Ch. 5 - Domain attitude adjustments

[Athos69]

After having a long look at the Domain Attitude section, as well as the Agitate action, I have noted a few points.

The tables are set up so that there is no maximum swing possible, save in the positive direction, it is (relatively) easy for attitude to slide towards hostile, while getting a corresponding shift in a positive direction is much more difficult, and the table itself has an error or 2.

The Agitate action has a maximum swing of 2 levels.

I would like to see a bit less volatility in the attitude of populaces. I would propose that there be a 1 level swing in the regular seasonal attitude checks, and maintain the active Agitate's 2 level swing.

If we were to do this, the whole table could be simplified to the following one line

• -2 levels: -10 or less
• -1 level: -9-0
• No change : 1-19
• + 1 level: 20-29
• +2 levels: 30+

All existing bonuses would apply to regular seasonal checks, and Agitate actions would be performed normally per the BRCS.

Comments?

[The Jew]

Nice and simple, I like it

[Osprey]

Domains and Attitudes:

The BRCS attitude tables were set up to mirror the DMG's NPC Attitude tables - something that seemed to work OK to me, though I'd agree and say it wasn't incredible or anything.

What I would really love to see is for Domain attitude to have a more dramatic effect on domain actions. After all, domain actions in a province very much depend on gaining the faith and support of the locals - this is the primary basis for regency, right?

To that end, I'd propose emphasizing both positive and negative attitudes. Something like this, maybe:

Rebellious: Ruling the province and/or holdings is impossible. -6 penalty to any other domain action checks.
Hostile: -4 penalty to domain action checks
Unfriendly: -2 penalty to domain actions
Indifferent: no modifier to domain actions
Friendly: +1 bonus to domain actions
Helpful: +2 bonus to domain actions
[Epic: add Fanatic, +4 bonus]

Now Athos, as far as sliding up or down the chart: I felt the BRCS table was too nice in that once you hit indifferent, it tended to be uphill without prolonged negative effects.

I should note that IMC I expanded the BRCS modifier of +1 per great deed ever performed in service to the realm as a Renown system for regents and heroes - great/heroic achievements earn +1 permanent Renown, resounding failures and dastardly deeds can earn negative Renown (I call it Infamy if it drops below 0).

The Renown modifier is then applied each season to the regent's domain attitude checks.

What happens is that long-standing heroes (my campaign has been running for over 1-1/2 years regularly) with many great deeds under their belts can stack up a decent Renown score - some of my PC's are at +5 and higher (as 17th-22nd level characters, mind you).

The results of regular high modifiers (high holding levels, 5 ranks in Diplomacy, renown) means stable realms tend to float between Friendly and Helpful without hardly ever needing to Agitate, and this often at high levels of taxations.

Which brings me to anoither point: High Taxation should definitely have a more severe penalty attached to it. -2 per extra GB in taxes would be better. +1 per GB less in low taxes works OK for me, since gratitude seems harder to come by for any lasting time, while resentment always seems to build easily.

I think the table should be pretty even for going up and down, reflecting that public attitude is often fickle and irrational without the guidance of certain structures and the general faith of the people in their regent.

Here's something: if Random Events happened more frequently, and tended to frequently have additional effect on province attitudes (both positive and negative), then it might suffice to have baseline seasonal attitude checks never vary by more than a level. I would personally prefer to have stacking critical successes and failures (nat 20 = roll again and add to 20, nat 1 = roll and again and subtract from 1) to indicate those odd fads and moods that seem to sweep through the masses from time to time, not to mention the touch of the supernatural world in small ways (the stuff of popular folklore).

With such a system, infinitely expanding tables allow for dramatic successes and disasters, but only in the most rare instances - most of the times things are fairly predictable.

Here's more where I would like to see things:

-4 Attitude:-55 to -41
-3 Attitude: -40 to -26
-2 Attitude: -25 to -16
-1 Attitude: -15 to 5
No Change: 6 to 15
+1 Attitude: 16 to 30
+2 Attitude: 31 to 45
+3 Attitude: 46 to 60
+4 Attitude: 61-75

This is a fairly modular system where anything is possible with sheer luck or misfortune, but the most common thing in a balanced setting is for things to stay the same. These sorts of numbers, however, become reachable when enough RP is spent on an Agitate action...

I don't really feel there should be a limit to how many levels can be agitated - with high enough target numbers (i.e., loads of RP must be burnt) this is an unnecessary limitation on a game that is meant to be partly fantastic. Given the speed with which lands and holdings can ruled to power rapidly (almost overnight inmedieval terms) by blooded regents, it seems a contradictory piece of "sober reality" to limit the swing of domain attitudes, especially when massive amounts of divine influence are at work. Burning RP to influence domain actions is very much like using divine realm magic, IMO. It should thus be capable of larger-than-life effects on the loyalty and attitude of the populace.

Further, given the strictly limited number of domain actions available to any regent, expanding the power of Agitate makes it much more worthwhile as a good use of a precious domain action that season. Throwing an enemy's province into Unfriendly or Hostile status isn't the end of the world for a defending regent, and most of the time the defender can spend RP to block, preventing the most drastic levels of effect.

Whaddya' think about that? :huh:

Osprey

[The Jew]

still chewing over the rest, but the negative modifiers should apply as a bonus to someone contesting your holdings and positive modifiers should apply a penalty to your enemies.

[Osprey]

still chewing over the rest, but the negative modifiers should apply as a bonus to someone contesting your holdings and positive modifiers should apply a penalty to your enemies.

I'm agreeable to that addition.

[Raesene Andu]

That makes sense to me too. A realm annoyed with its regent is more likely to support an "enemy" regent.