Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    prtr02@scorpion.nspco.co
    Guest

    Trade Routes and Guild Holdings

    Howdy,

    FAQ opinion/answer

    "Do I need to have Guilds at both ends of a trade route?"

    Yes. Unless the guilder/thief/ranger/whoever has a sea trade route to "parts
    unknown" a guild holding is required at both ends of the trade route. Now, if
    you want to create route without anyone else's agreement, both guild holdings
    must be yours. If you want create a route that terminates at another regents's
    guild holding, roleplaying/diplomacy/adventuring is required (optionally you could
    try to muscle into the other regent's territory with a level 0 holding). These type
    of actions usually result in a trade agreement; with the various regents involved each
    taking a piece of the pie.

    As a final note, DMs should strictly enforce the "number of trade routes allowed per province"
    rule. No guilder in the Imperial City wants to establish a trade route with Roesone, when they
    could have a trade chain with Halskapa and Muden. DMs should consider that too. Most, if not
    all, the juicy trade routes should be already occupied, with a consortium of powerful regents
    who are all collecting GB ready to squash any interloper who dares to upset their cash cow.

    In short, the diplomacy and adventure surrounding the creation/control of trade routes (and thus,
    most of the economy) make this one of the most interesting domain actions.

    Randax

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    10
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Trade Routes and Guild Holdings

    Actually, you don't need guild holdings at both ends, only at the origin of
    the trade route.

    Fred Hilbrandt

    - ----------
    > From: Randall W. Porter@6550
    > To: birthright@MPGN.COM
    > Subject: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Trade Routes and Guild Holdings
    > Date: Friday, October 24, 1997 12:17
    >
    >
    > Howdy,
    >
    > FAQ opinion/answer
    >
    > "Do I need to have Guilds at both ends of a trade route?"
    >
    > Yes. Unless the guilder/thief/ranger/whoever has a sea trade route to
    "parts
    > unknown" a guild holding is required at both ends of the trade route.
    Now, if
    > you want to create route without anyone else's agreement, both guild
    holdings
    > must be yours. If you want create a route that terminates at another
    regents's
    > guild holding, roleplaying/diplomacy/adventuring is required (optionally
    you could
    > try to muscle into the other regent's territory with a level 0 holding).
    These type
    > of actions usually result in a trade agreement; with the various regents
    involved each
    > taking a piece of the pie.
    >
    > As a final note, DMs should strictly enforce the "number of trade routes
    allowed per province"
    > rule. No guilder in the Imperial City wants to establish a trade route
    with Roesone, when they
    > could have a trade chain with Halskapa and Muden. DMs should consider
    that too. Most, if not
    > all, the juicy trade routes should be already occupied, with a consortium
    of powerful regents
    > who are all collecting GB ready to squash any interloper who dares to
    upset their cash cow.
    >
    > In short, the diplomacy and adventure surrounding the creation/control of
    trade routes (and thus,
    > most of the economy) make this one of the most interesting domain
    actions.
    >
    > Randax

  3. #3
    relve@Otdk.Helsinki.F
    Guest

    Trade Routes and Guild Holdings

    > FAQ opinion/answer
    > "Do I need to have Guilds at both ends of a trade route?"
    >
    > Yes.
    > As a final note, DMs should strictly enforce the "number of trade routes allowed per province"
    > rule. No guilder in the Imperial City wants to establish a trade route with Roesone, when they
    > could have a trade chain with Halskapa and Muden.

    On the other hand it seems a bit artificial that the City of Anuire
    trades only with Muden and Halskapa and not with lands just next to
    it. Moreover lower level provinces tend to trade with each
    other and not with big cities as would be natural..

    So, in my game I have introduced so called "minor trade routes." The
    differences are:
    -a regent needs only 0 level holding in the destination province
    (while a major trade route requires at least 1lev guild holding in
    both provinces)
    -a minor trade route doesn't count towards the maximum allowed for
    the destination province (but for the source province it does)
    -a minor trade route generates only half (rounded down) of the GB's
    and RP's

    Final notes:

    It seemed to me that giving to thief regents so steady and
    relatively easy to create source of power would be unfair for other
    character classes.

    So I cut down the RP's - half (rounded
    down) of GBs produced. (Yes, the GB's produced not the actual worth
    of the trade route. To my mind the regency should be awarded for
    actual trade not for the potential to carry it out. So, a guilder who
    has a sea trade route from the City of Anuire to Aryia but no ships
    to support it, wouldn't collect regency just for sitting and doing
    nothing)

    The income generated by trade routes seemed to be too steady.
    (Compare it for example with the income generated by guild holdings)
    In order to simulate "the flux of trade", I let the player roll a
    die. For example a 6GBs trade route would generate d4+3, or d2+5, or
    d6+3 or whatever other combination that seems appropriate taking into
    account the hazards of the route. (ie more hazardous routes would
    have a greater die to simulate the random events that may occur)

    Creating of a trade route seems to be too easy compared with
    creating a holding of an equal power. (Compare creating two 3GBs
    trade routes with creating a guild holding and ruling it up to the
    6th level (On the 6th level (in 6th lev province) it would generate
    on average the same amount of money as two 3GBs trade routes)
    So, as Randax wrote in his letter, creating and controlling a
    "juicy" trade route should involve a great deal of diplomatic
    manoeuvring and perhaps adventuring.

    Just my d2+1 GBs

    KaaRel

  4. #4
    David Sean Brown
    Guest

    Trade Routes and Guild Holdings

    >
    > Oh, with the advent of Cities of the Sun and access to almost the entire
    > campaign world, the "parts unknown" trick shouldn't work anymore. We all
    > know where things are and where there are ports. Just a reccomendation.

    Unfortuantely, we don't know the ports of Djapur (sp?) and Aduria (short
    of those listed here by creative list members). Unless you want to go
    through the trouble of making these up for your PCs (and subsequently
    working up a scenario should they decide to go there) the parts unknown
    trade route is still useful.

    Sean

  5. #5
    Joel Parrish
    Guest

    Trade Routes and Guild Holdings

    ======== Original Message ========
    >
    > Oh, with the advent of Cities of the Sun and access to almost the entire
    > campaign world, the "parts unknown" trick shouldn't work anymore. We all
    > know where things are and where there are ports. Just a reccomendation.

    Unfortuantely, we don't know the ports of Djapur (sp?) and Aduria (short
    of those listed here by creative list members). Unless you want to go
    through the trouble of making these up for your PCs (and subsequently
    working up a scenario should they decide to go there) the parts unknown
    trade route is still useful.

    Sean

    'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
    ======== Fwd by: Joel Parrish ========

    IMHO, Instead of seeing it as "parts unknown", I see it more as travelling
    to many different ports-of-call, delivering goods from the home province to
    many ports. Therefore there would not be a single destination as there would
    be in a overland trade route, and the goods would make a profit equal to
    half the province rating due to the selling and buying of goods at the
    different ports on the route and the expenses of the ships.

    KOS
    "My valentine has hollow eyes"

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Trade routes
    By teloft in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-01-2004, 09:18 PM
  2. Trade Routes
    By Starfox in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-03-2002, 07:44 AM
  3. Trade Routes (Well I'll be....)
    By morgramen in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 05-06-2002, 08:49 PM
  4. Trade Routes & Law
    By Hibbs, Philip in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-21-1997, 07:33 AM
  5. Trade Routes
    By Sepsis in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-23-1997, 05:44 PM

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.