Anatomy of a Holding

[HimekawaMiyako]

Searching information from the book of regency, we discover what law holdings are in relation to their number in development.

For example, Law(4) means the beginnings of true legal systems; before regents were only beginning to establish their power base. Law(0) represents a few contacts in the province.

Does anyone know where similar information can be found for the other types of holdings?

What does Guild(3) or Guild (5) represent?
Any information at all on any of the holding types should be noted.

Please search diligently. :cool:

[Gheal]

Book of Magecraft and Book of Priestcraft have information about sources and temples, respectively. But, IMO, keep in mind province and holding levels ratio - in province (1) temple (1) means one priest in every significant village, in province (3) this can be literally 2-3 temples, but staffed with this same number of people.
And welcome to the club! :)

[Birthright-L]

As Gheal notes, there`s good stuff in the BoP and BoM.

The holdings tend to scale up in respect to the significance and
manifestation as the levels increase. That is, a temple(1) is a
shrine. A temple(3) is a medium sized monastery and two shrines. A
temple(5) is a large cathedral, two medium monasteries and four
shrines. All such manifestations are staffed by appropriate numbers
and levels of NPCs. That is, a cathedral has a 7th level (or so)
priest, two 4-6 level deacons and 4-6 acolytes who are 1st through
3rd level. Etc.

However, there`s nothing explicitly stated in the system that
mandates that a holding of level X at the domain level must be
represented by a particular set of manifestations at what we might
want to view as the adventure level. There`s more than a little
interpretation possible in that explanation. For instance, the
priests of Erik don`t tend to build temples at all, so their temple
manifestations would be entirely congregations and holy/natural
locations that might manifest more along the lines of a circle of
stones rather than an actual building, and the NPC or NPCs who
"occupy" that manifestation could be hermits, local clan shaman, a
village elder, etc.


Gary

[HimekawaMiyako]

Miyako will work on something like an example guideline. Helping people to know what they have, if they control a Holding of X level could be helpful. We plan to make a non-Cerilia setting, so she will strive to keep it with 'more example, less flavor'.

[HimekawaMiyako]

Holding Levels: Assets and Resources
This note is a guideline detailing in brief what each holding level represents. It strives to avoid specifics, because the exact form a holding takes can vary considerably. Different cultures, different regents, changing times and strategies; holdings are like the mist over water as winter flows homeward.

Level 0 Holding
These are vast potential; trouble waiting to happen or trees with delicious fruits. They encompass contacts with agendas supported by a regent (not necessarily without some stealth or deceit involved).
Regents generally must ensure they save face should the worst happen. If they do not, political rivals will often take the opportunity to stain their reputation whether something heinous was occurring or not.
Contacts are not capable of ‘extensive government influence’. They confer minor favors, and probably have information about vital identities or resources.
Contacts are essential on the first steps of the path to a tangible power base.
Government officials being bribed for favors, small groups of spies, a terrorist cell, an ambitious farmer with a new food recipe, or a few missionaries preaching and looking for converts are some examples.

Level 0 Structures
If there are any structures, they will likely make use of the surrounding landscape or cityscape; temporary nature is the guideline. Possibilities include tents, caravans, street stalls, or repurposed houses. Lackeys of Regents will make use of the resources their master’s Contacts have.

Level 0 Activities
These holdings are probably involved in some kind of ‘petty scheme’, influencing court cases, or in the case of guilds trying to secure favorable trade contracts for their regent. They could involve scouts doing surveys to uncover hidden farms in the case of a law holding. All groups might engage in selling goods and promotions to the public. Street stalls with an exotic merchandise, posting legal or illegal fliers, writing graffiti in prominent places, giving out free tissues with advertisements, handing out scripture; the options for small activities are as varied as the imagination.

Level 1-3 Holding
Turbulent balances of power like lilies floating on the tranquil pond. Its presence is noticed and appreciated, but given little respect because it is still like the tides of the ocean. Sometimes it has influence, and other times it does not, guided by the whims of fate.

Note: Does everyone feel that this is the right direction for something like this?

[AndrewTall]

An alternative to looking at the holding as ownership based is to consider it as influence based.

So L0 might be a reputation as a wise person, a fair arbiter, one schooled in learned discourse etc - others come to the regent for advice, and often follow the regent's guidance, but the influence is either limited locally, or relatively weak - they listen to the regent but pay more attention to the local lord and his troupe of leg-breakers.

So L0 province might be recognition by a single town or handful of villages, restricted feudal rights across a wider area, wide dominance but with multiple sub-vassals with strong rights leaving little purely to the discretion of the lord, etc.

I prefer the influence approach as it encourages holdings to be seen as fluid and discourages a dictatorial view by players - if Regent A contests regent B and then rules up the now-vacant slot, they do not need to have burned regent B to the ground, slaughtered followers, etc and then built from scratch - they can simply have convinced regent B's people to follow the guidance of regent A

[HimekawaMiyako]

A very strong post, it is a little scary!

That idea is a good one, but it is nice to have a guideline about what things could be.
The thinking appears to be something like ‘total conquer!’ when it does not have to be like that at all.
Here comes a strong statement. Does that mean a Regent must ‘sack the enemy’ to increase their holding level, if we try out the approach of deciding ‘this level could have this many structures’?

Of course it does not have to be like that. Shrines could be repurposed, or leveled, or become disused. There is historical precedent for defacing things, or making them different; incorporating them into existing pantheons as ‘pretty much the same’ for example.
More influence often means more wealth, more followers, and more temporal things.
Something often grows from a monastery to a sprawling complex of pagodas, temples, shrines and effigies. Villages can even spring up around the area, a pilgrimage town.

If Regents gain more influence, they do not have to destroy the other holding, maybe people just stop going. What we can do is add notation:

Note: This is merely an idea, holdings could be represented by anything because they are a fluid concept.

And we can also add an influence category, and comparison categories.

Looking forward to working together, even if it is just to receive some scary input!

These ideas are valuable.

[SirRobin]

I've also preferred to look at holdings more on a "how much influence" rather than "how many buildings" scale. It lets it remain more fluid.

[Gheal]

Different types of holdings have different ways of development and destruction. "Spiritual" holdings (Temples and to some extent Law in BR) can be "built" without much actual architectural buildings. You can judge your subjects under great oak, and preach from atop the cliff. "Polis is not its walls nor buildings, polis is its people". (I'm sorry for my sloppy citing of Xenophontus) Contest of these holdings is more about winning hearts and souls of people.
Most industrial holdings (Guilds in BR) must have some real estate property - stores, stables, sometimes factories and docks. When guild is contested, this property must change hands or be destroyed. Well, it can fall in disuse and disrepair also, but winner usually uses all he can pull from other side of conflict.
Magic holdings are entirely different. Contestants do not bicker about people or property - they influensed the land itself.

Just my 2 cp :)

[AndrewTall]

Guilds do not need to the the primary manufacturers/etc, they can be rights - a guild with a regal monopoly on all smith work may not own a single forge - its members certainly do, but not the guild itself.

If a holding = property then 1 GB must be sufficient to build that property, and it should be possible to build all the necessary property from ground zero to city size in a single year if you wish to keep the existing rules on ruling holdings. Similarly if a holding = pure property, then contesting a powerful guild down sharply probably means mass pillaging, burning of shops and warehouses etc - something that requires a legal response from even the most corrupt/lethargic regent.

If a holding = a mix of property and influence, then rather than creating all that property (and potentially creating people) you are simply convincing people to follow you, gaining rights over them, etc. That allows very rapid rises and falls in holding level without defying belief and permits such rises and falls without necessary impacting other holdings.

[Vicente]

Well, 2e Birthright allowed for very fast falls, but not very fast rises. The rules for ruling and contesting are not symmetric at all. I like more the BRCS rule that Contest takes 1d3 levels out, but even with that there's always something weird about Contest, it feels too aggressive, not competition over influence.

Some games have a "Contested Rule Holding", where you rule up and take a level from another holding in the province, that feels much better with the description of trying to win the influence of others (at least for me).

[Birthright-L]

At 03:47 AM 7/16/2010, SirRobin wrote:

I`ve also preferred to look at holdings more on a "how much influence" rather than "how many buildings" scale. It lets it remain more fluid.


If you`re thinking of holdings "in the abstract" then the math of the system is pretty simple. A holding (1) in a province with a population level of 4 represents influence over 25% of that population`s legal, economic or religious life. A similar sized source holding in a province that has a potential source level of 4 is similarly 25% of the magical energies of that province. How much influence that influence represents is a little generalized. That is, I don`t think a guild(4) in a province(4) necessarily means that the guilder is in control of every ha-penny that changes hands in that region. Rather, the guilder`s influence is probably more like a tax (10% to 20%, maybe 50% depending on how one wants to interpret things) on the large scale economic activity of the region. Similarly, a temple ruler who controlled all the possible holding levels in a province would not become a monotheistic religion, but would have influence over all the temples whether they were dedicated to the same god has s/he or not. That is, they all "kick up" a percentage of their tithes to the temple regent, or maybe they just make a symbolic tribute to him/er on a regular basis. (A gift of earth and water if one were inclined to think of things in the 300/Persian Empire kind of way....) Essentially, those who act in spheres controlled by the regent who controls the respective holdings must do so at the pleasure of that regent--at least for activies that themselves rise to the domain level of play.

For example, an adventurer could probably sell all the booty gained from a foray into a nearby haunted keep without ever dealing with a regent. But the traders to whom he sold the treasure would have to kick up a percentage of his profit to the regent who controls the guild holdings in the area. Similarly, a citizen could offer up any sort of prayer s/he likes in a province and to whichever of the gods they want. However, if anyone were to hold a ceremony worshipping that deity the local temple regent would get wind of it, and likely shut down anyone who "freelanced" using social pressure upon the population. Nobody need necessarily say "get out" to the person holding independent services. They might simply turn away, maybe making some superstitious warding sign as they wander off....

To get around that social pressure would require a domain level action to create a Holding(0). Then the person has a foothold. He still has no influence, really. People might not show up at his services, but they don`t turn away either.

Even in the abstract, there are still some gaming effects that you might want to consider. For instance, I`ve always thought it made sense to have the holdings represent the ability of a regent to perform general administrative activities. A regent who controlled a law(4) holding in a province with a population level of 6 might be able to learn the whereabouts of a particular criminal should that person be in hiding. The chances of that happening might depend on he size of the law holding less the levels of the population that are NOT influenced. The aforementioned regent might have a 2 in 10 (4 levels -2 levels uncontrolled) chance per day to get info on his target.

Guild and temple regents might have a similar ability, though one less directly related to finding a particular person. A guilder might use this sort of thing to locate a lost/stolen item. A temple ruler might be able to use this ability to have a scribe/cleric in his employ create a copy of a book. Etc.

Gary

[HimekawaMiyako]

So many answers, and none of them that really share the same feelings as Miyako. :o

Holding Levels: Assets and Resources
This note is a guideline detailing in brief what each holding level represents. The exact form a holding takes can vary considerably. Different cultures, different regents, changing times and strategies; holdings are like the mist over water as winter flows homeward.

Influence
The influence section concerns a theoretical, general opinion of the population of the region toward a Regent with a specific holding level. Although regents may have a strong reputation preceding them, people do not usually respect them without seeing a tangible representation of power. Otherwise, since all things are transient, why should they care?
Rights and reputation will not necessarily command everyone.

Level 0 Holding
These are vast potential; trouble waiting to happen or trees with delicious fruits. They encompass contacts with agendas supported by a regent (not necessarily without some stealth or deceit involved).
Regents generally must ensure they save face should the worst happen. If they do not, political rivals will often take the opportunity to stain their reputation whether something heinous was occurring or not.
Contacts are not capable of ‘extensive government influence’. They confer minor favors, and probably have information about vital identities or resources.
Contacts are essential on the first steps of the path to a tangible power base.
Government officials being bribed for favors, small groups of spies, a terrorist cell, an ambitious farmer with a new food recipe, or a few missionaries preaching and looking for converts are some examples.

Level 0 Structures
If there are any structures, they will likely make use of the surrounding landscape or cityscape; temporary nature is the guideline. Possibilities include tents, caravans, street stalls, or repurposed houses. Lackeys of Regents will make use of the resources their master’s Contacts have.

Level 0 Activities
These holdings are probably involved in some kind of ‘petty scheme’, influencing court cases, or in the case of guilds trying to secure favorable trade contracts for their regent. They could involve scouts doing surveys to uncover hidden farms in the case of a law holding. All groups might engage in selling goods and promotions to the public. Street stalls with exotic merchandise, posting legal or illegal fliers, writing graffiti in prominent places, giving out free tissues with advertisements, handing out scripture; the options for small activities are as varied as the imagination.

Level 0 Influence
The regent has a reputation for being a powerful, but distant and inconsequential political figure. The people might know about the regent, or be aware of historical actions depending on how fast news travels. But it is like reading a storybook.
It is also probable that the Regent lacks appropriate rights in the legal sense, or has few family ties to ensure their authority.

Level 1-3 Holding
Turbulent balances of power like lilies floating on the tranquil pond. Its presence is noticed and appreciated, but given little authority because it is still like the tides of the ocean. Sometimes it has influence, and other times it does not, guided by the whims of fate. Like the lily, a life of spiritual purity (in this case prudent management) will reveal a transcendent clean blossom.

Level 1 Structures
A small, minor structure is the largest manifestation of temporal power. In the case of a Temple holding it is a Shrine, an effigy, or a roadside guardian; people leave offerings at these places and hope for divine protection.
Guild holdings might have small alleyway shops off a main street or street vendors working out of carts or stalls. They lack the reputation to secure more prominent places, and tend to be ‘hidden treasures’. Manufacturing or resource gathering often involves a personal touch, making use of family skills and household labor.
Products are finished to a high quality because small manufacturers need good reputations to survive. Many seemingly trivial courtesies will be exchanged; finished products will usually take longer and are for a smaller product base. Small groups can only make so much at once.
Law holdings do not yet have very much resource to utilize; they lack appropriate facilities and personnel. The rule of law could be extended by unreliable methods like bounty hunters, thugs, or other subcontractors. If the law has a ‘legitimate’ flavor, perhaps one sheriff can only do so much, or must balance the needs of the populace with their own. For example, the sheriff might not be able to punish a prominent village family because of the prestige they are given.

Does anyone want to try building on this?
We can also include all the good ideas everyone posted here.

[Gwrthefyr]

I tend to see holding's direct staff as being roughly equivalent to the character's leadership rating with the holding level as the stronghold bonus; basically a low level character with a 0-level holding and poor Charisma would probably just have a beleaguered assistant stuck there trying to make his best of the situation. Influence networks would be eventually tied to it but I'm never sure how to deal with it, maybe a system similar to the "centers of power" thing but with no real limit and reworked to fit the BR domain rules.

[AndrewTall]

I figure that to get to L0 you are already 'somebody' to several hundred people - and the status will have respect from those people and those about them. As the holding level increases more respect is granted and by more people.

The vast majority of 'minor nobility' never even reach L0, so I would expect L0 to basically be where you 'hit the radar' of the great and good (by definition the great are good, anyone saying otherwise publicly will swiftly regret it).

I would note that I dislike the view that control over 50% of holdings = control over 50% of the total population. I see BR as having many many tiers of power, with nothing like the sort of huge central bureaucracy that we see in the modern world. A guild 4 in a province 4 in my mind controls not 100%, but probably less than 25% of the total large-scale trade, royalty rights, etc - the rest is diffused in a thousand hands and ignored as it is not available for control in any meaningful or permanent sense. A source may be different, but even then I like to think that no level of control is absolute.

[Benjamin]

My take reverts back to the population table we developed for the BRCS.


Table 5-1: Province Level
Level Citizens Largest Settlement
0 ....... 0 ........ Thorp
1 ....... 1,000 .. Hamlet
2 ....... 4,000 .. Village
3 ....... 7,000 .. Small town
4 ...... 10,000 .. Large town
5 ...... 20,000 .. Large town
6 ...... 30,000 .. Small city
7 ...... 40,000 .. Large city
8 ...... 60,000 .. Large city
9 ...... 80,000 .. Metropolis
10 ... 100,000 .. Metropolis

Next I assume that not everyone in a province actively supports the holding, except in a few specific realms (temples in Ghamoura certainly, Talinie perhaps). Then I look at the holding.

A guild (1) in a province (2) has up to 1,000 people of the 4,000 people (max, much likely less) living there using its services. This means that when all the guilds are accounted for, there are still several thousand people not served by the guilds. I consider this loss due to competition (mud slinging turns off consumers) and inefficiency.

The same applies to temples. A temple (2) in a province (3) [max 7,000 people] has up to 4,000 people supporting the faith. Another faith in the province may have up to 1,000 supporters. The rest of the people can't decide which church they like, don't go to church, don't have time to attend, etc.

If a guild or temple obtains total dominance in a province, then almost all the people are more likely to support it, whether out of fear (thugs or damnation) or social convention. A few guild (0) or temple (0) may occur from time to time, but these have very few supporters (a few score at best).

[dooley]

Unfortunately there's a serious flaw when you apply the above system to more populated areas.
The extreme case of the Imperial City shows this to the greatest effect:
At least 84,000 people without any real religion, and 91,000 who the guilds don't make a copper from.

[Retillin]

Unfortunately there's a serious flaw when you apply the above system to more populated areas.
The extreme case of the Imperial City shows this to the greatest effect:
At least 84,000 people without any real religion, and 91,000 who the guilds don't make a copper from.

It's 40,000 people left free with religion and 80,000 with the guilds. However do remember one thing. These are just the leaders and money movers who make regency. It does talk about the "old" guilds in the city that still control much of the trade, they just are not the same power brokers that Guilder Kalien and the rest of the guilds are.

In the second ed rules, you could not build a holding higher than a level 7. This was done, at least I think it was done, to prevent a 100% monopoly. To allow others to want to fight and have a reason to fight for control of such a prized holding, even if it's only a 3 in a 10.

[dooley]

It's 40,000 people left free with religion and 80,000 with the guilds. However do remember one thing. These are just the leaders and money movers who make regency. It does talk about the "old" guilds in the city that still control much of the trade, they just are not the same power brokers that Guilder Kalien and the rest of the guilds are.

In the second ed rules, you could not build a holding higher than a level 7. This was done, at least I think it was done, to prevent a 100% monopoly. To allow others to want to fight and have a reason to fight for control of such a prized holding, even if it's only a 3 in a 10.

I'll stand by my numbers:
WIT(3)=up to 7000, LPA&MOC(2ea.)=up to 4000 each, CJS(1)=up to 1000
Therefore a maximum of 16,000
With minimums of 6004 if you always have at least the maximum of the next lower level, and EIGHT if you only need to have more people than the lower level

Could you give a page number for the limit on holding levels as I can't seem to locate it.
Closest I can find is that you don't get any more income if the PROVINCE is above 7, or your holding is above 6th level on table 18 (p43)

I'll also say that it's only the numbers i have a problem with, the idea that you control up to your share and not merely your share is a valid one.
Mind you the horrors of company towns with company stores is valid if one person controls ALL of a holding type

[AndrewTall]

The numbers make much more sense if you make the system linear, 1 point of population = 10,000 hearths / taxpayers / people / frog owners / etc.

An alternative is to say that in any medieval setting you should only be measuring 'cream' though, the vast majority of activity is barely above subsistence and would not generate the free capital that the realm system takes as a given, as such the bulk of the people 'should' be 'free' - perhaps you could take a 'core members' approach under the standard population where the lower number is the number of members under central direction and the remainder are associated but simply beyond practical control.

[dooley]

The numbers make much more sense if you make the system linear, 1 point of population = 10,000 hearths / taxpayers / people / frog owners / etc.

An alternative is to say that in any medieval setting you should only be measuring 'cream' though, the vast majority of activity is barely above subsistence and would not generate the free capital that the realm system takes as a given, as such the bulk of the people 'should' be 'free' - perhaps you could take a 'core members' approach under the standard population where the lower number is the number of members under central direction and the remainder are associated but simply beyond practical control.

IMO a linear system like you suggest is even worse at low levels than the above suggested system is at high ones. I just can't see 10,000 families moving to a wild province just because you pay a single GB.

Whilst there may be some merit in your "measuring the cream" as far as Guilds go, Temples are another thing entirely.
Birthright priests are performing miracles daily so there'll be more bums on seats than the comparable RL issue where a guy who said we should care for each other was nailed to a tree

[AndrewTall]

Ruling L0 to L1 should not, in my view, mean 10,000 families moving to a wild land. What it should mean in my view is the movement of several hundred families a year over a decade or two in exchange for cheap land, low rent, etc; the acceptance of the local families to rule by the lord; and the beginning of a semblance of efficient government. The former L0 province representing a mixture of low population, uncontrolled population, and wastage in the rule in its level rating.

Also look at the numbers as the average in a range, L0 could be 0 - 5,000, L1 5,000- 15,000; L2 is 15,000 - 25,000, etc - the average is n/a, 10k, 20k, etc but allows provinces to grow by one level or two in a game without stretching realism too much.

The population growth is the weakest area of the BR domain system, I modify it to make ruling much more costly (typically the square of the proposed level), slow growth via the build action rules, etc - not much impacts the lowest end but then you will always get issues there.

Your church point is noted, although I do wonder of the impact of a pantheistic system as opposed to a monotheism on the political power of any one church, it has been noted on br.net before though that in RL people also thought that the church performed 'real' miracles (some still do) and that magic should not necessarily drive religion to be even more dominant than it was in history. While most church domains should have spell casting clerics in their ranks (if not all), there is also the issue of magicians and wizards who 'prove' that worship is not necessary to wield miracles - and of course the sidhe are notorious magic users undermining the miraculous nature of clerical magic.

[dooley]

Ruling L0 to L1 should not, in my view, mean 10,000 families moving to a wild land. What it should mean in my view is the movement of several hundred families a year over a decade or two in exchange for cheap land, low rent, etc; the acceptance of the local families to rule by the lord; and the beginning of a semblance of efficient government. The former L0 province representing a mixture of low population, uncontrolled population, and wastage in the rule in its level rating.

Also look at the numbers as the average in a range, L0 could be 0 - 5,000, L1 5,000- 15,000; L2 is 15,000 - 25,000, etc - the average is n/a, 10k, 20k, etc but allows provinces to grow by one level or two in a game without stretching realism too much.

The population growth is the weakest area of the BR domain system, I modify it to make ruling much more costly (typically the square of the proposed level), slow growth via the build action rules, etc - not much impacts the lowest end but then you will always get issues there.

Your church point is noted, although I do wonder of the impact of a pantheistic system as opposed to a monotheism on the political power of any one church, it has been noted on br.net before though that in RL people also thought that the church performed 'real' miracles (some still do) and that magic should not necessarily drive religion to be even more dominant than it was in history. While most church domains should have spell casting clerics in their ranks (if not all), there is also the issue of magicians and wizards who 'prove' that worship is not necessary to wield miracles - and of course the sidhe are notorious magic users undermining the miraculous nature of clerical magic.

We're drifting more into opinions about the anatomy of a province, and what you're doing in your campaign is different than me in mine, not better, just different. if you want to continue maybe we should create a different thread.

[AndrewTall]

We're drifting more into opinions about the anatomy of a province, and what you're doing in your campaign is different than me in mine, not better, just different. if you want to continue maybe we should create a different thread.

To each their own, if you are having fun with your approach then it is better than mine for you - no argument. :)

In terms of anatomy though the perception of what a holding is has a huge effect on what the holding consists of. Personally I'd have the desired game-style drive the mechanic, so:

I want a game where mechanically:
1. All holding types are roughly comparable, rulers have an edge, but not overwhelmingly so.
2. Holdings can be ruled up for a small number of GB per level, not requiring dozens of GB per level.
3. Holdings can shift between regents in the course of a few years, possibly even a few seasons
4. Holdings can 'change type' relatively easily - so a 'temple of haelyn' can become a 'temple of cuiraecen' without the need for 50 years of bloodbath and religious strife and a 'mining guild' can become part of an 'export guild' without the need for vast expenditure and mass unemployement.
5. Provinces can grow a level in years not over generations within reason.
6. Contest does not mean war.

Those game-play style desires dictate my approach to designing the anatomy of a holding.

So if we look at the power of RL religions in a medieval world, add 'real' miracles, and consider the outcome you are perfectly correct - the obvious outcome is that priests will absolutely dominate - to the point that over half the law, a slice of the guilds, and many whole provinces should be ruled by the temples and vassalage agreements (in mechanic terms solely) from rulers to priests would be commonplace - if other holdings were even possible. So to achieve '1' I need to find some way of socially weakening priests. As you note panteonism may not be a strong method (other suggestions welcome) but some method is necessary one for '1' to be possible. Similarly the 'pillage' action needs to be reined in to stop rulers being utterly dominant so I make it have major social consequences.

Wishlist item 2 dictates that the holding is mainly influence - 1, even 10 GB simply can't build the infrastructure for an entire domain to reflect a single level. A business takes years to grow, it takes generations to spread the faith, etc - so 'the basics' all need to be present at sub-domain level rather than being part of it. When considering the anatomy of a holding then 2 dominates my approach, the anatomy can't be barns, bridges, directly controlled & dominated groups etc since that totally conflicts with the needs of 2. I make a unsupportable exception for 'special structures' since those are fun, but theoretically those are hard to justify.

3 and 4 are desired to permit players/npcs to exchange holdings (willingly or otherwise), take over independent holdings, etc in a game timescale. If by contrast every domain led by a temple of Haelyn is 100% Haelyn worshippers all following the same creed, etc then socially there is no way to explain the holding being contested and taken over by a temple of Avani in just a few years - but you can explain that takeover if the anatomy of the holding is that a Haelynic temple dominates politically, but many of the sub-temples and members churches follow other faiths and simply accept the Haelynic temple as their leader.

5. Allowing growth means either allowing variation in population within bands (so growth is a few hundred on top of the nearly there, not 10,000 from sratch), fluidity in measurement (is it 10k people, 10k taxpayers, 10k hearths, etc) or allowing population to mean effective control, a balance between control and inefficiency/corruption, etc. If I stick to 'bums on seats' (which I accept is the obvious perception of the stated mechanic) then growth is generational or immigration based only. 5 also therefore dictates the anatomy of a province holding with various knock-on effects.

6. Being able to contest, rule, etc should be possible without requiring open warfare, mass murder, etc as otherwise social constraints make fluidity difficult. So I need a way for guilder A and B to contest, etc without the ruler feeling obliged to intervene. If the anatomy is that guild A owns 2 factories, three streets of craftsmen, 26 barns, etc then when they are contested down a level guild B must have carried out mass murder, arson, etc, etc - and the ruler must act or be exposed as powerless. If however Guild A has those assets at sub-domain level, and is in itself a network of vassalge agreements, trade rights, monopolies, etc then guild B is merely arguing legal rights, persuading right-holders to favour them, etc and can do so with minimal impact on other regents.

[dooley]

whilst agreeing with several of your conclusions I disagree with several of the "Axioms" you've used to reach them.

As a basic example I'm all for it being expensive to rule up a holding, and hellishly expensive to rule up a province.

[Vicente]

I'm my games I prefer ruling holdings to be as cheap as possible, so contest is more a grab for influence than "I'm trying to destroy your huge investment".

Buildings attached to holdings or provinces are the expensive things :)

[AndrewTall]

I'm my games I prefer ruling holdings to be as cheap as possible, so contest is more a grab for influence than "I'm trying to destroy your huge investment".

Buildings attached to holdings or provinces are the expensive things :)

That's my take as well - I know players who will still declare war to the bitter end over a contest against a L1 holding, but if the cost is moderate then it is possible for others to be reasonable, 'damages paid', etc.



whilst agreeing with several of your conclusions I disagree with several of the "Axioms" you've used to reach them.

As a basic example I'm all for it being expensive to rule up a holding, and hellishly expensive to rule up a province.

To each their own :) my point was that the axioms drive the mechanics, which in turn impact the interpretation of the make-up of the holding - and vice versa, not to try and say that my way is the best way.

Do you have problems with players getting unsatisfied over the rule holding difficulty? That was the original reason for me making the cost relatively cheap (relatively in this case meaning a player should expect to be able to rule up an uncontested holding every round given 2 other anodyne actions).

Province cost needs to be high to prevent exponential growth and to encourage regents to look outwards, but I like rulers being able to rule up tiny provinces (L0-2) fairly easy - one a year, possibly 1 every 2 seasons, L(+1) squared may be excessive though, what do you use?

[dooley]

That's my take as well - I know players who will still declare war to the bitter end over a contest against a L1 holding, but if the cost is moderate then it is possible for others to be reasonable, 'damages paid', etc.



To each their own :) my point was that the axioms drive the mechanics, which in turn impact the interpretation of the make-up of the holding - and vice versa, not to try and say that my way is the best way.

Do you have problems with players getting unsatisfied over the rule holding difficulty? That was the original reason for me making the cost relatively cheap (relatively in this case meaning a player should expect to be able to rule up an uncontested holding every round given 2 other anodyne actions).

Province cost needs to be high to prevent exponential growth and to encourage regents to look outwards, but I like rulers being able to rule up tiny provinces (L0-2) fairly easy - one a year, possibly 1 every 2 seasons, L(+1) squared may be excessive though, what do you use?

Currently I'm having no "major" problems with my players, they're the usual sort who sometimes just don't get it is all.

I'm using what is in effect an influence and infrastructure way or ruling things up. In addition to the cost of the Rule action they already have to have spent (L+1) squared in building improvements for a province (less for a holding).

Mind you I am running in the Giantdowns where there isn't really any infrastructure to begin with, I'd probably do things a bit different in the Anuirian heartlands as they've been semi civilised for centuries and already have some infrastructure.

Additionally it takes some time between the rule action and when the population finally all arrives, or the holding improves.
(L+1) squared /L seasons for a province if there is surplus population (war refugees, unsettled tribes in Rjurik/Khinasi lands, large province nearby to poach settlers from etc.) with modifiers due to terrain, roads/rivers, low taxes etc. The obvious dividing by zero when raising a province to L1 merely means it occurs that season. Holdings take twice their level in actions to increase.

[AndrewTall]

Currently I'm having no "major" problems with my players, they're the usual sort who sometimes just don't get it is all.

I'm using what is in effect an influence and infrastructure way or ruling things up. In addition to the cost of the Rule action they already have to have spent (L+1) squared in building improvements for a province (less for a holding).

I've toyed with level squared for province, never actually tried it. I hadn't split out the infrastructure cost and the action, but I'd figured that failure should just delay success rather than wiping the slate clean. Would you amortise the infrastructure if they didn't suceed in the rule action after several tries?



Mind you I am running in the Giantdowns where there isn't really any infrastructure to begin with, I'd probably do things a bit different in the Anuirian heartlands as they've been semi civilised for centuries and already have some infrastructure.

Also all the provinces in the downs are small - level squared is 1, 4, 9, 16... it gets very tough to rule a province past level 3/2 with squaring the cost or L+1 squared.



Additionally it takes some time between the rule action and when the population finally all arrives, or the holding improves.

That was my thought behind using the build action rules (1d4 spend per season or slightly more if you hurry) for the rule action - the actions then led to an inevitable delay for larger province rule attempts.

[dooley]

Once built the infrastructure does remain and counts against any future Rule attempt, and does marginally increase the natural population growth too.

Sorry I didn't mention that the infrastructure of other holdings helps offset the costs. Barracks, Town hall, Mill, Inns, Healer Hall etc. things that people will want to live near and form a nucleus for expansion.
With the major buildings named, and Paid for by the PCs, there's more emotional content when it gets destroyed for whatever reason

Putting a road in so that people can more easily get to where you want them also reduces the infrastructure costs

[AndrewTall]

With the major buildings named, and Paid for by the PCs, there's more emotional content when it gets destroyed for whatever reason

Now that's a side benefit of a holding = buildings approach that I hadn't considered, adds to book-keeping bu the player can track it so no harm to the long suffering GM. You could use that with a more abstract system to a degree but it wouldn't be quite the same, naming/describing military brotherhoods and suchlike should have a similar effect though.