Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    BR mailing list
    Posts
    1,538
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Hello,

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

    > > "land" rulers have much more politicial weight (not dependent of the
    > > rp) in a realm (translated in actions, resources,...).
    >
    > Province rulers have more actions? That sounds interesting. Tell me
    more.

    I explained myself badly: not more actions (although they usually get
    "more actions" through lieutenants): different types of actions (some
    actions will be impossible for a ruler without holdings) or importance of
    their actions (but I don´t remember exactly what I wanted to mean with
    that...).

    > Not going to buy it at start, but what about acquiring it during play?

    Acquiring it during play should be hard. So I wouldn´t design my realm
    thinking in that. And also that normally most people have their rp income
    cut by their bloodline, so having another mark is not going to earn you
    something (well, the agitate action is a very nice adition for a ruler). And
    if you are able to rule very well without earning your full bloodline, then
    you surely deserved it ;)

    > But province rulers have it easy. If you want guild slots, you can just
    > Occupy your own provinces for a month and clean everyone else out --
    > unless, of course, the guild you take them from has powerful friends
    > elsewhere. If landed rulers got desperate enough for the money generated
    > by holdings, every nonlanded guild or temple regent in Cerilia could be
    > eliminated practically overnight.

    Well, I don´t see the act of occupaying your own province, destroying
    the holdings and building new ones just so easy. For me, occupaying a
    province and wiping out everyone else is a little hard experience for that
    province. Also that guilds manage trade and resources (another house rule),
    and a realm without resources and his trade routes cut, is a dead realm
    unless is lucky to have enough inner reserves, resources,... to survive
    without a guilder (or enough to get a new one more loyal to the authority
    ;). So you can´t go so happily destroying holdings. In our games we have the
    same opinion towards law claims: they are a "violent" action against a
    holding. It´s like telling someone that he is not welcome. Welcomed holding
    rulers normally pay some taxes to the king, but if the king taxes someone,
    problems are going to start. In the end is the same result, but the way it´s
    done is different.

    > I think the action is badly named. I use it to mean simply "conduct
    > military operations for a month," which is precisely how the rulebook uses
    > it -- if they hadn`t called it *declare* war, I think there would have
    > been much less tinkering with the rules for it. I`ve not completely
    > settled on an alternate name for it, but at present I kind of like calling
    > it just "Combat". The actual declaration of war in the modern sense is an
    > instantaneous political act, best implemented in BR IMO if at all by a pro
    > forma Decree action, or possibly Diplomacy if you want to get fancy. I
    > really like the idea expressed in the rules that fighting a foreign war
    > takes up large portions of the regent`s time, and thereby reduces the
    > amount of attention available to be paid to domestic political issues.

    You have a good point about the action name. Declare war to another
    domain fits more a decree or diplomacy action. But I don´t like wars taking
    so much time from a regent. It´s probably less logical and correct, but we
    like it more this way (my players don´t like to spend actions in wars, they
    don´t like to play combats,... and I´m a fan of strategy and I finish
    playing the battles me vs me ;)

    > True, but this is one of the reasons I asked about whether you allowed
    > people to gain marks during play -- since bloodline can be increased by
    > spending RP (yes, it`s expensive, but it is possible), if marks can`t then
    > if you`re planning for the long term it makes sense at the start to pick a
    > relatively low bloodline and lots of marks to "grow into".

    Well, the rp you spend incresasing your blood strenght take a lot of
    time to pay of. I haven´t seen many people increase their bloodline during a
    game. And you would need quite a lot of time to get the full potential of
    the mark rp collection (and I don´t think the other beneficts pay for a low
    bloodline).

    > Oh yes! If you can get your hands on the "Blood Enemies" book, I think
    > you will find a great many things of interest.

    I´ll try to get one copy, but here in spain is quite hard to find
    birthright books (I have only found heavens. The campaign setting is from
    england). I think I´ll start buying esd downloads and search for a nice
    place to print them.

    > OK, I still don`t quite get how this works. Where is the restriction? If
    > I have 2,000 GB in my treasury but my income is only 5 GB per season, how
    > many RP do I get? Gaining RP from income, maybe -- but gaining it from
    > savings seems like opening the door to disastrous compound interest.

    If you have 2000 gb in your treasury, you get 20% of that: 400 RP (but I
    think your bloodline will limit that big number ;). One of my players get
    his rp from that (he started with 120 gb -> 24 RP, not so many). And well,
    he is having lots of problems for having such a big quantity of money saved
    (thiefs, neighbours asking for loans, neighbours asking for tribute,...).
    It´s true that if you go to the extreme, you get very high numbers
    (althought bloodline will continue limiting that numbers), but I have to
    find someone with 2000 gb saved ;) But the point you give about doing the
    math with the income sounds good too.

    Great points again. Greetings,

    Vicente

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
    NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.

  2. #12
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
    Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 1:46 PM

    > But province rulers have it easy. If you want guild slots, you can just
    > Occupy your own provinces for a month and clean everyone else out[.]

    I think that makes for bad gaming as well as curious social theory. Bad
    gaming in the sense that its impossible to explain why common 1st turn
    actions were not done the day before yesterday. Bad gaming in the sense
    that its terribly unbalanced. Its curious social theory in the sense that
    it really can`t be explained as a universal rule. Protestant and Catholic
    landed rulers tried to do this kind of thing for a little over a hundred
    years, and it just didn`t work very well at all. Guilders have proved very
    slippery regarding such actions. In terms of their networks of trade, the
    networks either shift to smuggling, or are merely temporarily suppresed
    (more akin to a contested holding).

    It is commonly assumed that if I have 4 levels of temple in a level 4
    province that I have something approximating 100% devotion of the population
    to my god and my doctrines. Should an attack on that temple be possible
    with nothing more than a -1 loyalty grade? One has to imagine that the
    bonds between templars and worshipers are so weak that if soliders come by
    and hang a "closed" sign on the temple, they`ll grumble about it, buts its
    basically a done deal.

    I contend that its not so easy to eliminate holdings rulers.

    Kenneth Gauck
    kgauck@mchsi.com

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Malden, MA
    Posts
    761
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Zaor wrote:

    > I explained myself badly: not more actions (although they usually get
    > "more actions" through lieutenants): different types of actions (some
    > actions will be impossible for a ruler without holdings)

    Oh, OK.

    > Acquiring it during play should be hard.
    > So I wouldn`t design my realm thinking in that.

    Is your campaign mostly about rulership or adventuring? If rulership, I
    find it hard to believe that everyone isn`t planning to grow their domains.
    Sure, it shouldn`t be easy, or where would the fun and challenge be, but
    it ought to be happening at least a little.

    > And also that normally most people have their rp income cut by their
    > bloodline, so having another mark is not going to earn you something

    True.

    > Well, I don`t see the act of occupaying your own province, destroying
    > the holdings and building new ones just so easy. For me, occupaying a
    > province and wiping out everyone else is a little hard experience for
    > that province.

    Well, yes. Hard on the province, but still rather easy to pull off.
    But as you say, difficult to live with the effects of:

    > a realm without resources and his trade routes cut, is a dead realm
    > unless is lucky to have enough inner reserves, resources,... to
    > survive without a guilder (or enough to get a new one more loyal to
    > the authority ;). So you can`t go so happily destroying holdings.

    But if you can`t get a guilder to play along, sometimes you need to become
    one yourself. Ideally you would just take the holdings by Investiture.
    If not, then you`d want to Occupy while your enemies were busy elsewhere,
    because it will take time and a substantial investment (of actions, RP and
    GB) in the Rule action to recover the lost holding levels.

    > In our games we have the same opinion towards law claims: they are a
    > "violent" action against a holding. It`s like telling someone that he
    > is not welcome. Welcomed holding rulers normally pay some taxes

    I see things completely differently. IMO, law claims are precisely the
    taxes that all other holdings normally pay.

    > You have a good point about the action name. Declare war to another
    > domain fits more a decree or diplomacy action.

    Glad you agree.

    > But I don`t like wars taking so much time from a regent. It`s probably
    > less logical and correct, but we like it more this way

    To each his own, I suppose. I like that it takes time, and that it seems
    more logical.

    > and I`m a fan of strategy and I finish playing the battles me vs me ;)

    *grin* Me too. I`m more a wargamer than a roleplayer, which is precisely
    what drew me to Birthright -- finally, a moderately workable system for
    running your own fantasy country! The domain rulership chapter of the old
    D&D Companion Set had some good ideas, but was so low-level (needing to
    know the number of families engaged in each industry, for example) that it
    was practically impossible to use to run anything bigger than a single
    province (3).

    > Well, the rp you spend incresasing your blood strenght take a lot of
    > time to pay of. I haven`t seen many people increase their bloodline
    > during a game.

    I quite agree. Hence my recent posts about liking systems to provide
    additional incentives for spending on bloodline growth, or allow
    bloodlines to grow a little on their own without spending.

    > And you would need quite a lot of time to get the full potential of
    > the mark rp collection (and I don`t think the other beneficts pay for
    > a low bloodline).

    Perhaps.

    > I think I`ll start buying esd downloads and search for a nice place to
    > print them.

    Good plan!

    > If you have 2000 gb in your treasury, you get 20% of that: 400 RP

    So then why does having income or expenses matter?

    > (but I think your bloodline will limit that big number ;).

    Well, quite. But plugging really big numbers into formulas helps me spot
    potential problems.

    > but I have to find someone with 2000 gb saved ;)

    I was thinking of a dragon or lich or other secretive, ancient, powerful
    being (for whom a 4 million gp value hoard is actually not that
    unreasonable based on the treasure tables); if you allow RP to accumulate
    indefinitely, they could hide in a hole with their pile of cash, spending
    RP to increase their bloodline as desired, and then emerge after a few
    centuries with immensely huge numbers of RP saved up, ready to conquer the
    world without trying too hard. If you`re a "regent" of nothing but a pile
    of gold, there shouldn`t be many demands on your time.


    Ryan Caveney

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Malden, MA
    Posts
    761
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

    > From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
    > > But province rulers have it easy. If you want guild slots, you can just
    > > Occupy your own provinces for a month and clean everyone else out[.]
    >
    > I think that makes for bad gaming as well as curious social theory.
    >
    > Bad gaming in the sense that its impossible to explain why common 1st
    > turn actions were not done the day before yesterday. Bad gaming in the
    > sense that its terribly unbalanced.

    Very true.

    > Its curious social theory in the sense that it really can`t be
    > explained as a universal rule. Protestant and Catholic landed rulers
    > tried to do this kind of thing for a little over a hundred years, and
    > it just didn`t work very well at all.

    Very true.

    > I contend that its not so easy to eliminate holdings rulers.

    I agree this is a rule that ought to be changed, but in the message you
    quote I was discussing a different set of house rules. =)

    How would you go about modifying this rule? Preventing it, and keeping it
    just to the contest action? Allowing occupation, but only letting the
    troops doing it act as additional law holdings to improve the target
    number of the contest action? Would you also change the contest action,
    so that a holding did not simply disappear after a second successful
    contest, but instead only dropped one level?


    Ryan Caveney

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  5. #15
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
    Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 10:34 AM


    > How would you go about modifying [the Occupation] rule?
    > Preventing it, and keeping it just to the contest action?
    > Allowing occupation, but only letting the troops doing it act
    > as additional law holdings to improve the target number of
    > the contest action?

    An Occupation that automatically causes a negative loyalty shift and just
    added the troops as a contest bonus modifier seems about right.

    > Would you also change the contest action, so that a
    > holding did not simply disappear after a second successful
    > contest, but instead only dropped one level?

    I certainly do prefer this method. I view each level of holding as being a
    key NPC and his entourage, or court. El-Hadid has 3 guild holdings in
    Ciliene. I see this as three key figures who can control trade in Ciliene.
    One may be a large sheep merchant, with wool, herds, and meat interests.
    He`s el-Hadid`s man, and his organization is a part of el-Hadid`s Port of
    Call Exchange. Another is the guildmaster of the Blacksmith`s guild in
    Ciliene. He and the blacksmiths have allied with el-Hadid. The third is a
    member of Diemed`s government, the Lord Mayor of Markets in Ciliene who uses
    the rules of the marketplace to favor the merchants given the nod by Port of
    Call. An initial contest action attacks the Port of Call Exchange as an
    organization. Guilder Kalien argues that they cheat their customers. Or,
    maybe the OIT attacks their dishonest and dishonorable practices. Perhaps
    Heirl Diem declares the Port of Call betrays the people of Diemed to foriegn
    interests. Individual merchants conceal their association with the PoCE,
    and so no regency is collected. Even so, customers stay away (including
    wealthy members of the rival holdings) and no profits leave the province.
    But this doesn`t do any long term damage to the holdings of e-Hadid in
    Ciliene. To do that, one or more of these three figures need to be
    arrested, killed, driven out of the province, or discredited before his
    merchantile network. My feeling generally boils down to the idea that it
    takes a single action to remove (by whatever means) each of these key
    figures individually.

    Kenneth Gauck
    kgauck@mchsi.com

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 12:01, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
    > Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 10:34 AM
    >
    >
    > > How would you go about modifying [the Occupation] rule?
    > > Preventing it, and keeping it just to the contest action?
    > > Allowing occupation, but only letting the troops doing it act
    > > as additional law holdings to improve the target number of
    > > the contest action?
    >
    > An Occupation that automatically causes a negative loyalty shift and just
    > added the troops as a contest bonus modifier seems about right.

    I agree.

    Loyalty (first because it`s easier)

    case (i) Province regent "occupies" province by declaration of martial
    law - province regent may have law holding -- case (i)a or not case
    (i)b. The negative shift should occur - but should not be able to be
    ignored by the presence of a large law presence -- after all that`s what
    caused the shift, bringing in more law.

    case (ii) another regent occupies province with troops - creating a
    neutralized or contested province. No RP to anyone - but GB to
    controlling regent (occupier). Province loyalty is automatically
    rebellious toward occupier - remains unchanged toward regent.

    Suppression/Neutralization of Holdings by Armed Troops (the real point)

    Letting each unit of troops act as a point of law holding (whether
    acting together with local law holdings or independently where no law
    holding exists) seems consistent with other actions.

    Automatically allowing the contest of all holdings in the province
    succeed does seem rather harsh (original rule), regardless of who is
    doing the suppression (i) or (ii). Thus I favor dropping the rule too.

    Obviously a regent with a strong law presence and troops will have a
    decided advantage in a contest action against a single holding.

    Perhaps though, allowing each unit of troops to act independently so
    that the controlling regent can perform "Contest Holding(s)" as a realm
    action -- against several holdings in the same province, one per unit,
    plus one for any law holding he may have. Of course the strength of the
    individual Contests where a single law unit is involved is only 1 -- but
    consider that the holdings cannot attack the military unit directly.




    >
    > > Would you also change the contest action, so that a
    > > holding did not simply disappear after a second successful
    > > contest, but instead only dropped one level?
    >
    > I certainly do prefer this method.
    <<SNIP>>
    > My feeling generally boils down to the idea that it
    > takes a single action to remove (by whatever means) each of these key
    > figures individually.
    >

    I don`t think that such a change is dependent on the other changes
    suggested above. However, the pro`s and con`s of changing Contest to
    just drop a single point is a good topic by itself.

    Contest Holding just covers too much ground. It has three functions:
    (a) contest to destroy a neutralized or 0-level holding; destruction
    (B) contest to neutralize an opponent (of dissimilar opponent); to
    reduce their influence; as preparation for destruction -- (a)
    &copy; contest as preparation to rule (of like holding)

    (B) Can of course be used against similar targets too (intention), but
    nonetheless opens the opportunity as &copy; does.

    An assumption is that all domain actions should be roughly similar in
    the degree to which they change the situation.

    We could classify or rename the Contest Holding action into three
    differently determined actions. Therefore:

    (a) Destroy Holding - holdings should be difficult to destroy, and the
    larger they are the more difficult this should be. Only 0-level holdings
    and neutralized holdings can be destroyed. A target holding adds its
    level to the success number. Base success is 20 - province level. Cost
    is 1 GB per target level.

    e.g. Province(7), guild(2), (B) temple(4)
    -- success (Destroy Temple) = 20-7 + 4 = 17
    -- success (Destroy Guild) = 20-7 + 2 = 15

    (B) Neutralize Holding -- temporarily stymie a holding from taking most
    actions or allowing it to participate fully in province activities. It
    should be more difficult to neutralize a larger holding. Base success is
    10, add target level to success number.

    e.g. Province(7), (a) law(6), (B) guild(2)
    -- success (Neutralize Law) = 10 + 6 = 16
    -- success (Neutralize Guild) = 10 + 2 = 12

    &copy; Contest Holding -- a struggle for control of a point of holding
    level, if successful one point of holding changes hands. There is no
    requirement for a rule holding action. Should be more difficult than
    rule holding (d). No province modifiers apply - this is a struggle
    between two regents for control. Base chance is 20 minus the province
    level. It`s harder to contest control in a smaller province where a
    small holding can be a monopoly. Add the larger of the two holding
    levels plus 1.

    e.g. Province(7), guild(2), guild(4)
    -- success (Contest Guild) = 20-7 + 4 + 1 = 18

    Rule Holding has two functions:
    (d) Increase Holding -- build holding up by one point. All holdings of
    similar type (including the value of your present holding) resist the
    increase. If the province regent opposes the action and his law presence
    (or half the province level rounded down) is greater than the current
    resistance, use that value instead - otherwise add 1 to the resistance.
    Base success is 10.

    e.g. province(7), temple(2), temple(4), law(x)
    -- success (Increase Temple) = 10 + (2+4) = 16; or;
    -- success (Increase Temple) but realm opposed; = 17

    (e) Restore Holding -- restore a neutralized holding to full operating
    capacity. This should generally be quite easy regardless of the size of
    the holding. It is opposed by the other holdings of the same type in the
    province; or by the province regent`s law holding if he opposes -
    whichever is the greater value. Base success is 10.

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    BR mailing list
    Posts
    1,538
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Hello,

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

    > Is your campaign mostly about rulership or adventuring? If rulership, I
    > find it hard to believe that everyone isn`t planning to grow their
    domains.
    > Sure, it shouldn`t be easy, or where would the fun and challenge be, but
    > it ought to be happening at least a little.

    My campaign is only about rulership (no adventuring at all). About
    growing their domains... well, half of my players only ;) One is playing
    with a noble house only interested in killing undeads (he is planning
    attacks on the vampire etc etc) and another is an architect (a mark I didn´t
    put as it was based in house rules: Builder Mark - you get rp for building
    things (farms, castles, workshops,...)). The other two are a little more
    aggresive (the captain of müden navy and a wizard).

    > But if you can`t get a guilder to play along, sometimes you need to become
    > one yourself. Ideally you would just take the holdings by Investiture.
    > If not, then you`d want to Occupy while your enemies were busy elsewhere,
    > because it will take time and a substantial investment (of actions, RP and
    > GB) in the Rule action to recover the lost holding levels.

    Well, you are going to divert lot of time and resources making yourself
    a guilder. And you need a strong economy to survive without one. But I agree
    sometimes it could be necesary, but you´ll need to think carefully about
    that move.

    > *grin* Me too. I`m more a wargamer than a roleplayer, which is precisely
    > what drew me to Birthright -- finally, a moderately workable system for
    > running your own fantasy country! The domain rulership chapter of the old
    > D&D Companion Set had some good ideas, but was so low-level (needing to
    > know the number of families engaged in each industry, for example) that it
    > was practically impossible to use to run anything bigger than a single
    > province (3).

    Hehehe, same happens to me: when I first played birthright with an old
    friend I just loved the game. I´ve been nearly continuosly playing and
    tweeking it since then (like most people here I think ;)

    > I quite agree. Hence my recent posts about liking systems to provide
    > additional incentives for spending on bloodline growth, or allow
    > bloodlines to grow a little on their own without spending.

    I make them grow with good rulership (like they can go down with bad
    rulership). But it´s true they should be changing a little more easily.

    > > If you have 2000 gb in your treasury, you get 20% of that: 400 RP
    >
    > So then why does having income or expenses matter?

    So you can´t just sit down with your pile of money and see your regency
    grow. You could say you need to have a "sustancial" income related to that
    quantity of money (5%, 10%,...?), so if you have 2000 gb you need an income
    of 200gb... But I´m starting to like more and more your idea of tying the rp
    collection from the economy mark to your turn income rather than to your
    treasury.

    > I was thinking of a dragon or lich or other secretive, ancient, powerful
    > being (for whom a 4 million gp value hoard is actually not that
    > unreasonable based on the treasure tables); if you allow RP to accumulate
    > indefinitely, they could hide in a hole with their pile of cash, spending
    > RP to increase their bloodline as desired, and then emerge after a few
    > centuries with immensely huge numbers of RP saved up, ready to conquer the
    > world without trying too hard. If you`re a "regent" of nothing but a pile
    > of gold, there shouldn`t be many demands on your time.

    Very true. I´m going with your income idea ;) But if I don´t remember
    badly, it was first regency income and later gb income. I can´t think of any
    problem for doing this just the other way: first gb and then rp so you can
    calculate your rp income from economy. Any idea about how many rp should be
    gained from economy then?

    Greetings,

    Vicente

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
    NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.

  8. #18
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    From time to time I see statements to the effect that "You need a strong
    economy to survive without a guilder." I think that confuses a guy who
    reaps benefits from organizing the marketplace to suit his own interests
    with the marketplace itself. The market will always exist, and from the
    point of view of consumers and small producers, probabaly works better with
    no guilder in charge. Such a person, is after all, diverting part of the
    surplus away from the economy and towards himself and his management of the
    economy (and managed economys are in themselves less effecient). With no
    guilder, realms should do just fine, economically.

    The reason there are guilders are twofold. One, no one stops the robber
    barons. And two, the guilders have a divine patron who wishes wealth to
    stand toe to toe with force, faith, and phantasm as a social entity.
    Coordinated human activity requires leaders (markets function best when they
    are not coordiated) and if the monied classes are to protect their interests
    (in part by squelching competition and ease of access to the market) they
    need leaders. Guilders are classical oligarchs.

    The interest of the organizers of human activity always want to extract more
    surplus (hence social science sometimes refers to them as kleptocrats) so
    having a guilder who represents another source of GB`s and RP`s can make a
    realm strong (if he`s friendly with the other rulers. Of course he can be
    trouble if he`s hostile. But a neutral guilder who doesn`t use RP or GB to
    help or harm the realm is no different from having no guilder at all, except
    that the people have one less court to fund, don`t have to fund his attacks
    and defences of a realm, and don`t have their market twisted to benefit a
    ruler rather than the natural increase in wealth.

    None of which is to say that an ideology of Smithian capitalism exists in
    Cerilia, or that the workers of the world should unit, because they have
    nothing to lose but their chains. I`m just saying that the advantages of
    having a guilder aren`t that he makes people more prosperous (he does the
    opposite) but that he is a locus of power that can be used to make things
    happen.

    Kenneth Gauck
    kgauck@mchsi.com

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  9. #19
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    IMO think in terms of the "family" for the role of guilders. While not basically (or at least not always) criminal or oppressive, the simile, I think applies. Guild regents generate income in GB while merchants generate income in gp - use the profession rules from the PHB (3rd ed that is). IMO this points out the difference in fairly understandable terms.

    The guilders can either support the powers that be, oppose them or selectively choose between which they do. Sort of like a company making donations to a political party, or making donations to "both" olitical parties in hopes of currying some "future" favors. "Money make the world go around, the world go around, the world go around.":)
    Duane Eggert

  10. #20
    Special Guest (Donor)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    532
    Downloads
    11
    Uploads
    0
    Hello,

    Originally posted by kgauck
    From time to time I see statements to the effect that "You need a strong
    economy to survive without a guilder." I think that confuses a guy who
    reaps benefits from organizing the marketplace to suit his own interests
    When I said that you needed a strong economy to survive without a guilder, I was referring to my own game (related to some house rules). Guilders manage resources (iron, wood, food, furs,...). For example: if Ilien wants to recruit armies, it needs some weapons (or materials to forge the weapons). As Ilien is not likely to mine any metal, when it recruits, I assume some guilder gets weapons or metal from one of the trade routes and then he makes a profit selling them to Ilien (and Ilien is able to recruit). If there aren´t any guilds in your realm, and you lack something, you are in a big trouble ;) That´s why I said that a realm without a guild needed a good economy (maybe better a good reserve or resources).

    Of course in normal birthright you don´t have any problem for not having a guilder (well, you miss some gb from law claims), but nothing more.

    Greetings,

    Vicente

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.