Trade Routes

[Kent Troughton]

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD8F18.76838600
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

When starting a trade route is it required to have a holding at each
end of the route? I have a guild holding on one end where the trade
route begins. I can't find anything that says I must have a guild
holding at the destination or return point.


- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD8F18.76838600
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

eJ8+IgcWAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAA DoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy
b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQWAAwAOAAAAzgcGAAMAEQA1AA QAAwArAQEggAMADgAAAM4HBgAD
ABEANQAEAAMAKwEBCYABACEAAAA3QjgwMkM5MUIyRkFEMTExQU RFRjAwODA1RkUyNTcwMgAqBwEN
gAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBIABAA0AAABUcmFkZSBSb3V0ZXMAkgQBA5 AGACQEAAAZAAAAAwAmAAAAAAAD
ADYAAAAAAAMABhCd4OZWAwAHEMMAAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABXSE VOU1RBUlRJTkdBVFJBREVST1VU
RUlTSVRSRVFVSVJFRFRPSEFWRUFIT0xESU5HQVRFQUNIRU5ET0 ZUSEVST1VURT9JSEFWRUFHVUlM
REhPTERJTkdPTk9ORUVORFdIRVJFAAAAAAMAEBAAAAAAAwAREA EAAAACAQkQAQAAAEIBAAA+AQAA
+AEAAExaRnVfFT7G/wAKAQ8CFQKkA+QF6wKDAFATA1QCAGNoCsBzZXTuMgYABsMCgzI DxgcTAoMy
MxMPZjQDxQIAcHJCcRIic3RlbQKAfRcKgAjPCdk7F58yNTUPAo AKgQ2xC2BuZzEwHjMUIAsKEvIB
0CBXaC0J8CAWYArAdAuAZyCgYSB0cmENsCADYHp1FnAgBAAd8A VAF6BxTHVpF6EdMG8gEcB2ax2A
HSBoBvBkHOMFQGWVANBoIDBuHtBvZh0wQxxQHZQ/ICBJHxZnfx6QH7AfhwIgIyEdgCCSd48cUBeg
IPMdSmJlZwuAVHMuIaJjAHAnBUBm9wuAHtAAcHkhABziIQAgEc xzYRZQIbFtdRZgId+/H8YhAg2w
FmALgCAQaSMymwXAF6B0CHADoHBvC4AsdC4KhRbBACxwAAAeAH AAAQAAAA0AAABUcmFkZSBSb3V0
ZXMAAAAAAgFxAAEAAAAWAAAAAb2PQueVAC9OVvsKEdGLLgCgyR veDAAAQAA5AEYL6F1Cj70BAwDx
PwkEAAACAUcAAQAAAC8AAABjPVVTO2E9IDtwPVBpdm90SW50O2 w9SEFQUFktOTgwNjAzMjI1MzA0
Wi0zMDMyAAACAfk/AQAAAE0AAAAAAAAA3KdAyMBCEBq0uQgAKy/hggEAAAAAAAAAL089UElWT1RJ
TlQvT1U9UElWT1RLQy9DTj1SRUNJUElFTlRTL0NOPVRST1VHSF RPAAAAAB4A+D8BAAAADwAAAEtl
bnQgVHJvdWdodG9uAAACAfs/AQAAAE0AAAAAAAAA3KdAyMBCEBq0uQgAKy/hggEAAAAAAAAAL089
UElWT1RJTlQvT1U9UElWT1RLQy9DTj1SRUNJUElFTlRTL0NOPV RST1VHSFRPAAAAAB4A+j8BAAAA
DwAAAEtlbnQgVHJvdWdodG9uAABAAAcwRgvoXUKPvQFAAAgwSE JAXkKPvQEDAA00/T8AAAIBFDQB
AAAAEAAAAFSUocApfxAbpYcIACsqJRceAD0AAQAAAAEAAAAAAA AACwApAAAAAAALACMAAAAAAAIB
fwABAAAAQgAAADxjPVVTJWE9XyVwPVBpdm90SW50JWw9SEFQUF ktOTgwNjAzMjI1MzA0Wi0zMDMy
QGhhcHB5LnVuaWNvbS5uZXQ+AAAAtwA=

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD8F18.76838600--

[The Olesen`s]

Kent Troughton wrote:
>
> When starting a trade route is it required to have a holding at each
> end of the route? I have a guild holding on one end where the trade
> route begins. I can't find anything that says I must have a guild
> holding at the destination or return point.

Only in some "house" rules.

I say "house" begause they are used in PBeMs and thats not really house
you play in.

[Memnoch]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Kent Troughton
To: 'birthright@MPGN.COM'
Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 6:06 PM
Subject: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Trade Routes


>When starting a trade route is it required to have a holding at each
>end of the route? I have a guild holding on one end where the trade
>route begins. I can't find anything that says I must have a guild
>holding at the destination or return point.
>


Page 60 2nd full paragraph.... I quote : "Trade Routes are neutralized if a
regent's guild holding *in either province* is contested... etc etc etc...
E.g. If there is no second guild holding in the destination province, there
is no trade route... this is the key to keeping trade routes under
control...

Memnoch

[David Sean Brown]

> Page 60 2nd full paragraph.... I quote : "Trade Routes are neutralized if a
> regent's guild holding *in either province* is contested... etc etc etc...
> E.g. If there is no second guild holding in the destination province, there
> is no trade route... this is the key to keeping trade routes under
> control...

I think though the question was asking more specifically do "I" (as the
regent) need guild holdings at both ends (at least taht is what I thought
was asked :) )..and we have hashed this question around a few times before
and come up with...*drum roll please*....you should do what ever you and
your DM decide is appropriate for your campaign..people have interpreted
this rule differently, and until anything "official" comes out, the first
rule of AD&D comes into effect..if you don't know..make it up..

Sean

[Eric Dunn]

At 11:49 PM 6/3/98 -0300, you wrote:
>> Page 60 2nd full paragraph.... I quote : "Trade Routes are neutralized
if a
>> regent's guild holding *in either province* is contested... etc etc etc...
>> E.g. If there is no second guild holding in the destination province, there
>> is no trade route... this is the key to keeping trade routes under
>> control...
>
>I think though the question was asking more specifically do "I" (as the
>regent) need guild holdings at both ends (at least taht is what I thought
>was asked :) )..and we have hashed this question around a few times before
>and come up with...*drum roll please*....you should do what ever you and
>your DM decide is appropriate for your campaign..people have interpreted
>this rule differently, and until anything "official" comes out, the first
>rule of AD&D comes into effect..if you don't know..make it up..
>
>Sean
>

I agree 100%--way to easy to argue this one to death, and it's been done,
and will be again. You can even make a case for not having a guild at all!
(the example Roesone domain sheet that comes with the boxed set).

So go with what the group or DM decides.

[prtr02@scorpion.nspco.co]

- ----- Begin Included Message -----
> Page 60 2nd full paragraph.... I quote : "Trade Routes are neutralized if a
> regent's guild holding *in either province* is contested... etc etc etc...
> E.g. If there is no second guild holding in the destination province, there
> is no trade route... this is the key to keeping trade routes under
> control...

I think though the question was asking more specifically do "I" (as the
regent) need guild holdings at both ends (at least taht is what I thought
was asked :) )..and we have hashed this question around a few times before
and come up with...*drum roll please*....you should do what ever you and
your DM decide is appropriate for your campaign..people have interpreted
this rule differently, and until anything "official" comes out, the first
rule of AD&D comes into effect..if you don't know..make it up..

- ----- End Included Message -----
Just can't let a trade route pass by without comment can I?

By the rules per se, a guild is only needed on one end (the origin point) of a
trade route. This leads to all kinds of problems. Mainly too much guild money/regency and (possibly) impossibly large armies. See my recent rant.
At one point (Memnoch's quote) it implies that two guilds are needed but other
points in the Rulebook don't support this clearly.

I'm in full agreement with Memnoch. Requiring two guilds (not necessarily owned
by the same person) to create a TR is the key to keeping them under control. I
also count the TR against the maximum allowed to each province. The intrigue,
diplomacy, and roleplaying that's occured IMC during struggles to control the
(now limited) major trade routes makes me confident that this is the way to go.
Some version of this rule we should reach concensus on and make it "official".

IMO we should try reach more decisions of these types, instead of copping out
with a wimpy "Oh, it's you're campaign do what you want" or "The DM is always
right." Most of us ARE DMs. We should strive to bring some consistency to
Cerilia. Those who want to do something different should then claim "I'm
running my own game BASED on BR" not "I'm running a Birthright campaign".

Of course, all official rulings should conform to my personal opinions. :)

Randax

[Eric Dunn]

>IMO we should try reach more decisions of these types, instead of copping
out
>with a wimpy "Oh, it's you're campaign do what you want" or "The DM is always
>right." Most of us ARE DMs. We should strive to bring some consistency to
>Cerilia. Those who want to do something different should then claim "I'm
>running my own game BASED on BR" not "I'm running a Birthright campaign".
>
>Of course, all official rulings should conform to my personal opinions. :)
>
>Randax
>

The only problem is who's right? I mean, sure you may get a concensus, but
when it comes right down to it, that doesn't make it "right". For
example--I think most of us can agree that the original AD&D rules about
crossbows was a bit whacked. They're weak and wimpy. You typically take
crossbows for RP purposes, and not because they pierce armor, or deal a
whole lot of damage. Similarly, they were traditionally, easy to aim, and
anyone could grab a crossbow, point, and release, and generally kill
someone. Yet, the "official" rules, though wrong, are accepted. DM's
change these at their own peril. ;)

So, until TSR/WoTC decides to do us all a favor and publish some
clarifications, we're left to our own individual devices.

I know I can rarely take a ruling to a game table and say "Well, they said
it on the BR Listserv!" and expect it to be taken as gospel ;)

E

[Clayton F. Hinton]

>
>IMO we should try reach more decisions of these types, instead of copping
out
>with a wimpy "Oh, it's you're campaign do what you want" or "The DM is always
>right." Most of us ARE DMs. We should strive to bring some consistency to
>Cerilia. Those who want to do something different should then claim "I'm
>running my own game BASED on BR" not "I'm running a Birthright campaign".

This concept I find very hard to agree with. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons
has always been a game that allows individual Dungeon Masters to use
whatever rules they feel are appropriate. The DM is always right. Period.
Perhaps in Tournament level play, or PBEM, your concept would be a good
thing, but in a ftf campaign, it has always been clear that people should
feel free to play how they want, and not feel bad about it in the morning.
Personally, I try to make rule clarifications based on what I think the
intent of the rule was, not on my opinion of how it should have been done.
I try hard to play the game as it was meant to be played, and saying that
this is "based on Birthright" and not just plain "Birthright" is, to put it
bluntly, insulting.

In the end, if players do not like the way the DM is handling rule
clarifications and changes, they should not play in his campaign. But if
the only thing a DM is doing is making clarifications, as I try to do, they
are clearling playing "Birthright," and not some unique game they made up,
"based on Birthright." As for the folks out there who really are coming up
with new rule systems, I would expect that they are proud of running their
own game, "based on Birthright." As for me, I'll stick to the rules as
plain as possible, with clarifications as needed. This list is a great way
to hear arguments either way, in my opinion, but I would not feel beholden
to a "consensus" here.

- -Clay Hinton
chinton@mail.utexas.edu