Your vision of ideal play

[Rowan]

Out of curiosity, what is your vision of ideal play for the different holding types? What should ruling the various domain types look and feel like?

What domain actions should be most common (i.e., what should most regents spend their time on)?

What should resources (GB and RP) be spent on most commonly?

I don't ask these questions to pigeonhole any player or regent type into certain actions, but figuring out what different domain types should often feel like in game play helps inform better DMing and perhaps better house rules to encourage that feel.

For instance, I have said before on these forums that I see Wizards spending a lot of time cultivating Sources across the land, irrespective of political boundaries, competing with other Wizards. Thus, a lot of creation of Ley Lines and casting of those spells related to them, as well as Scry and Regent Sight and such. Even some duels, whether they be of realm spells or personal. A lot of time spent in research, as well, including the creation of expendable magical items and occasional empowerment of just a few more powerful ones.

Most diplomacy for a wizard would be with the other regent types, typically maintaining an aloofness or aura of mystery, but performing some spells for and advising patrons and allies. Scry, again, would be common, as might Protection from Realm Magic to protect from Scrying or more offensive magics from others. Close alliances or strong patronage may result in the Wizard making more deliberate preparations to help in his allies' warfare, such as establishing strategic ley lines. The constant low-level Wizard "warfare" that goes on unbeknownst to most non-spellcasters would lead rivals to speculate about a Wizard's goals and allies, and so Wizards would tend to keep their alliances, their plans, and their knowledge of other Wizards' networks pretty secret, even from their patrons (for fear that the patrons might give away information as well, and to keep themselves invaluable).

Tension would come in with the development of provinces--which Guilds would probably be clamoring for most strongly. So while Wizards might seek agreements with Guilds to gain money, the two might often be at odds. Temples might also advocate province expansion, and the very fact of their spellcasting capability might cause competition insofar as casting spells either for their own purposes or for their allies.

[AndrewTall]

For a wizard the pressing issue is cash - they need a patron, although not necessarily the realm regent. Wizards can trade RP for gold via a vassalage arrangement, or agree to cast a certain number of spells, or simply agree to act as 'adviser' in exchange for a stipend. i see typical wizard activity as 'being weird' - only the wizard truly understands the flows of mebhaighl or the need to shore up mystical barriers to defend against the encroachment of the Shadow World and so the regents are likely to spend a lot of time on actions that landed regents are completely unaware of.

I see priests doing a lot of agitation, both for and against the realm, but even more I see them using diplomacy - they are the obvious mediators for warring nobles. Otherwise torturing, looting and slaughtering (aka spreading the faith and driving out heresy) should be the order of the day along with the old staples of encouragement of poverty, opposition to free will and creative thinking on the one hand and charity and religious education on the other.

Guilds should be happily forming duopolies and cartels - or contesting to try and become a monopoly. Bribery of the nobility (law holdings) should be common. Also common should be agitation, commissioning works of art, building fine mansions and great structures, and holdings grand festivities. Trying to impose laws against potential competitors, prevent laws permitting trade, encouraging foreign domination (to create markets or permit exploitation thereof) are also typical trade actions.

The Nobles should many be sleeping with, stealing, or slaughtering everything not nailed down or on fire. Otherwise arranging marriages, fosterings, imposing taxes, keeping the peasants in line, festivities, etc are all in vogue.

[kgauck]

Espionage is the first action. Every regent should do it early and often. Stuff doesn't happen overnight, or in a single domain turn. Regents need to spend about a turn per season looking at their own domain, and rotating through everyone else who might possibly do them harm, to keep up to date on what kinds of things they have going on. Regents who take this seriously have both spies and diviners, diplomats and astronomers, contacts and crystal balls all looking out for tips, developments, or secrets. Regents should expect to find rival operators, secrets about the other domains plans and projects, and other kinds of information that really don't have much do to with domain activity, like adventure hooks.

Contest actions. With all the other domains out there. Someone, somewhere, has to either be placing holdings you need to contest, or is contesting holdings you have already. Probably happens about once a season, unless you have made serious enemies, in which case this could be a full time buffet of fun.

Random events, the kinds of actions Andrew described, normal development, adventuring, and PC projects fit in as possible.

[Green Knight]

Diplomacy - You should be talking to other domains - both allies, neutrals and enemies - on a regular basis. Once per turn should be about right.

Espionage - I'll just second what Kenneth said. Once per turn; very handy if you have a friendly guild regent who can help you with this.

[irdeggman]

I concur with Green Knight.

Number one non-reactive domain action (overall) should be Diplomacy.

Wizards may not use Espionage as frequently as other regents would - they could easily be swapping research for that one. They need to do a lot of research - realm spells take a lot of effort to learn and are really the thing they "market" themselves with.

[Rowan]

I tend to agree with you all that generally, Espionage, Diplomacy, Contest, and Agitate should be the most common actions, as the Domain Action manifestations of a lot of the intrigue that you've talked about.

In my experience, however, they are fairly rare, largely because of what these things cost in the game, and what game effect the actions will have. Diplomacy is too limited by the rules, since its standard application involves communication with only one realm. To encourage diplomacy, most PBEMs eliminate the standard action, requiring just Court actions to ratify alliances and such. I think that's a better approach.

Agitate isn't that necessary until your attitude levels drop enough to penalize your actions. Otherwise, chucking in another GB or RP to increase your success chance is usually more worthwhile than spending the precious Standard or Realm action and associated resources to do it. Agitating down against an enemy requires you to have a holding in the same province, which provokes reactions, and costs a lot of RP in bidding wars. It might be used during or before a war, but otherwise Contest tends to be a more direct, less-military-based way of affecting your opponents.

Contest isn't often used, however, because of the huge bidding wars it causes. It's just too costly. Better to spend your resources Ruling and helping province holders Rule. The return on income is much better without generating enemies.

Espionage is also very costly and chews up actions for fairly limited results (when limited to single provinces and not nation-wide). Again, it may be used prior to war, to do an occasional assassination, or to discover the terms of an alliance, but its routine use is just too costly--largely because when it IS used offensively, the originating regent is likely devoting tons of resources to it to make it successful, so that a defending regent must spend tons of resources to ensure that a "no info" result didn't just fail because he was outbid. It is often cheaper to spend money in reaction to an Espionage-caused event than to spend it up front continually to try to avoid them.

Based on these observations, the four actions that should likely be among the most frequent in the game are often in fact the least frequent, due to a discouragement in how the rules are set up.

Does anyone else perceive this problem?


As an additional question, I have heard it said that there's not much for temples to do with their incomes, in comparison with the other holding types. Realm spells are cheap as compared to wizards, and their incomes tend to be much higher. Other holding actions are fairly cheap. What do you think their money is spent on?

I tend to think they do save more of it than other holding types, to provide relief in emergencies or after some random events. They may even serve as moneylenders. I do think that they also maintain small armies (knights of holy orders), but many people don't seem to like the idea of anyone other than province owners maintaining army units. Temples of Haelyn and Cuiraecen may wage low level wars against humanoids, particularly, with some frequency, even on the far wilderness outside the borders of Anuire (quests and pilgrimages). More close to home targets might be the Five Peaks, Thurazor, the Spider, Rhuobhe, Chimaera, Markazor. Small quests and mission campaigns from temples would be less provocative than full realm-instigated wars.

[AndrewTall]

In my experience, however, they are fairly rare, largely because of what these things cost in the game, and what game effect the actions will have. Diplomacy is too limited by the rules, since its standard application involves communication with only one realm. To encourage diplomacy, most PBEMs eliminate the standard action, requiring just Court actions to ratify alliances and such. I think that's a better approach.

I see no reason why you can't expand diplomacy - either the same agreement with many realms, or multiple agreements with one realm, in the one action - but I'd keep court actions for the more humdrum stuff as 'the people' would expect their 'king' to oversee major diplomatic deals. I do disagree with PBEM's where diplomacy is purely a decree - regents are running a domain, and for the hundreds and thousands of members to obey an action they need to a) be told about it, b) know what to do and c) be motivated to do it - decree's are mere words, you need the action to put some meat on the bones.


Agitate isn't that necessary until your attitude levels drop enough to penalize your actions. Otherwise, chucking in another GB or RP to increase your success chance is usually more worthwhile than spending the precious Standard or Realm action and associated resources to do it. Agitating down against an enemy requires you to have a holding in the same province, which provokes reactions, and costs a lot of RP in bidding wars.

to me realm attitude is more than just a bonus/penalty to the roll, its how your domain feels about you as a regent - low morale should make random events more common (people leave problems to the ruler who is paid to deal with them and generally bicker more), possibly impact regency, and most of all, have a major 'story' effect - who would rather be 'bad' king john when they could be 'good' king richard? As a priest regent I'd see it as my holy duty to maintain morale - realms where the people are unhappy, disloyal, dishonest, etc are ungodly, realms where the community works together and people are positive is one open to the word of [insert diety] - obviously priests of eloele, etc would disagree...


Contest isn't often used, however, because of the huge bidding wars it causes. It's just too costly. Better to spend your resources Ruling and helping province holders Rule. The return on income is much better without generating enemies.

Actually the most cost effective way to wage a contest war in a system of 'sealed bid' RP spend is by multiple court actions - the GB cost is higher, but at 5 RP:1 GB 4 or 5 contests with no RP spend pays off better than 1 or 2 contests with 50-60 RP chucked in each time - remember that the opponent needs to pay 10 RP generally to eliminate the contest as a threat so its very expensive for them to defend against such attacks.

In terms of 'this means war!' - well yes, some people will see it like that, but generally if they over-react to regent 'a' they will do it to regent 'b' - so rapidly exhaust themselves with a war on every front (albeit not in a d4-1 game).

I'd increase the cost to rule provinces severely - it has an exponential effect as it allows all regents to increase their holdings as well, by limited expansion 'p' you force expansion 'out' - and so force contests...


Espionage is also very costly and chews up actions for fairly limited results (when limited to single provinces and not nation-wide). Again, it may be used prior to war, to do an occasional assassination, or to discover the terms of an alliance, but its routine use is just too costly--largely because when it IS used offensively, the originating regent is likely devoting tons of resources to it to make it successful, so that a defending regent must spend tons of resources to ensure that a "no info" result didn't just fail because he was outbid. It is often cheaper to spend money in reaction to an Espionage-caused event than to spend it up front continually to try to avoid them.

That depends how widely the dm interprets espionage - if you uncover a reasonable amount of information you can guage your opponents power, where they are devoting resources, etc - and thus direct your energies where they are uninterested sparing yourself a lot of effort. Once a war is impending espionage really does little beyond confirm the point.

Again with the RP 'tower' strategy, I'd suggest making RP bids sealed, have 3 rounds of exchange maximum with the success stated as 'minimal, low, fair, good, excellent' - that way if one person routinely dumps in 50 points their opponents learn to attack with feints of 1-2 points, sacrifice opening positions then counter-attack and rebuild, etc - if you are operating an 'open spend' method of RP, in particular one where the spend is decided after the success roll, then the tower strategy dominates and gameplay suffers imho.


Based on these observations, the four actions that should likely be among the most frequent in the game are often in fact the least frequent, due to a discouragement in how the rules are set up.

I think some of this is game style - I'd expect the 'festivity' action to be very common along with the 'great art' - both permitting GB to by turned into RP at, say 1:4 - the aim being to boost the families prestige, show off wealth and enjoy themselves - proving themselves to the point of gaining bloodline being a side benefit rather than the purpose.


As an additional question, I have heard it said that there's not much for temples to do with their incomes, in comparison with the other holding types. Realm spells are cheap as compared to wizards, and their incomes tend to be much higher. Other holding actions are fairly cheap. What do you think their money is spent on?

big cathedrals, little churches, donations to the poor (see festivities and art above), witchburning, meddling, and the like - not to mention loans to nobles and the realm, money buys influence and thus power...


I do think that they also maintain small armies (knights of holy orders), but many people don't seem to like the idea of anyone other than province owners maintaining army units.

I'd expect every noble to have a small retinue of leg-breakers, churches are full of nobles so should also expect a certain show of force as normal. Holy orders in BR are quite martial so most should be leaning on realm regents to have an army - or have earned the right centuries before. I wouldn't expect them to have big armies in most cases, and some troops might be purely ceremonial, but most major temples should have at least 1 unit even if it is dispersed across 3-4 provinces.


Small quests and mission campaigns from temples would be less provocative than full realm-instigated wars.

I see temples as fighting defensive wars, raids on the ungodly, and only in extremely rare cases actually attacking another temple or a realm in open warfare - that would be treading heavily on the toes of the nobility.

[Rowan]

You have some good house rule suggestions, Andrew. My original point was that the standard rules seem to work against "ideal" game play, so that a DM has to come up with stuff to throw at PC's to get them taking actions that play to the story better than the numbers, or come up with house rules to fix the problem. A good rules system should support and encourage the type of game play you're striving for, not work against it.

So you've proposed a few rules adjustments that would help the system work with the story better:
1. RP adjustment with province attitude
2. Province attitudes affect random event frequency and type
3. Festivals and public works grant RP/convert GB to RP
4. 3 rounds of sealed bids for any RP bid actions
5. One standard Diplomacy action applying for extensive communication with multiple realms
6. Wider Espionage actions (not province by province)

My responses:
1. This may be problematic, since tyrants are just as iconic to the game, IMO, as benevolent monarchs, perhaps even moreso. Therefore, the benevolent monarch should not have great advantages over a tyrant whose provinces are typically unhappy. This adjustment would also affect the definition of RP gain, making it based more on approval ratings. Perhaps having a one time RP penalty each time a province's attitude drops might work, though.
2. I agree that "Random" events need some work and manipulation. I haven't spent much thought on it yet, though.
3. I like this. I was working on a system that granted RP gains due to various actions, but a more direct, sort of Alchemy-in-reverse action might work well. It seems that these things would affect province attitude, as well.
4. I would prefer open bids. RP expenditures are usually pretty visible, IMO. The extent to which one guildmaster can get his people to wage a deep price war, get the populace to boycott the other or just advertise better, or sends thugs out to harass, bully, and steal from another guild can be readily seen and opposed in kind by the victim. I actually think that realm-action Contestation is evidence of a problem in the system. It is indeed more effective to just attack a wide variety of holdings continually until you bleed your foe down with RP, not even spending RP of your own on the effort (you don't really need to). Better yet, collude with another regent or two to do the same. Or even more insidious, open with an initial salvo of Contestations as a probing Trojan horse to bleed away RP, then slam away with a second round backed up by RP. Such an attacker's advantage is remedied somewhat by an open bid system, as well as by perhaps allowing the defender to spend RP once to defend against all attempts in that season.
5. I would prefer that the implementation of alliances, wedding agreements, etc be performed by the action, but the negotiation itself is more of a Free action (or Character, if done in person).
6. I agree. Basic reconnaissance should be easier. Holdings and troops, unless hidden by espionage, should be pretty visible things and discoverable on a realm-wide basis (for contiguous provinces, anyway). I like Chris Linebarger's "Counter-Espionage" pool of RP.

[ericthecleric]

I like these two ideas:
* RP adjustment with province attitude- but I wouldn't really add anything for High loyalty, just use it more for below average loyalty.
* Province attitudes affect random event frequency and type

In my Shadows of Empire game, I was thinking of making a change which I’ll describe in a moment, but never got around to introducing it. The change is this:
Each 1 GB loss due to a random event = 5% loss of pre-maintenance income for the turn and 5% of current treasury (before adding the turn’s income),
It just makes more sense that a larger realm should lose more from random events than on a “fixed” rate. Eg, corruption loses 2 GB (per turn). What does that matter to someone like Avanil? (Rhetorical).
With my modification, then corruption loses 10% of current treasury and 10% of that turn’s pre-maintenance income.
So a small country, with say 10 GB treasury, and 30 GB income (& 20 GB maintenance) affected by corruption would suffer 2 GB loss of their treasury, and 3 GB from that turn’s income, with a resulting current treasury of 15 GB (that’s 10-2+30-3-20).
On the other hand, a big country with 200 GB treasury, and 120 GB income (& 80 GB maintenance) affected by corruption would suffer 20 GB loss of their treasury, and 15 GB from that turn’s income, with a resulting current treasury of 213 GB (that’s 200-15+120-12-80).
If that same big realm was instead hit by a 6 GB brigandage or natural disaster event, that would translate to a 30% hit for that turn, so the resulting current treasury would be 135 GB (200-60+120-45-80).

Regarding your comment about increased costs for Rule Province, I’ve thought about that, too. If I run SoE2, then I’ll be increasing the cost of that action in GB terms by 10, so it would cost 30 GB (& 3 RP) to Rule a level 3 province, and 50 GB (& 5 RP) for a level 5 province.
I’m also considering increasing the cost of Rule Holding to 1 GB and 1 RP per current level for the Rule Holding action, too, but only for Temple and Guild holdings. Law and Source holdings would cost 1 RP per current level, plus 1 GB.
Maybe the GB increase is too much for the Rule Province action, but as long as the new level makes a contribution to overall income, then it doesn’t necessarily become prohibitively expensive!

Regarding the Espionage actions, in SoE realm/domain tables were closed. However, no players used actions to “Reveal the domain statistics of a province (attitude, regents, holding levels, etc.)”. So I think that with SoE2, I’ll introduce a rule that, as long as at least one Espionage action is used for that purpose (that can include the free action rogues etc get), then court actions can be used to make it a realm action. Spy Networks won’t be needed for that use of Espionage. Of course, they would be needed for other uses of the action (eg. “Reveal the nature of diplomatic talks, etc).

[kgauck]

Diplomacy is too limited by the rules, since its standard application involves communication with only one realm. To encourage diplomacy, most PBEMs eliminate the standard action, requiring just Court actions to ratify alliances and such. I think that's a better approach.

Here's what I do. Diplomacy is a court action unless the effect of the communication is supposed to be binding. Any treaty requires a domain action. Simple communication can be handled by a court action. Most diplomacy is a simple diplomacy, and it goes on all the time.


Agitate isn't that necessary until your attitude levels drop enough to penalize your actions.
Easy fix is to add more random events (or consequences of events) that reduce loyalty a step or two (even temporarily) so that most regents prefer a default friendly position, if not better. Temporary loyalty adjustments are very handy.


Agitating down against an enemy requires you to have a holding in the same province, which provokes reactions, and costs a lot of RP in bidding wars.

I only require holdings if you want to spend regency to improve your success chance. Anyone can spend gold to improve the success chance of agitate more or less anywhere.


Contest isn't often used, however, because of the huge bidding wars it causes. It's just too costly. Better to spend your resources Ruling and helping province holders Rule. The return on income is much better without generating enemies.

Well, bidding wars is the point. If players don't get into serious bidding wars with frequency, the game gives them way, way too much gold and RP. If bidding wars went away, I'd be inclined to eliminate RP collection and change GB income to costs + 1d4-1.


Espionage is also very costly and chews up actions for fairly limited results (when limited to single provinces and not nation-wide).

Espionage needs to cover whole domains. Or it needs to work like diplomacy - some routine actions (intelligence collection) are court actions and things that have an effect one someone else are domain actions.


As an additional question, I have heard it said that there's not much for temples to do with their incomes, in comparison with the other holding types. What do you think their money is spent on?

Bidding. Once you run out of RP, spend GB. Cash is a sterile asset. A big pile of money gets you nothing. Its not good for anything until you spend it. (To a certain extent a reserve is useful because it creates options, but at very best, until its spent, its a potential good, not an actual good).


I'd keep court actions for the more humdrum stuff as 'the people' would expect their 'king' to oversee major diplomatic deals.

Clarification? Is that a way of saying treaties are domain actions, but "I think the Chimera is allowing pirates to port in Lyssan," is a court action? Elaborate you thoughts on this, if you please.


To me realm attitude is more than just a bonus/penalty to the roll, its how your domain feels about you as a regent - low morale should make random events more common
Interesting idea.


Holy orders in BR are quite martial so most should be leaning on realm regents to have an army - or have earned the right centuries before. I wouldn't expect them to have big armies in most cases, and some troops might be purely ceremonial, but most major temples should have at least 1 unit even if it is dispersed across 3-4 provinces.

I think temples (and guilds) maintain regular forces. Military power is just too useful to opt out of that arena. And gods of war are simply going to have war fighting capacity. I don't think temples fight wars on their own very often, but they do fight along side realms whenever the realms fight.

[kgauck]

This may be problematic, since tyrants are just as iconic to the game, IMO, as benevolent monarchs, perhaps even moreso. Therefore, the benevolent monarch should not have great advantages over a tyrant whose provinces are typically unhappy. This adjustment would also affect the definition of RP gain, making it based more on approval ratings. Perhaps having a one time RP penalty each time a province's attitude drops might work, though.

Why would one suppose that tyrants have lower loyalty? My estimation would be the reverse. Tyrants have tighter control over the people, so the people are often functionally more loyal, even if they are "unhappy". Happiness not being a part of the loyalty system.

Would I would say is that tyrant realms have a more brittle loyalty situation. Meaning its better until it goes bad, then it breaks and the tyrant has to flee to a friendly court. I would also say that tyrants are more frequently at the "indifferent" location, at least functionally. Good King Andrew might enjoy the love of his people in good years, and suffer some unhappiness from time to time, but one thing he knows for sure, is the mood of the people. The tyrant doesn't benefit from high loyalty ratings (since they are purchased by fear) or suffer from moderately poor ones until one day the people are dancing in the streets having overthrown the tyrant.

[irdeggman]

In my experience, however, they are fairly rare, largely because of what these things cost in the game, and what game effect the actions will have. Diplomacy is too limited by the rules, since its standard application involves communication with only one realm. To encourage diplomacy, most PBEMs eliminate the standard action, requiring just Court actions to ratify alliances and such. I think that's a better approach.


What set of rules are these DMs using?

The BRCS is very open ended on what Diplomacy encompases - including the variant rule from the Book of regency about establishing embassies (which moves things to court actions).


I don't have my 2nd ed books with me at the moment, but IIRC those rules were also fairly open on what Diplomacy can encompass. In fact I believe the 2nd ed rules were pretty broad in their description of most domain actions making them more of guidelines than absolutes.

I don't recall any rule making Diplomacy an action that cannot involve more than one group at a time. In fact the 2nd ed rules on Investiture (from Book of Priestcraft) shows how several distinct actions can be combined into a single one.

I routinely had a large "party" where multiple regents used a Diplomacy action but could establish several different "deals" with mutliple regents.

[irdeggman]

[quote]Agitate isn't that necessary until your attitude levels drop enough to penalize your actions. Otherwise, chucking in another GB or RP to increase your success chance is usually more worthwhile than spending the precious Standard or Realm action and associated resources to do it. Agitating down against an enemy requires you to have a holding in the same province, which provokes reactions, and costs a lot of RP in bidding wars. It might be used during or before a war, but otherwise Contest tends to be a more direct, less-military-based way of affecting your opponents.

Perhaps. It depends on whether you are using BRCS or 2nd ed rules. 2nd ed rules agitate was very, very useful (and a free action {as in bonus not no-cost} for priests).


Contest isn't often used, however, because of the huge bidding wars it causes. It's just too costly. Better to spend your resources Ruling and helping province holders Rule. The return on income is much better without generating enemies.

What kind of game have you been playing in? This is one of (and always has been) the most common and useful actions around.

Once you factor in source regents ruling up a province is totally counterproductive.


Espionage is also very costly and chews up actions for fairly limited results (when limited to single provinces and not nation-wide). Again, it may be used prior to war, to do an occasional assassination, or to discover the terms of an alliance, but its routine use is just too costly--largely because when it IS used offensively, the originating regent is likely devoting tons of resources to it to make it successful, so that a defending regent must spend tons of resources to ensure that a "no info" result didn't just fail because he was outbid. It is often cheaper to spend money in reaction to an Espionage-caused event than to spend it up front continually to try to avoid them.

Espionage also has a lot of other potential uses that need to be factored in.


Based on these observations, the four actions that should likely be among the most frequent in the game are often in fact the least frequent, due to a discouragement in how the rules are set up.

Does anyone else perceive this problem?

No.

It appears to me that your point of reference are games where the players are trying to dominate the world in a year or two instead of playing a long lasting (and more realistic) approach. Things are supposed to be slow and painful in a domain level game not fast and a single die roll resolved.

[Rowan]

I play mainly in PBEMs, or perhaps more accurately, PBF's (Play by Forum). I've played 5 of them under 4 different DMs. These types of games are focused primarily on domain level play, because with a large number of players (10+, usually 15+), and without the time and detail possible at a gaming table, adventure-level intrigues are less possible. Typically, players control quite a number of different characters, bringing to life a broader world with many simultaneous events going on. Also, turns take longer to resolve (typically a month or more, meaning that covering 3 years of story in 1 year of game play is doing pretty well), and even if you break the curse and have a longer running game, you can't expect to cover 10 years or more of game time through the traditional seasonal turns.

Kgauck and Irdeggman, have you played in any PBEMs?

I have been relating my experience in those games and in one short tabletop game. In all of them, including the tabletop game, a slow, nasty slog with few real domain gains in the short run has not been what characters have gone looking for. Rather, they tend to form truces and coalitions quickly (eliminating a good chunk of Contestation, Agitation, and Espionage right there) and focus on building up so that they have a decent income to spend to bring about greater plans. Those three actions in particular just haven't seemed to play much of a part in the games I have played.

I have hypothesized that the high cost, in terms both of RP and of number of actions it takes (domain actions being the most precious currency in the game) to regularly utilize Contest, Agitate, and Espionage encourages those truces and discourages their use in favor of the much better return on investment Rule and Create actions. That's what I'm pointing out here.

[AndrewTall]

I think that the 'grand coalition' is a major part of the d4-1 curse - if there is no real diplomacy or inter-regent bickering then much of the fun of the game vanishes and along with it, the players. Players who are frozen out of the big coalition are particularly likely to leave, as they can't win because the coalition partners are meta-gaming a victory that their medieval PC's would never considered - or whose domains would certainly never have countenanced being a submissive part of.

I understand that 10 turns a year - more likely than 1/month when factoring in holidays and illness - means that a moderate plan taking a year and long term plan in 2-3 years is the longest players can wait in a PBEM, as opposed to their characters who would think 1-3 years fairly short term, and 20-60 years as a long term plan - but the downside of 'victory in 10 turns or less' game play is that it requires rapid victory swings which mean that one bad roll in the early game can screw up a player for the rest of the game - meaning they often give up.

Not every player will quit a losing role - Tim Paroz surprised (and impressed the hell out of) me in Rjurik Winds by sticking on despite losing 100% of his holdings - and went on to win others through diplomacy and chutzpah - but quite a few players seem to think 'to hell with it, go for broke to win in 1/2/3 turns, if the long shot fails I'll just chuck it in and restart in another game' and that attitude cripples the game they leave behind.

And yes, I know that new players can be recruited, and some players will help a DM to restore playability to the game at their regent's expense - but rapid player turnover seems to cause a lot of damage to the durability of the game.

[kgauck]

I dislike PBeM's. I've tried several. Always been disappointed.

[AndrewTall]

I've enjoyed pbems immensely - and been equally frustrated at times. Some of that is learning curve - all groups build up group-think on how to play, you only find out other ways when you meet another group who 'do it wrong' - and pbem players are as diverse as they come. Some of it is player issues - you know who you will tabletop with whereas pbem's can easily get wrecker-players, but I've met some very good pbem'ers and been glad to have had the chance to do so.

It is worth realising though that pbem is very different to tabletop - even with a virtual tabletop for adventures and messenger for chatting. Some of the rule comments follow from the differences. The key to a good game though will, imho, always be a dedicated gm and positive players.


Oh, I missed a point earlier. My thought on diplomacy is that the people expect rule to be by 'the king' - if it is always the cardinal / the lord chancellor / etc who negotiates for the king, then you have a great captain in the making even more so than if your general wins battle after battle and crosses the maesil demanding recognition. A role effect, not a rule effect.

[kgauck]

There is certainly some of that, but I've played other PBeM's games (Diplomacy) and text based on-line games with total strangers, so these issues are only partly to blame.

Part of it is the breath-takingly slow pace of the game. The current game I'm playing (www.hyw.com) is managing four seasons a week. I've played Diplomacy PBeM's that handled a turn per day.

Then there is the complexity of the rules and the basic nature of the end product. For a stand alone game, the domain system is a very complex way to produce a very basic result. As an add on to an RPG, its fine. For domain only play, I'd use systems designed for games like this.

The domain system by itself will produce goofy results. One can house rule the game extensively, or just use a system designed to play this kind of game.

Taking Cerilia and converting it to one's favorite board game, say, Machiavelli, but also Axis and Allies, Risk, and other games not normally over in d4-1 turns would seem to be the way to go.

My favorite Cerilian, Birthright conversions, Machiavelli and Kingmaker, require other players who know those games. I could sit down with nearly anyone up for two hours of board gaming and play Risk with a Cerilian map. You can get your family to play that. Any school age kid can be induced to play Risk.

So, mostly, I blame the system.

For the record, I don't like the game system in HYW, either, but the opportunity to role play is better, because of the pace of the game, the information available to the players, and the possibility to doing things in the game besides fighting the Hundred Years War.

[irdeggman]

Kgauck and Irdeggman, have you played in any PBEMs?

Equating PBEM and PBP as being roughly equivalent (usually a PBP game involves a lot of PBEMing too).

I have tried to play in one BR PBP (and that one ended fairly quickly).

I have played in several PBP games (not BR) and mostly they were very rewarding. Two of them were Alternity games - the GM ws outstanding in storytelling. Three others were D&D games - 2 died quickly and the other one I had huge problems with how the DM was adjudicating the rules (mostly randomly without any heads up).


I have been relating my experience in those games and in one short tabletop game. In all of them, including the tabletop game, a slow, nasty slog with few real domain gains in the short run has not been what characters have gone looking for. Rather, they tend to form truces and coalitions quickly (eliminating a good chunk of Contestation, Agitation, and Espionage right there) and focus on building up so that they have a decent income to spend to bring about greater plans. Those three actions in particular just haven't seemed to play much of a part in the games I have played.

I have hypothesized that the high cost, in terms both of RP and of number of actions it takes (domain actions being the most precious currency in the game) to regularly utilize Contest, Agitate, and Espionage encourages those truces and discourages their use in favor of the much better return on investment Rule and Create actions. That's what I'm pointing out here.


So the games are what I have postulated - trying to take over the world quickly.

Note that you have based your hypothesis on the fact that Diplomacy is the most commonly used action.

Also it appears that in the games you have played in that there is minimal NPC regent involvement. This can definitely cloud the playing field.

[Rowan]

So the games are what I have postulated - trying to take over the world quickly.

Note that you have based your hypothesis on the fact that Diplomacy is the most commonly used action.

Also it appears that in the games you have played in that there is minimal NPC regent involvement. This can definitely cloud the playing field.

Some players tend to take that approach (of trying to gain the Iron Throne quickly), but this has been diminishing in each successive PBEM I've played. One was just a greater southern coast area, so it did not have that pressure at all, and another had Avanil and Boeruine as NPCs, which also removed a lot of the pressure.

I don't think it's so much that players want to take over quickly as the pace of the game is such that players want to see some progress in their monthly or bi-weekly turns. There's a ton of roleplaying that goes on in Imperial Forum assemblies, tournaments and balls, and diplomacy. The coalition-forming that AT speaks of is, I think, also encouraged by the major imbalances in the default setting among different PC realms--lesser realms try to gain useful alliances, while the big ones are always looking for an advantage over their foes or advancement towards the throne, so this just escalates. A more balanced distribution of player domain power might help prevent coalition-forming, but seeing some progress in peoples' own actions is also important. If you don't see much of the fruits of your labor, but rather a slow and nasty slog through contestation and agitation that leaves you constantly drained and little able to advance, you're going to seek a way out--through diplomacy, non-aggression pacts, and coalition-forming. That's just the nature of things.

[kgauck]

If the game allows for decisive, first strike total victory, players are fools not to take it. The problem is that the domain system as written fundamentally works that way. Unfortunately, this is the opposite of the setting material, in which all of the duchies go way back to before Deismaar, and aside from the combination of Ghieste and Bhalaene, are pretty much all still kicking.

First PBeM I played, I was the Eastern Temple of Nesirie, and a friend was playing the Spider River Traders, and we were planning to either bring the Arenewe player into our group, or considering what we would so if it didn't have that idea. Suddenly Avanil and allies knock out Boeruine entirely, defeat their army and start investing provinces. Boeruine only has nine, and with all the regents investing, it wasn't going to be too long before the Archduchy was a memory.

So you spend all of his time steeping yourself in the history, flavor, and mythology of the setting, and then when you actually play the game, all of that is out the window, and you find the domain rules as used in PBeM's have no relationship to all that setting.

If you think the domain rules are Birthright, and the setting is so much fluff, then that is just fine. If you think that Birthright is the setting and the domain rules are just a way to track progress, power, and mediate interactions, then its not so fine.

This is the heart of the matter. The domain rules are simply not suitable for reflecting the setting without heavy intervention by the DM. Using NPC realms, DM plots, and "random" events, the DM can railroad the action so that it looks like Birthright. But I won't pin the blame on DM's who don't heavily use NPC realms, or other DM interventions, when the real problem is that you can't play with the domain rules alone and expect any other outcome.

[Rowan]

This is the heart of the matter. The domain rules are simply not suitable for reflecting the setting without heavy intervention by the DM. Using NPC realms, DM plots, and "random" events, the DM can railroad the action so that it looks like Birthright. But I won't pin the blame on DM's who don't heavily use NPC realms, or other DM interventions, when the real problem is that you can't play with the domain rules alone and expect any other outcome.
I agree that the role of a mediator is important, but as I've said before, a good rules system makes it easier to play out the story the way you want to, not harder. The less you have to fight against the system the better. That's why I've been trying to identify weaknesses in the system and figure out ways of improving them.

You've identified that the system doesn't support the story. Yet I've been fighting on many threads to say something similar, and usually I get the answer--including from Irdeggman and you here on this thread--that there's nothing wrong with the system and we shouldn't look at tweaking it. Which is it?

As for wars of conquest and maintaining the status of ancient lands, I've advocated in PBEMs for a set of Anuirean Rules of War. This got most developed in Julian's Shadows of Empire, but it was only discussed (OOC and IC) and never really tested. It relies on a common agreement by players to a certain set of norms, that the entrenched powers of Anuire established customs of gentlemanly warfare that limited its destructiveness and tended to preserve them in power, so that their dynasties would not fall easily even if a weak ruler came about. It centered on the idea of limited conquest--the most you could hope to gain under the right conditions was a province or two and lesser concessions. If you tried complete conquest of another Anuirean power, the other realms would band together to stop your abhorrent behavior and show proper respect and dignity to ancient lineages and dynasties, allowing them to keep most of their ancestral lands. It protects them all from constant aggression, and from fearing that their ancestral lands could be lost utterly by a weak descendant.

[Green Knight]

I have to agree with Kenneth on this one - the domain rules (2E or BRCS, doesn't matter) absolutely suck* if you're trying to create a game that even remotely maintains the "fluff" that is the BIRTHRIGHT setting. The rules are not bad as such, I'm sure they work well enough for a pure board-game that doesn't care for the setting. But as Kenneth pointed out - if the rules encourage a certain way of acting, a good player would be fool not to act in what is essentially his own best interest!

Which is why I made an entirely different system.

* For example - there are almost no roads in Anuire, yet often players will build immense numbers of highways in a few turns. And why should they not? Its good for movement and its good for trade...

[Green Knight]

The other part is of course respect for the setting and a desire to work to enhance the game world, and not break it. And to get that you need skilled and dedicated players who can both play a role and enjoy the BR world. And a DM who does the same.

When you add that to rules that actually encourage this play style and also go for a PbeM type that is part strategy and part role-playing, it can be a grand experience. You're simply not going to get 10-20 friends to sit down and play out years and years of domain turns while also engaging in very memorable role-playing.

[kgauck]

You've identified that the system doesn't support the story. Yet I've been fighting on many threads to say something similar, and usually I get the answer--including from Irdeggman and you here on this thread--that there's nothing wrong with the system and we shouldn't look at tweaking it. Which is it?

I said there's nothing wrong with the system? I wouldn't do that, they'd kick me out of the League of Gadflies. I went back and re-read the thread. I'm pretty sure I've stuck with the tough love approach.

I'm happy to work with the system as is, but that's because I see it as a way to describe the setting and the role playing in a way that is measurable and comparable. When it comes to playing a domain only situation, my recommendation is to make a map of Cerilia and play an established table top game.

[irdeggman]

I agree that the role of a mediator is important, but as I've said before, a good rules system makes it easier to play out the story the way you want to, not harder. The less you have to fight against the system the better. That's why I've been trying to identify weaknesses in the system and figure out ways of improving them.

You've identified that the system doesn't support the story. Yet I've been fighting on many threads to say something similar, and usually I get the answer--including from Irdeggman and you here on this thread--that there's nothing wrong with the system and we shouldn't look at tweaking it. Which is it?


Something I have noticed is that Kenneth's opinion is that the rules as written support a quick resolution style of play and not the long and drawn out way of doing things.

Green Knight also pointed out that certain aspects are "encouraged" by the abstract system that it is - like quickly progressing to highways.

You have gone the other route and said that the system is too slow and not specific enough.

This is the quandry.

It is pretty much impossible to come up with a system that is faster and slower with specific rules. I believe that the BRCS works in a middle ground of abstractness (which is the core of all of D&D). It leaves a lot to the DM.

IMO any sytem that gives specific rules that if you do this then this happens like this (as in very clear and specific action and results) will actually make a game less enjoyable. D&D at its core is about adaptability - even though 3.5 progressed much farther down the path of the video game style of mechanical results for every action. Systems that are very heavy on the action/result formality tend to progress towards rules-heavy games and thus lead to much rules-lawyering (and bickering). This is probably the core reason that 3.x has had so very much "discussion" on rules.

[Rowan]

I'm happy to work with the system as is, but that's because I see it as a way to describe the setting and the role playing in a way that is measurable and comparable.
That's what I was pointing out--that while you agree that the system works against the game play, you're willing to work with it as is.

GK, I agree with you and Kgauck. My point has been that I'm trying to find ways of tweaking the system itself so that it works with the story and desired type of play better, so that DMs and players don't have to fight the system as much. No system will ever be perfect, but it can be more in harmony with the desired type of game play.

Irdeggman, you're actually identifying two different goals of mine. One is to make game play simpler and faster, primarily for the mass scale of PBEMs (where with 10-30 players, a system needs to be simple enough to be resolved quickly). The other is to improve the quality of the system to encourage a desired type of game play that is true to the setting, rather than having to work against the system with extensive case-by-case DM fiats or through elaborate gymnastics to explain the rules.

I agree with you that prescribing only a specific description for what a given domain action looks like in the story is perversely limiting. I like leaving actions abstract enough to allow for many different methods of carrying them out. I don't think specific 4e Attack Power-like descriptions are at all necessary.

The Highway problem, for instance, would diminish considerably if the rules reflected a few things that they currently, in practice, don't seem to: they are expensive to create and maintain; it takes trade to really support them and make them worthwhile; trade fluctuates frequently; and sea trade should ultimately be at least as profitable as land trade (currently there are considerable disincentives to sea trade in comparison to land trade).

How do rules take care of those problems without become much more specific or complicated? The full explanation would take some time, but what I've currently worked up involves 1. Increasing the cost of roads and highways in a way that reflects their capacity just like all other assets, including ships; 2. having Trade holdings limited by resources and Guild holdings; 3. having Contest actions be cheaper than Rule actions, which should result in fewer overall trade holdings; 4. having Rule actions scale with level right along with Rule Province actions to create a system of diminishing returns (creating a disincentive to consolidation of power), so that it is generally easier and a better return on investment for players to spread their holdings around in a wider network of lower-level holdings, thus bringing them into conflict more often with competitors and encouraging that competition due to the relative disparity of Contest and Rule costs.

[ryancaveney]

My favorite Cerilian, Birthright conversions, Machiavelli and Kingmaker, require other players who know those games.

You have a Cerilia conversion for Kingmaker? GIMME!

That said, the entire reason I bought the BR game in the first place was in the hopes of obtaining a better rule set for running fantasy kingdoms than the one provided in the (non-A)D&D Companion Set. That is still what I want BR to be, so I still tinker with the domain rules. I also like Cerilia as a game setting, and agree that there is no way to explain how the domains can possibly be set up as they are if the NPCs are actually playing the same game described in the rules. House rules are a must if you don't want massive, immediate change: there must be a *game reason* for the state of the system presented in the atlases to be stable. There's also balance of power politics -- if Avanil starts to seriously conquer Boeruine, Ghoere and Mhoried have to team up to stop it; but if they go too far and start to carve up Avanil, then Roesone and Aerenwe and Cariele... but that's really not stable, as it gets too big too fast, and eventually someone just wins. Perhaps the problem is the Investiture action? Caesar conquered Gaul in a few campaigns, but it took generations to assimilate the inhabitants into the Empire (one can also argue that even after 400 years, they really *never* became "good Romans"). What one wants, perhaps, is a notion of uninvesting that is much easier than investing was: Avan has to permanently garrison Boeruine for decades or centuries, or else if ever a garrison falls too low, Boeruine spontaneously recreates itself?

[AndrewTall]

The issue, as you say, is that conquests become loyal immediately.

I'd build a fix into the morale mechanics. Basically there should be a whacking morale penalty to any conquered land that isn't settled by expulsion/extermination and then immigration (i.e. if you drive out the natives you can ignore the penalty, if you keep them you suffer it).

This morale penalty should amortise over a ridiculous period - decades or centuries. It could be reduced by specific actions (i.e. the people will follow a real hero who inspires them or bow down to a true fiend who terrifies them) but that reduction would be for the specific regent only - not their heirs.

From a game mechanic perspective conquered realms would thus be less productive and rebel more easily. Additional mechanics could be modifiers to domain actions and the like, DM-wise I'd suggest that they have very high frequency of great captain events and rebels declare themselves the old nation.

You could avoid the penalties - or at least reduce them - by having the conquest a vassal realm with the appropriate 'puppet' ruler.

In the game the aim would then be to take control of the conquest as a vassal realm and hope that the local puppet doesn't GC.

To prevent mega-alliances some penalty for kneeling to someone other than the emperor might be used - what good is our duke if he bows to a mere baron?

As this would all be fairly complicated - basically a long list of morale modifiers, I'd keep it for 'tournament play' i.e. bits to be added on if they suit the specific game.

[kgauck]

You have a Cerilia conversion for Kingmaker? GIMME!

I should make a pdf for the thing. The version I have worked out is the Dhoeosne version. You play one of four factions (Haelynite, Rjurik, Seramite, Sidhe) and try and get control of Dhoesone.

I have ideas on an Anuirean version in which you try and get your faction to install an Emperor.

http://home.mchsi.com/~gauck/Noble_Card.jpg


Perhaps the problem is the Investiture action? Caesar conquered Gaul in a few campaigns, but it took generations to assimilate the inhabitants into the Empire (one can also argue that even after 400 years, they really *never* became "good Romans"). What one wants, perhaps, is a notion of uninvesting that is much easier than investing was: Avan has to permanently garrison Boeruine for decades or centuries, or else if ever a garrison falls too low, Boeruine spontaneously recreates itself?

I have the notion of an ancestral rebellion. A scion with a tie to the land can spend a domain action and the old lands rise up and hail him as their true regent. As long as William Moergan lives, Jaison Rainech will never control Osoerde safely. Why did Mheallie Bireon kill all of the house of Cariele? To prevent this problem. Opps she missed a few. The new regent needs to develop a new tie to the land to hold it, and this requires a minimum of a generation, and then a second successful investiture.

One of the pronounced effects is that you can only acquire small bits of territory directly. The best way to conquer new stuff is to find a claimant to a throne, conquer it, invest your claimant, he swears to be your vassal. The old house can still run around throwing up ancestral rebellions, but the claimant house gets better bonuses than the conqueror would.

Slowing the game down by making actions involve more steps works nicely. In the same way that single roll skill checks can be replaced by extended skill checks, since result domain actions can be replaced by say, four or five domain actions dedicated toward the same purpose. Even if I could totally defeat my enemy, I couldn't pay for an army big enough to occupy it long enough to perform all of the hundreds of investiture checks necessary to actually absorb the whole thing. So instead, wars are fought for more limited aims, like spending 50 GB to force him to spend 100 GB making it much easier to do this all again in five years. Take a province here. Release a province there (after much preparation, the Count of Rivien has been convinced he can go it alone). Demand the cessation of other vassalage agreements (release Talinie, release Brosengae, &c). Demand recognition of the law holding you established during occupation, so that his moving against it carries an especially heavy burden. Demand a cash reparation.

So that, unless the results of several wars favor one side, the status quo prevails. And even real progress is more of the "two steps forward, one step back" variety.

[epicsoul]

Interesting... there seems to be a motion to have provinces attain loyalty, after decades... I think of Europa Universalis, of course, when I hear this.

So, then, how's this as an entertaining solution - until the new province is assimilated into your Empire, only half the gold is generated from the province and law holdings therein. The other half is lost.

The amount of time it takes to assimilate the province would need to have factors that would determine the length - I would humbly suggest that the religion, as well as the amount of law holdings held by the conqueror at the time of conquest affect this length of time. No doubt other modifiers could be created as well - such as the alignments of the different rulers impacting it - race, of course, should be significant too (I really don't see the dwarves of Baruk Azhik easily bending knee to an Anuirean overlord).


However... something else I have noted. Much discussion has come about over the role of pbems - as well as some live in person games - where the players lack a certain respect for the setting/attempt to get their goals accomplished in a relatively short span of time for Anuire (pbem time is usually a turn a month, so 3 years equals 1 year IRL). This leads to conquest in a short time.

So... to speak to this, I have also noted that players often have a mentality of all-or-nothing. It happens in a lot of strategy games too. How many people have played with someone where a player got stomped down to a small amount of territories, and just dropped the game? Ditto for BR for many (though not all).

However, we should look to the example (IC, OOC, or whatever) to William Moergan of Osoerde. He has no land, and a small gb income from his law holdings. Many games now start with WM being wiped out.

I disagree. Why? As a playable nation, not very fun, admittedly, to start with WM. And players are correct in noting that Osoerde can probably simply use the army as per the rules to crush the remaining law holdings - albeit at a substantial domain attitude penalty.

Without savings? WM is toast. Let's assume, however, that he is getting some tacit financial support from Coeranys. 3 gb income a turn allows for the following:
3 free Agitate actions, using the lead skill. 1 per action. Wandering from province to province, always a step ahead of Raenech. Worse, creating a law holding in a province, then agitating. If the army goes in after that to destroy the holding, it ends up with a possible rebellion. A regency war begins - one that Raenech has the advantage of, no doubt, but definitely something that keeps him occupied.

To me, it seems like players often throw it all on one last battle - and then get captured, divested, and often executed. Why shouldn't they form a resistance, like WM has? Once the battle is lost, the war should NOT be over.

[AndrewTall]

The romp and stomp problem of a home ruler simply occupying their provinces and crushing all other regents cripples the game from a simulationist perspective if it is without consequence - given that the action effectively means wholesale slaughter approaching genocide if wiping out every other regent the downsides should be terrible - and long lasting.

That said, if the players want a game where they are god-kings who 'win' the game in a standard timeframe of 2-3 years then occupation needs to be 'free' and conquered provinces 'theirs' immediately for them to have a chance of 'winning' - removing that chance and they just won't play.

A problem is when the player types mix and the 'win' players quite if they 'lose' leaving the story-teller's to pick up the pieces. This appears to be a key factor in d4-1 problems - together with 'free' occupation issues driving out non-realm regents.

Re: Conquered lands - I'd keep gold production, but reduce RP gain (the conquerer is not seen as 'the real king') and penalise realm morale - the taxes then wind up kept low to maintain some semblance of order which drops GB production anyway.

[kgauck]

The tax issue is solved naturally, since its dependent on loyalty and law holdings, if province loyalty remains one step above rebellion until some event takes place, then its not an issue. In EU, you can win a subsequent war and demand the loser withdraw their claims (core). Such recognition that the province was abandoned would start people on the road to accepting their new lord, allowing loyalty to go to rebellion +2 (is that unfriendly?).

The ability to just agitate up is connected here. If I can be a brutal monster, and just agitate all my provinces up to the theoretical maximum, that should be an issue. Just like with an NPC, we might suppose that no matter how many diplomacy checks they make, their treatment of the NPC sets a theoretical maximum to the attitude of the NPC, it only makes sense that loyalty of a province isn't totally fluid, but depends on the circumstances of the ruler's relationship with the province.

Rebellion --
Hostile: regent is keeping the peace, but rebellion might be around the corner. The people are still attached to another regent
Unfriendly: people have accepted that the regent is here to stay, but they would prefer another regent, the regent needs to treat the province decently
Indifferent: regent is neither loved nor hated, regent behaves normally
Friendly: regent is respected and well regarded, regent can demand emergency measures without long term damage to the people, in the face of a real threat, regent is expected to protect, care for, and come to the aid of the people beyond normal circumstances.
Helpful: regent is loved. People accept higher level of demands as long as there are results that enhance the glory, magnificence, or success of the realm. regent can get away with most anything as long as victory and success are the result.

Newly conquered provinces should always be hostile, and have a very high (50%) chance of going into rebellion without a garrison, and a reasonable risk (5%?) with a garrison.

After some demonstration of either the new regent's staying power (defeats the old ruler in a subsequent war) or good will, (acts the hero, defends the people from new threats, provides good justice over the medium term) maximum loyalty becomes unfriendly. You can't impose high taxes and improve the regent's relationship with the people. Moderate taxes is normal. Low taxation is one of those things that demonstrates good will.

At unfriendly, perhaps a high risk (10%) of rebellion without a garrison, and no chance (0%) with a garrison. &c.

Actions which result in a gain of regency should significantly improve poor loyalty and actions which result in a loss of regency should significantly reduce good loyalty.

[AndrewTall]

The slight problem is rulers like Ghoere and Raenech.

I'd try:

Hostile: the regent is seen as an usurper or unworthy to rule. Corruption is rife, with a significant proportion actively trying to undermine the regent's rule - even at risk to themselves.

Unfriendly: people accepted that the regent is currently in charge, but would prefer a 'proper' ruler who is native / competent / blessed / etc. When forced to they aid the ruler, though most try to pervert the rulers commands or ensure they benefit from any actions whenever they think it won't be noticed. The folk would prefer the rule of a better regent but not enough to really do anything about it.

Indifferent: Regent is mostly ignored unless they do something out of the ordinary to cause a temporary swing in loyalty. The main hope of the people is to be left alone and they expect such so long as they pay their taxes and don't bother the regent.

Friendly: regent is respected and accepted as the ruler through either love or fear. The people accept severe temporary measures as necessary sacrifice for the good of the realm or as the price for peace, but they expect to be kept safe and free from change.

Helpful: regent is loved or feared, but most of all they are accepted as the unquestioned ruler. People accept significant demands and jump to fulfill the regents will, they look down on less fortunate realms with weak rulers and consider themselves blessed for having a powerful/munificent ruler. In return for their loyalty the people expect their regent to be victorious, protect them from all harm, stamp down on corruption and waste, and be clear in their rule.

I like the idea of maximums - fear only goes so far even for abominations like the Gorgon. I'd say goblins likely also suffer from topping out at friendly, dwarves may bottom out at hostile for any dwarven ruler, etc.