DKEvermore@aol.com wrote:
> Whatever existed in the minds of medieval earth people is not the issue in a fantasy roleplay game mail list.<

If it helps us to understand this great game, I think it does, because
it helps us to make these:

> Colorful and interesting stories around which to build exciting adventures in a fantastical world ...<

< I disagree. Kings of earth claimed divine right to rule, yes,
but regency to RL cultures is NOT the same as regency in Birthright.
This is comparing apples and rocks.<

Yes, BUT HOW ARE THEY DIFFERENT?!? PLEASE EXPLAIN! If you don't
explain yourself, then you're statements are about as useful as a
toothache. You see, we get one definition, like Carrie's, that says one
thing (that's its all political influence and stuff), and then we get
another, saying its all mystical and crap like that! What the hell is
it?!? Which one? How can it be both?!? I say this because most
definitions so far have been quite contradictory IMO, and so I get more
and more confused as time passes! This is such a fundamental part of
the BR game system that it requires a CLEAR AND CONCISE definition,
otherwise, the rest of the system falls apart - we can argue all we
want, but like you say later in your post, if we aren't even arguing
about the same rules, on the *same wavelength*, how can we ever reach an
understanding?!?

And this is where the problems begin, IMNSHO. The regency rules in BR
are poorly worded, and they confuse the issue more then they help. Heck
- - there are a lot of confusing rules in the rulebook. Check out the
Trade Route domain action for starters - first its says one thing, then
it says another, and we are left deciding whether a regent needs only
one guild holding, or another in the terminal province. Some nights, I
get this gut-wrenching desire to go out hunting for Baker and McComb,
Stark and Bebris, and kidnap them, tie them to a chair, and 'squeeze'
them until they talk and explain themselves. :) And I should think to
break poor Anne Brown's arms for such editing (not that she isn't a bad
person, but that I think even editors and proofreaders should be held
accountable).