Gary V. Foss wrote:
> Another problem is that there is no way in the rules for holdings to go down
> aside from them being contested. After creating and ruling up a holding, a
> regent can basically ignore it until the day he dies at which point it is
> transferred intact to his heir. This isn't a very realistic situation (there's
> that word again!) but I'm not sure how to come up with a solution that would
> fit into the rules and keep everybody happy. Any ideas?

Here' an idea off the top of my head for the possible deterioration of Law,
Guild, and Temple Holdings:
When a regent is strapped for GB (which seems to be all the time without
Trade Routes), he/she can choose not to pay the full required cost to
maintain all his/her Holdings. The Regent selects which Holdings he/she
won't maintain. The ones that the maintenance cost is not paid for have a
d10 (or d20?? or d12?? Any suggestions on what seems best?) rolled for
them, and any score equal to or lower than the value of the Holding
indicates it has been neglected to the point that it loses a level. This
would make it more likely for a higher level Holding to lose a level, which
makes sense to me. If you have a level 5 holding, it seems like providing
the funding for it is more important to its continued health than for a
level 1 Holding.

Here's an example. A priest controls 24 Temple Holdings. This would
normally require 4GB to maintain. However, she wants to hire some
mercenaries and ends up being strapped for gold. She can only pay 3GB
toward her Holding maintenance. Because of this, she has to choose 6
Holdings that MAY go down a level due to neglected maintenance. The reason
it is 6 Holdings is because 3GB is only enough to maintain 18 Holdings (see
p. 45 of the BR Rulebook for the table), so the other 6 she has may
deteriorate. She doesn't care as much about her holdings in some far off
land, so she decides those are the 6 she won't pay maintenance for. They
are level 3(x3), level 2(x2) and a level 1 Holding. She rolls a d10 (or
d20?? or d12??) and gets the following results:
For 3 level 3 Holdings: Rolls 8, 5, 3
For 2 level 2 Holdings: Rolls 10, 1
For 1 level 1 Holding: Rolls 6

Thus, one of her level 3 Holdings (she rolled a 3) and one of her level 2
Holdings (she rolled a 1) end up deteriorating and losing a level. She can
later Rule them back up if she wants to, but the reduced Holding level is

Any comments? This obviously doesn't apply to Source holdings, which a
Regent doesn't have to pay GBs to maintain, but that seems reasonable to
me. It seems like Source holdings should be the most "permanent" unless
someone tries to take them away from you.

Craig Greeson