Randaxial Ravings `bout Routes

[prtr02@scorpion.nspco.co]

> > 4. Creation of a Trade Route requires a guild in both the originating and
>
> > terminal province. The guilds don't have to belong to the same
> organization, but both must agree to the creation of the route. The TR
> counts toward the
> > maximum allowed in both the originating and terminal provinces.
> >
> This is your house rule, I suppose. I'm pondering it. Most BR games have a
> house rule that limits the total "in" TRs to the same number of "out" TRs
> (I.E. a Province (4) on the coast can have 2 land TRs and 2 TRs originating
> from it, and thus it can have 2 of each likewise having it as a
> destination. Thus no 40 TRs to Anuire the City).

This is half the rule and might be enough. If it was what was used in the on-
line game where the "race" occured though, it obviously isn't enough.

Not sure about your "both
> guilders" rule. Typically you need at least the aquicence of the ruler of
> both provinces in order to create the route, anyhow. Unless the guilder in
> the destination province controls the buyers (as opposed to sellers, which
> is what guilds represent), I don't see how his/her approval/disaproval can
> matter if the province's ruler does not oppose the TR. . .unless he wants
> to be some kind of outlaw or rebel.
>
I disagree. The rulebook says a guild controls "the economy" of province.
Having an economy involves an exchange of goods/services of some kind. If a
guild 3 in a province 4 controls 75% of the economy, it controls not only 3/4
the means of production, it controls 75% of the buyers. Most people have to buy
goods at guild stores, use guild services, and work at/for some enterprise
associated with the local guild. In fact the major purchaser of goods for the
area would be the local guild itself, since it generates 75% of the goods/
services produced in the province. At the very least, I think a TR needs some
type of infrastructure (ie a guild holding) on the receiving end to properly
receive and distribute the large flow of goods that a Trade Route represents.

I've included some of my past ravings on TRs (from when we were discussing desired
changes for the hardcover edition) below.

Randax

>
> BR Economic Rules suggested changes:
>
> Well, if the "official" ruling is that you don't need a guild holding in both to
> establish a trade route, the BR economic rules definately need some retooling.
>
> First, decide where BR should go as a campaign setting. BR realm rules are meant to be a simple
> representation of kingdom dynamics. The kingdom dynamics were meant to serve as a generator for
> stories and adventures. I don't think this has changed. If anything, I believe that the new BR
> intends to emphasize roleplaying more, since marketing BR as a wargame didn't generate the level of
> sales desired. Unless the original philosophy has changed, the realm rules must remain simple with
> lots of room for DM interpretation/manipulation.
>
> Second, you have to decide your philosophy of what or how powerful guild holdings
> are. If a regent who controls a level 3 guild in a level 4 province really
> controls 75% of the economy as stated in the rulebook, guilds should be very powerful. Those of you
> who've read any of my stuff on the old aol boards dating back the last 3 years should be familiar
> with some of my philosophies (love 'um or hate 'um as you will). One of them is this: One of D&D's
> great strengths is the interdependence of the character classes. ie to have a good adventuring party
> you need characters with a variety of classes. The BR realm rules reflect this same strength and
> should not be change. Thieves/Guilders SHOULD CONTROL MOST OF THE MONEY. This is the strength of
> their class. It's what they have to offer/threaten the other regents with.
>
> With this in mind, a clear change to the official rules should state that a guild holding (not necessarily
> controlled by the same person) is required at both the origin and terminus of a trade route,
> with the route counting against the allowed number in both provinces. This is a simple, (more)
> realistic representation of major trade routes. It should placate those who are (presumably) playing
> with the flawed Trade routes that are giving Guilders too much power vs. Law regents and reduce the
> number of routes going from every hick county to the City of Anuire.
>
> Some counterpoints could be made. See the excellent post by relve of Helsinki for (what I would
> consider) optional rules involving local or minor trade routes. Sadly, I better cut it short and getback to work,
> otherwise my economic condition will deteriorate significantly. Lots more could be
> "said", but this one example will have to suffice. Why did the Iberians (Spanish and Portugese) desperately sail
> west looking to establish trade routes with India and the Far East? Because the Italians held (in BR terms) the
> guild holdings and trade route slots in the eastern med and near east and used their economic, political and
> military influence there to prevent others from establishing holdings there. Major Trade routes around Africa
> weren't established until the Portugese built bases (guild holdings) in Angola, Mozambique and "factories"
> (guild holdings) at Goa in India. Why did they spend years of national effort (RP, GB, ships, troops, diplomacy,
> exploratory trade, building,etc) when they could have spent (by a present rules interpretation) one domain action,
> a few RP and GB and had the same cash flow as the Italians? And if you don't need guild holdings, and there's no limit to
> the number of rich routes coming out of India, why didn't England, France, Holland and every two-bit
> city state in the HRE jump on the bandwagon? Get rich quick! Spend a little effort and money!
> Be as rich as Venice overnight!
>
> It's not just which ruling makes economic sense. It's which is easier to keep track of, helps
> maintain play balance and, most importantly, is one heck-of-a-lot more fun to play.

[James Ruhland]

>
> >
> I disagree. The rulebook says a guild controls "the economy" of
province.
> Having an economy involves an exchange of goods/services of some kind.
If a
> guild 3 in a province 4 controls 75% of the economy, it controls not only
3/4
> the means of production, it controls 75% of the buyers.
>
If that's *true*, then it's one of the more rediculous things in the game.
That's all I'll say. . .ok, it isn't all I'll say. The basis of my view on
this is that it is possible for the ruler of a Province to, by Decree,
eliminate or force taxes on any TR going into or out of any province they
control. No where in the rules does it say that a guilder can do the same
thing with a Decree.
Now, one thing that lends support to your ruling is the statement that
"Trade routes are neutralized if the regent's guild holding in *either*
province is contested. . ." (Emphasis added). However, none of the
"official" Trade Route examples (from, say the Naval Rules) imply that it
is a requirement that the guilder control a guild in both the origin and
destiation provinces.

> > should not be change. Thieves/Guilders SHOULD CONTROL MOST OF THE
MONEY. This is the strength of
> > their class. It's what they have to offer/threaten the other regents
with.
> >
IMO, under the current rules the Thieves/Guilders do have this strength.
But just as Thieves in a regular adventure party have to advance themselves
mainly by stealth and guile (wits), not combat and direct confrontation,
Thieves/Guilders must do the same. I.E. it is not they alone who determine
the success/failure of TRs. They have to con. . .er, convince, the brutish
fighter types who rule the province that TRs are in there best interest. .
.and then find ways to keep the lion share of the income for themselves.
Even in the case of a greedy fighter-ruler, however, they can only push
the guilders around so much; if they make it unprofitable/too cumbersome
for the Guilder to create TRs in the 1st place, they'll have killed the
goose thay lays the golden egg. Meanwhile, realms which create a positive
guild environment, and tax lightly while allying themselves with the "home
town" guild can count on recieving a regular (if perhaps smaller %) income,
and get support in the form of vast sums of gold for whatever projects,
wars, etc, as needed. I.E. a partnership; they need each other for it to
work well (the lord to permit TRs, the Guilder to create and maintain
them).

Historical N.B. on your example of why the Spanish & Portuguese sailed
West. The influence of the Italians was part of it, but there was a reason
why the Genoan, C. Columbus, was involved in the effort: The influence of
the Osmanli Turks were more important. the Ottoman Sultan (Law and Province
ruler) made it very hard on Guilders and their Trade Routes as his hegemony
expanded to cover the entire E. Med. Seaboard.

[prtr02@scorpion.nspco.co]

I don't find the rule saying a guild controls "X" amount of the ecomomy in a
province too unbelievable. If the company store is the only place to buy stuff,
it's the only place too buy. Or if 75% of the stores/services belong to a guild, that 75% of the buyers go there.

Take a Wal-Mart moving into a small town. I'd say 75%+ of the buyers go there.
The small business that survive retain the remaining 25%. Now in BR, you also
control the production of the goods these stores sell and the means of shipping
the goods to them.


> If that's *true*, then it's one of the more rediculous things in the game.
> That's all I'll say. . .ok, it isn't all I'll say. The basis of my view on
> this is that it is possible for the ruler of a Province to, by Decree,
> eliminate or force taxes on any TR going into or out of any province they
> control. No where in the rules does it say that a guilder can do the same
> thing with a Decree.
> Now, one thing that lends support to your ruling is the statement that
> "Trade routes are neutralized if the regent's guild holding in *either*
> province is contested. . ." (Emphasis added). However, none of the
> "official" Trade Route examples (from, say the Naval Rules) imply that it
> is a requirement that the guilder control a guild in both the origin and
> destiation provinces.

The OFFICIAL rules don't require a guild in the terminus province. My whole
point is this makes TRs too easy.
>
> > > should not be change. Thieves/Guilders SHOULD CONTROL MOST OF THE
> MONEY. This is the strength of
> > > their class. It's what they have to offer/threaten the other regents
> with.
> > >
> IMO, under the current rules the Thieves/Guilders do have this strength.
> But just as Thieves in a regular adventure party have to advance themselves
> mainly by stealth and guile (wits), not combat and direct confrontation,
> Thieves/Guilders must do the same. I.E. it is not they alone who determine
> the success/failure of TRs. They have to con. . .er, convince, the brutish
> fighter types who rule the province that TRs are in there best interest. .
> .and then find ways to keep the lion share of the income for themselves.
> Even in the case of a greedy fighter-ruler, however, they can only push
> the guilders around so much; if they make it unprofitable/too cumbersome
> for the Guilder to create TRs in the 1st place, they'll have killed the
> goose thay lays the golden egg. Meanwhile, realms which create a positive
> guild environment, and tax lightly while allying themselves with the "home
> town" guild can count on recieving a regular (if perhaps smaller %) income,
> and get support in the form of vast sums of gold for whatever projects,
> wars, etc, as needed. I.E. a partnership; they need each other for it to
> work well (the lord to permit TRs, the Guilder to create and maintain
> them).
>

I don't quite know what this is about. I agree. In previous postings others
thought that Thief regents in BR were too powerful vs. land regents. This is
due to the "official" rules on TRs. TRs need to be limited in some way. My
rule aims toward getting as many regents- law and guild- into the story as possible.

> Historical N.B. on your example of why the Spanish & Portuguese sailed
> West. The influence of the Italians was part of it, but there was a reason
> why the Genoan, C. Columbus, was involved in the effort: The influence of
> the Osmanli Turks were more important. the Ottoman Sultan (Law and Province
> ruler) made it very hard on Guilders and their Trade Routes as his hegemony
> expanded to cover the entire E. Med. Seaboard.
>
Columbus was a mercenary. Genoa had lost the "Hundred Year's War" with Venice.
She had capabile sailors, but nowhere to go.

True enough that the Ottomans put the squeeze on the Venicians, but they still
had virtually exclustive rights on anything that came to Europe. The Turks
didn't care who they dealt with. If you didn't need a guild in the terminus,
everyone could have traded with them. The Italians, backed by trade agreements
with the Ottomans and their own naval muscle, made sure that didn't happen.
Over time, with the excellent facilites they captured in the Golden Horn,
the Ottomans developed a large fleet of their own. They could haul the goods
themselves and challenge Italian control of the Med.
They could, and did, start to push out Venician guild holdings and
take their territorial possessions. Once a route around africa was established,
no one had to pay the Doge anymore and Venice started to decline.

Someone's
got to have some organized business on the other end of a large scale trade
route for it to be effective. You need some way to distribute your wares. It
does little good to transport your bales of rare silk; then have no warehouse
to receive them, brokers to organize their sale on a large scale and an
organized teamsters guild to haul it away. TRs represent large scale trade.
Selling to a disorganized (ie no guild holding) market would be too time
consuming and costly. "Hey, townswoman! Want to buy a bale of rare silk from
a foreign merchant? No? Well, maybe you can help me find someone who want one.
One of your friends perhaps?"

Randax

[James Ruhland]

>
>
> I don't find the rule saying a guild controls "X" amount of the ecomomy
in a
> province too unbelievable. If the company store is the only place to buy
stuff,
> it's the only place too buy. Or if 75% of the stores/services belong to
a guild, that 75% of the buyers go there.
>
> Take a Wal-Mart moving into a small town. I'd say 75%+ of the buyers go
there.
> The small business that survive retain the remaining 25%. Now in BR, you
also
> control the production of the goods these stores sell and the means of
shipping
> the goods to them.
>
I've always considered guilds to be a reflection more of the trade-based
economy than of the economy as a whole (which in pre-modern times, which
relied mainly on agriculture slightly above the subsistance level, was
circa 10-20% of the economy as a whole). Now, this still makes guilds a
very powerful factor in the scheme of things (NPC/non-regent nobles and
aristocrats form the landholding lordships over the primarily agricultural
portion of the economy; this is the portion that province ruler's taxes
come from; oh, and this isn't to say that a Guild isn't engaged in, for
example, the export of wheat or beef, just that this trade is a small---but
significant---portion of the whole). I.E. Guilders control the "cash"
economy, thus they have most of the hard currency at their disposal (as
reflected primarily in the TR rules).
N.B. on your example: 75% of the buyers in a small town may go to
wallmart, but that doesn't mean wallmart is their only option. Nor does it
mean that this is the best example when dealing with a pre-modern economy.
I've always viewed Guilds more as syndicates; I.E. the Guilder is kind of a
"Godfather" (though not nessisarily a criminal; this doesn't have to be the
mafia, though it can be). Various tradesmen, blacksmiths, etc owe loyalty
in much the same way that the ruler of a province's & Law holding's
influence may be expressed by the support of local Nobility, Jarls, or
whatever; I.E. not only the Kings Agents in his direct employ. The
tradesmen profit by having the protection & direction that a regent can
provide, and in return give him tribute (I.E. a sort of patron--client
relationship).
If I'm right (and I'm only talking how I envision things; I dk if my
opinion/view is the correct one), then a Guilder who controls a Guild (3)
in a Province (4) has profound influence, but not dominant control, over
the economy. He has the loyalty and support of the vast majority of
craftsmen, but not all the pesants. He is highly likely to control the
trade that goes out of the province, but he can't, for example, prevent the
local nobility from buying goods from whoever they want, unless he gets an
agreement/arrangement with them and/or the ruler of the province & realm
(this is where your Venice/Ottomans et al example comes in; the Veniceans
managed to secure this support, and keep out compeditors. Also, the
Venicean fleet, as you said, controled the E. Med, making it, eventually
(I.E. after the "hundred years war" with Genoa) unproffitable & impossible
for anyone else to create a TR. Can't have a Sea TR if your transports are
getting sunk or boarded.
>
> I don't quite know what this is about. I agree. In previous postings
others
> thought that Thief regents in BR were too powerful vs. land regents.
This is
> due to the "official" rules on TRs. TRs need to be limited in some way.
My
> rule aims toward getting as many regents- law and guild- into the story
as possible.
>
IMO, though, the way the Guilder's get involved in preventing TRs that they
don't want (I.E. someone else's) is not by rule or their shear power, but
through the wits and guile I mentioned; I.E. persuading/"making 'em an
offer they can't refuse" either the local Law/Province ruler that allowing
someone else's TR would be a bad idea. I.E. they can't force the situation,
but they should be able to make "their" ruler see the light. Do you think
the local "Byzantine" merchants & guildsmen wanted the Veniceans, Genoan's
et al in "their" territory in the 1st place? The V's got in because they
were able to persuade (sometimes more forcefully than other times. . .)
that it would be a good idea. Then, on occasion, the local Guilders would
persuade some other Emperor (or even the same one. . .) to throw out the
"barbarian" merchants. But they always needed the Imperial beaureocracy
(and troops) to do the throwing for them, and the V's were generally
capable of making the Emperor's change their mind back again & let them
re-build their TRs. Now, if we were designing the Province of
Constantinople circa 1150, would there be a Venicean Guild holding there?
Certainly. That's because the V.s recognized the profitabilty not only of
trading to Constantinople, but from it as well; they needed this Guild
holding for that reason.
Similarly, in your examples with the Ottoman's, the V's needed Guild
holdings in the Levant not because they were shipping goods *to* the E.
med. seaboard, but shipping *from* it primarily (I.E. you do need a Guild
holding at the origin point of any TR). Ok, this was a long, rambling
screed, parts of which I think I just ended up kinda sorta contradicting
myself. Anyhow, I hope it's understandible (though you still may have legit
disagreements; I just got an e-mail from someone who thinks my posts
reflect hostility or anger. . .sorry if I give that impression. I just
enjoy debating these points; you may still disagree with me and I with you,
but I hope that doesn't mean we're hostile or anything. We just have
different perspectives on it).

> > Historical N.B. on your example of why the Spanish & Portuguese sailed
> > West. The influence of the Italians was part of it, but there was a
reason
> > why the Genoan, C. Columbus, was involved in the effort: The influence
of
> > the Osmanli Turks were more important. the Ottoman Sultan (Law and
Province
> > ruler) made it very hard on Guilders and their Trade Routes as his
hegemony
> > expanded to cover the entire E. Med. Seaboard.
> >
> Columbus was a mercenary. Genoa had lost the "Hundred Year's War" with
Venice.
> She had capabile sailors, but nowhere to go.
>
> True enough that the Ottomans put the squeeze on the Venicians, but they
still
> had virtually exclustive rights on anything that came to Europe. The
Turks
> didn't care who they dealt with. If you didn't need a guild in the
terminus,
> everyone could have traded with them. The Italians, backed by trade
agreements
> with the Ottomans and their own naval muscle, made sure that didn't
happen.
> Over time, with the excellent facilites they captured in the Golden Horn,

> the Ottomans developed a large fleet of their own. They could haul the
goods
> themselves and challenge Italian control of the Med.
> They could, and did, start to push out Venician guild holdings and
> take their territorial possessions. Once a route around africa was
established,
> no one had to pay the Doge anymore and Venice started to decline.
>
> Someone's
> got to have some organized business on the other end of a large scale
trade
> route for it to be effective. You need some way to distribute your
wares. It
> does little good to transport your bales of rare silk; then have no
warehouse
> to receive them, brokers to organize their sale on a large scale and an
> organized teamsters guild to haul it away. TRs represent large scale
trade.
> Selling to a disorganized (ie no guild holding) market would be too time
> consuming and costly. "Hey, townswoman! Want to buy a bale of rare silk
from
> a foreign merchant? No? Well, maybe you can help me find someone who
want one.
> One of your friends perhaps?"
>
> Randax
>
>> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
line
> 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.