. Which makes sense when you figure that those cultures are the same ones where nobles are more common and Fighter/knight types are more common in culture-wise in Anuire and Khinasi lands.

kgauck

03-07-2007, 07:39 AM

Fayed

03-07-2007, 08:28 AM

Though many Anuirean and Khinasi nobles have Ride and Handle Animal to look after, and if they pursue that other sport of kings, hunting, they need Survival. I've just used up a bunch of skills for fighters.

People really buy skills to do what they really do all day.

Even if we assume that as a young man, a fighter regent buys his Ride, Handle Animal, and Survival, lets say up to 5 in each for basic competance, then shifts into Administration, Diplomacy, and Warcraft in left after 3rd level (and I'm assuming in INT 12) but we're not creating a very impressive figure. And Haelyn help him if he ever needs to climb a slipery rope (whether during a dungeon crawl or during a siege) jump a gap, or swim from a sinking ship (even without armor).

... my point being that you cannot be a great ruler and adventurer. And it is realistic to assume that. If you spend all your skill points on administration skills you are neglecting your physical ones. This is a reflection of you personally ruling your domain and not going into adventures.
No class can be a great administrator and still be great at what they do, except rogue, noble and bards who are guild regents because that is what they do. But even then if they spend points on 'regent skills' they are lacking in some of the other fields(hide, spot, move silently, listen,search are must have skills for rogues-and there are ten others they need.)
When you divert your skill points you can be a good adventurer, just not a great one. You cannot be great because you spend your time in both areas. If your gm allows you to play two characters(a regent and a liutenant) then you can be good at everything

irdeggman

03-07-2007, 11:14 AM

... my point being that you cannot be a great ruler and adventurer. And it is realistic to assume that. If you spend all your skill points on administration skills you are neglecting your physical ones. This is a reflection of you personally ruling your domain and not going into adventures.
No class can be a great administrator and still be great at what they do, except rogue, noble and bards who are guild regents because that is what they do. But even then if they spend points on 'regent skills' they are lacking in some of the other fields(hide, spot, move silently, listen,search are must have skills for rogues-and there are ten others they need.)
When you divert your skill points you can be a good adventurer, just not a great one. You cannot be great because you spend your time in both areas. If your gm allows you to play two characters(a regent and a liutenant) then you can be good at everything

Quoted for truth and the basis of the skill-based RP collection system in the BRCS.

kgauck

03-07-2007, 05:33 PM

As I was crafting my own version of Darien Avan, I thought of this BR modification to a Dynasties and Demagogues feat.

http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/aristocrat.htm
The noble class I used includes a class feature where the noble selects a strategy feat, for lack of a better turn, based on his conduct. Lets look at it this way:

Noble Strategy: Nobles recieve one of these special abilities at 2nd, 6th, 11th, and 16th levels. Nobles have the ability to aquire additional Regency Points and perhaps even blood score by their conduct. Nobles can take any of the following Strategy Feats: Ambitious, Architect, Leader, Manipulator, Mediator, Opportunist, Protector, Samaritan, Schemer, or Soldier.

Each of these works this way, you adopt a strategy, such as Rebel, and when ever you defy some authority, depending on how much greater than you the authority is, and how defiant you are, you gain regency, or perhaps even a point of blood score, along the lines described in Gains of Regency due to Domain Actions on p 101 of the BRCS (or 48 in the original book). You might only gain a single RP for a minor defiance of a peer (another regent with a domain approximatly your size, especially if you are both small) and progressivly more as you defy a greater figure than yourself and as your defiance takes a more rebellious tone. Olfjor Ylvarrik is a noble who has taken the Rebel Strategy.

A mechanism that allows a noble character to gain additional RP by picking one or more strategies to adopt and sticking with them seems like a way to make a domain level benefit for a domain level character.

Though a noble can select a Noble Strategy at 2nd, 6th, 11th, and 16th levels, a noble might change a Noble Strategy they have already selected, but must endure a minor loss of regency equal to the noble's bloodline ability score.

The actions that get a noble a reward of a gain of regency should require a significant inventment in time, comenserate with the complexity of the task achived, often a month of action, either a domain action or an adventure action.

Pauper

03-07-2007, 09:52 PM

Greetings,

I find the nobles as in rulebook are well made. I checked your link, thread starter. Should't characters who are educated to LEAD have the Lead Skill then??? Oops? :rolleyes:

Lead is a good work. In that Birthright rules PDF I found one mistake (a typo?):

I contemplated my halfling barbarian for a Shadow World ordeal when I read on the summary table that Admin, Lead and Warcraft are cross-class to barbarians. In the skill description of lead, it is clearly labelled a barbarian class skill.

Further, I would bet that barbarians have access to Warcraft as class-skill. :(

Then, Warcraft is not a good name now that a very gigantic industry has that online game named like that???

Best regards

aka Pauper

irdeggman

03-07-2007, 10:04 PM

Pauper

03-08-2007, 08:28 PM

Greetings,

my apologies for having been sloppy yesterday and now. I now have checked for your name and soon I remember, if it was Mr. or Mrs. Eggert, too? :(

This seriously is my chaotic nature and toll for the anxiety of my life. It was not meant as disrespecting at all.

I will upload my 3rd Birthright file or bundle today. Feedback from the Birthright makers would be very appreciated.

My note on the nobles was spontanous. I found them ok. Today I unleash my approach on barbarian_rogues and even a self-invented feat. Such a small step yet I feel proud to share with this community.

Would you happen to know Rob Bartel? :rolleyes: I liked his Witch's Wake very much and I would bet that he could enrich the product line, if he likes.

Best regards

Andrè M. Pietroschek

post skriptum
If I would need to guess I couldn't recognize the gender by the name Duane at all. Maybe I speak unwelcome truth, yet I "pester" in good faith.

kgauck

03-09-2007, 10:38 PM

I checked your link, thread starter. Should't characters who are educated to LEAD have the Lead Skill then??? Oops? :rolleyes:

I have used Perform (Oratory) for the same purpose as Leadership for a variety of reasons, including its the name I used in 2nd edition (when I had oratory, logic, and rhetoric as seperate proficencies), and its the skill used in Demagogues and Dynasties, which has been important in my approach to the noble class.

I am currently upgrading my web site to 3.5 and Perform (Oratory) will be converted to Leadership. References to Perform (Oratory) or Oratory will no doubt creep in now and then since it goes way back.

MatanThunder

03-13-2007, 06:17 AM

;) :D

I am happy to be a posting member of the site, and say "Well Met" to all levels and styles of game play that I have just read about on this thread in particular.

Two Things.....

1) I am old school 1st & 2nd Edition so please reflect on that with my posting.

2) I play a certain flavor of the game that some find disturbing in their games....don't take it personal, and I will try to reflect on a certain power level in some of my posting to stop needless debates.

I come to this site, because of threads like this one. I have been out of BR for a number of years, and I have let my 2nd edition slide somewhat in the area. Please bear with (and politely point out) any blatant feaux peauxs that I may be making for those here who can remember 2nd edition.

I thought about an endless post reflecting on some of this threads very informative posts. I decided to go with more of a reflection on the subject that will lend a reflection on my personal take on the subject with a minimum of quotes.

With all that said......:D

I loved this version of AD&D from its outset for the fact it filled a void in the PC ascension into the realms of possible nobility and epic level combat.

While some here do not favor an idea of allowing PC's to cross the line vs Epic Rulership and that of standard adventuring, I find the two have gone hand in glove from the very inception of the game. I started the game in 1976 and always found the game wanting when a PC reached a certain level of play, and always wanted to extend it into the areas so generously offered by the BR game.

A PC or a DM should allow for the best level of enjoyment of the PC's, whether it be with the standard game fare or the more Epic Levels of play, but one is not mutually exclusive of the others. The group will find their best mix, and unless 3.whatever it is have precluded it, I don't see the need to establish another "Epic/Ruler" level of play to go with the standard class package (whatever that is). In a reflection of 2nd edition, the standard PC class could work well as a Ruler without another skill set to make him become the ruler.

I sort of hate FEATS....so I won't digress on the "Video Gamieness of the skills set", but in second edition we do have Proficiencies that serve much the same role, if of a much simpler and limited system.

I try to refect in my games as DM or PC the real world dynamics of nobility that should (in my limited opinion) be most important in becoming a ruler and noble. As many have elequently noted here that is locked into the 3 areas of Holdings.

One of the subjects generating a lot of ink from way back is that a party of adventurers should have a warrior, expert, divine spellcaster, and arcanist. When looking at society, where are the places to find spheres of action for realm based play?
• Societies are actually federations of organizations
• The earliest and most basic locus of power is physical force. The state originated in warfare.
• Early socity saw the simultaneous development of hierarchy and exchange mechanisms. As the chiefdoms gave way to more formalized social forms, the barracks and the market split, and two power centers emerge.
• Maintenence of these inequalities would be much easier with an ideological support, especially one with divine sanction. Enter the temples.
• Temples and their ideologies provide for legal regulation, and the rise of the law court.
• Temples also provide a learned class, and the rise of knowledge as power.
• Whatever we call the knowledge locus, university, academy, college, whatever, the power of knowledge is greatly magnified when knowledge begins to include the arcane, and in Cerilia, that locus is the source.

This explanation, whatever its utility for analysis in the real world, provides an excellent context for realms. Each of these loci of power; barracks, market, temple, court, and source, is actually a BR domain; province, guild, temple, law, and source.

Control of a province (yes back in 2nd edition) only required that you had control of more holdings in the realms than another nearby regent. I loved the interplay between the guild, law, source, and temple levels, and the incorporated NPC or PC interelationships that each of these factors entail.

Some like to control any of these factors, and each will offer its own brand of play. Absolute control is rarely achieved, unless you have magic involved, and in that case, other magic users will come into play.

Guild holdings are the province of merchant families both high and low. Their ability to enter the nobility is a great motivator where it comes to holdings of guilds in the region. Certain controling members of merchant houses/consortiums will be motivated by advantageous marraiges that a Ruler might have a hand in. This would help the ruler maintain their control, and raise their holding level, if judiciously applied. Court functions could help cement deals like this with such groups. Now, the game doesn't actually provide such a mechanic for this in 2nd edition, so a DM would have to role play it through in most situation. A ruler/PC would be more likely to succeed with such a recognition.

On the net there are many additions to the 2nd edition game that take on a flavor of the barracks & court inspired issues that I see listed above. We don't use Loci/Market/Barracks(I have to find out how these are affecting the game now). It sounds a little Civ 4 to me. ;)

Domain & Provincial control was a simple reflection of holding control in second edition, although the intrigues in any of these area will offfer great role playing that verges on standard adventuring.

When you are talking about Law or Temple holdings you will might (at certain levels of play) have to reflect on the power of magic, which I note is sadly missing from the discussion. With magic more available in some levels of play, some issues could be somewhat impeded. Detect Lie by the clergy, might even make some law holdings increase, in the highest level of crime in the kingdom, as major crimes are solved by magic. Mages could cast precognition magics, that help guide a kingdom, and make those nasty unfortunate random events a little less random. Simply knowing of a coming disaster wouldn't necessarily prevent it from happening.

The magic that a ruler has at their command could very well be one of the most important factors in discovering plots and continuing to hold a province or domain. It isn't just Realm magic that can affect a game though. With precognition/divination based magics plots can be destroyed with a barrage of select spells. Unfortunately, this can ruin some fairly extensive DM work (it has happened to me more than once) , but if a PC can find a way to use magic to their benefit, I allow it.

Source power is the key to the Realm magic of Ruler, but I will save my digression on that subject for another day on another thread probably. With the use of magic anything is possible, and the standard Realm spells is hardly the definitive force in available spells. Who says that the Thief Regent wouldn't have a Mage in their employ controlling the local sources, and in that relationship the Thief Regent wants to have (and pay for in RP and GP) for research into a Realm spell that scan his (and possibly others) realms for high magic sources or magic item locations. The possiblities are endless.

I'm having a little problem with the size of my post I will try to post the rest later......

MatanThunder

03-13-2007, 06:18 AM

Continued!!!

Intelligence Networks

Elequent and well spoken, but I would add that in a world of magic (of whatever level) the powers of the church would be somewhat eroded by the powers of Magic in the game world. Depending on your style, the clerical clergy no longer have the sole rights of healing magics, and despite what is mentioned about the 5 oaths on another thread, the facts are that mages of varied levels of power might be able to conceal themselves at a certain level of power. They would be much less affected by the 5 oaths.

Another factor of the magic socieity is the imparting of knowledge to the populace. Depending on alignment, mages could even offer their service to a society.

I ran a Magocracy called the "Grey Magedom" that my son ran, and I was able to limit the influence of any one church becoming more than a level 1 holding.

It was a project for an intelligence network that was set up early after the adventuring phase of my game. The secret intelligence networks was hooked up in the same flavor as the Midkemia books of written by Feist. In the days before reputation, a simple INT check would suffice to allow for a PC to start any action as part of a domain action. The actions could be anything that a PC's INT or WIS would allow, so while it would favor Mages & Clerics, Fighters and Thieves would still have a chance of starting up such organizations. No ruler would be worth his salt without a full intelligence network, but how it is implented would require a number of INT/WIS checks too, so mages & clerics end up with somewhat better systems. As DM I would attatch penalties to such rolls for classes for ideas that were out of their areas of expertise. A thief would be more likely to have a merchant or thief guild based network, while mages and clerics will have magic using organinzations with members who are of similar class or goals.

The idea that an something isn't available to a PC, because of a 3.whatever rule, sort of flies in the face of free will. While many like a plot driven game, I may be the sole voice that mentions that free will should be a PC's realm, and not controlled solely by the DM or Plot line.

Another subject in this vein is the hiring of servants/lieutenants/etc.... is a subject of availabilty, and sometimes the PC/Ruler will be able to hire away proven hirelings of this nature. While it is far more likely that someone will have to learn such positions, the possiblity exists that such talents are available. Of course truth reading them should be applied (and the Intelligence notified to keep an eye on them) before some form of trust should be applied to the relations ship.

Well I'm sure you will all agree that is more than enough from me on this subject for now. Should any read this I appreciate your patience. The 3rd edition appears to have added a number of problems to what I saw as a streamlined system in late 2nd edition, but each to their own.

Part of the reason I posted on this thread is that the nature of magic appears to be so limited/glossed over. Now I recognize that it is my style of play (and not for all), but I thought that mentioning the magic, and its influences were worth mentioning, in addition to a blurb about Intelligence networks based on some Midkemia books that I have read over the years.

Later

:rolleyes: :cool: