Guilds represented abstractly

[Kenneth Gauck]

Lets consider that more rules usually means more complexity, not greater
realism. The strength of D&D is the DM, who is the game judge. Rules
should provide an over-arching structure, but beyond that they just get in
the DM's way. A DM should design his own approach to match his campaign.
Guilds certainly don't produce widgets, the produce real things (candles,
shoes, nails, shirts) and the DM should take this into account. But rules
specifying that "x" units of cloth goods, and "y" units of woodcrafts, and
"z" units of leather goods, and "w" units of metal goods, are actually
impediments to that. The DM should decide what the effect of a guild
holdings destruction should be based on what he things a reasonable
consequence should be.

However, when you have 15 guild holdings and 6 trade routes, keeping up with
the quantities and kinds of actual goods being transported, and the impact
that they have on the economy, is too vast an undertaking to be worth it.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

In a message dated 1/8/99 8:20:42 PM Central Standard Time,
c558382@earthlink.net writes:

>

New guild rules with a little expansion do not mean more complexity, they do
not take away anything from the DM, all they offer is a PLAYER more choice and
more fexlibity. Because it is the PLAYERS that play the game and if the DM
doesn't think of them then the DM will be PLAYING by himself.

What I was saying was that Guilds should be just that... Guilds. Trade (or
Merchant/Buisness/Lords of Money Palaces/etc)) holdings would cover what was
trade in those areas but GUILDS would control the artisans. It would amount
to little in complexity but offer a world to explore and a world of flexibity
to the players. I myself never once mention that DMs should keep track of the
amount of goods produced or used or such. If I wanted that I would play a
computer game detailing that. What I said was a little more thought could have
been put into the game when designing it as was obviuosly put into Magicians
and Landed Regents. A page of rules on differnt artisan guilds would not hurt
a dang bit.

Let me show you why, using your words substituting them in another feild to
show how they sound to me.....

Lets consider that more rules usually means more complexity, not greater
realism. The strength of D&D is the DM, who is the game judge. Rules
should provide an over-arching structure, but beyond that they just get in
the DM's way. A DM should design his own approach to match his campaign.
Wizards certainly don't produce widgets, the produce magic things (scrolls,
magical items, spells) and the DM should take this into account. But rules
specifying that "x" units spell components and "y" spell schools, and
"z" pages of spell books, and "w" numbers of spells cast per day, are
actually
impediments to that. The DM should decide what the effect of a magic
destruction should be based on what he things a reasonable consequence should
be.

However, when you have 15 spells and 6 spell components, keeping up with
the quantities and kinds of actual spells being cast, and the impact
that they have on the game, is too vast an undertaking to be worth it.

[Gary V. Foss]

JulesMrshn@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 1/8/99 8:20:42 PM Central Standard Time,
> c558382@earthlink.net writes:
>
> realism. The strength of D&D is the DM, who is the game judge. Rules
> should provide an over-arching structure, but beyond that they just get in
> the DM's way. A DM should design his own approach to match his campaign.
> Guilds certainly don't produce widgets, the produce real things (candles,
> shoes, nails, shirts) and the DM should take this into account. But rules
> specifying that "x" units of cloth goods, and "y" units of woodcrafts, and
> "z" units of leather goods, and "w" units of metal goods, are actually
> impediments to that. The DM should decide what the effect of a guild
> holdings destruction should be based on what he things a reasonable
> consequence should be.
>
> However, when you have 15 guild holdings and 6 trade routes, keeping up with
> the quantities and kinds of actual goods being transported, and the impact
> that they have on the economy, is too vast an undertaking to be worth it.>>
>
> New guild rules with a little expansion do not mean more complexity, they do
> not take away anything from the DM, all they offer is a PLAYER more choice and
> more fexlibity. Because it is the PLAYERS that play the game and if the DM
> doesn't think of them then the DM will be PLAYING by himself.
>
> What I was saying was that Guilds should be just that... Guilds. Trade (or
> Merchant/Buisness/Lords of Money Palaces/etc)) holdings would cover what was
> trade in those areas but GUILDS would control the artisans. It would amount
> to little in complexity but offer a world to explore and a world of flexibity
> to the players. I myself never once mention that DMs should keep track of the
> amount of goods produced or used or such. If I wanted that I would play a
> computer game detailing that. What I said was a little more thought could have
> been put into the game when designing it as was obviuosly put into Magicians
> and Landed Regents. A page of rules on differnt artisan guilds would not hurt
> a dang bit.
>
> Let me show you why, using your words substituting them in another feild to
> show how they sound to me.....
>
> Lets consider that more rules usually means more complexity, not greater
> realism. The strength of D&D is the DM, who is the game judge. Rules
> should provide an over-arching structure, but beyond that they just get in
> the DM's way. A DM should design his own approach to match his campaign.
> Wizards certainly don't produce widgets, the produce magic things (scrolls,
> magical items, spells) and the DM should take this into account. But rules
> specifying that "x" units spell components and "y" spell schools, and
> "z" pages of spell books, and "w" numbers of spells cast per day, are
> actually
> impediments to that. The DM should decide what the effect of a magic
> destruction should be based on what he things a reasonable consequence should
> be.
>
> However, when you have 15 spells and 6 spell components, keeping up with
> the quantities and kinds of actual spells being cast, and the impact
> that they have on the game, is too vast an undertaking to be worth it.

I don't think that's really a fair comparison. Spells are intrinsic to character
class, while Kenneth's remarks were more on the level of a the macro gaming rules
that deal with domains and holdings, so inserting magic into the paragraph in
place of products obscures both points. Guild holdings and trade routes aren't
interchangeable subject with spells and spell components.

Guilds and trade routes (and the rest of the domain rules) really are a sort of
"macro game rules" as such they are not intended to deal very closely with things
like production, products, bartering, etc.

I don't know, guys. I fall somewhere in the middle of this things. I like to
hear a little bit about what holdings actually represent physically; a temple(4)
represents 1 large, 2 medium and 3 small temples, with a staff of X priests of X
level, etc. but I don't know that I really need to know their names and ability
scores....

As such, I wouldn't mind hearing what was represented by a guild holding or a
trade route. How many buildings, workers, etc. does a guild holding represent,
and how many wagons, horses, etc. are in a trade route? I would be leery,
however, of rules that got into the minutae of guilds or any other holding,
describing what products were being made, especially if that became a requirement
of creating a guild or trade route, because the could potentially slow a gaming
session down.

I said a while back that I have no problem with realism in AD&D. I just think it
is up to the person who wants to use more "realistic" rules to present those rules
in such a way that they will not interfere with play or the pace of the game. I
don't have a problem with saying that guilds are "production centers" if where
things are created, though I would prefer to define them as marketplaces, stores
or other places where things are not "created" but bartered and traded. That
seems to fit more in with the character of thieves who run them, but since the
domain rules deal with things on a large scale I don't have a problem with not
defining them at all....

Gary

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

In a message dated 1/8/99 11:38:40 PM Central Standard Time,
GeeMan@linkline.com writes:

>

I was making a point that seems to have missed you...

Guilds are Guilds....
Trade is Trade...
They don't interact with one and other really...

How he ever got from a suggestion that Iron from one place to another being
worth more (a one time trade route) to the computation of x,y,z. I will never
know. My idea was to take something apparently everyone accepted spells (and
the ludacrist amount of work people do with them with no "game" enhancments
other then realism) This is what I have designated as mage-itis. Mage-itis is
a disease where playes of AD&D think only magic can have enigmatic rules and
books upon books of stuff. Hence my choice of comparison. I new people would
defend magic. It is the addictive drug of AD&D.

The fact is both are interchangable since both are rules. While one will
effect a larger scale then the other is not relavent. What I am saying is just
because you don't like the idea is not reason to say it is the anti-christ of
D&D gaming. It would be a useless thing like the spell components... magic
item creation rules... andothe magic related things that I feel are fiddly
foo..

Now that that is said..... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

You missed my point entirely. Never once was I implying that rules such as
Kenneth be exacted upon the birthright masses.

Here is the passage

[Gary V. Foss]

JulesMrshn@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 1/8/99 11:38:40 PM Central Standard Time,
> GeeMan@linkline.com writes:
>
> I don't think that's really a fair comparison. Spells are intrinsic to
> character
> class, while Kenneth's remarks were more on the level of a the macro gaming
> rules
> that deal with domains and holdings, so inserting magic into the paragraph in
> place of products obscures both points. Guild holdings and trade routes
> aren't
> interchangeable subject with spells and spell components.
> >>
>
> I was making a point that seems to have missed you...
>
> Guilds are Guilds....
> Trade is Trade...
> They don't interact with one and other really...
>
> How he ever got from a suggestion that Iron from one place to another being
> worth more (a one time trade route) to the computation of x,y,z. I will never
> know. My idea was to take something apparently everyone accepted spells (and
> the ludacrist amount of work people do with them with no "game" enhancments
> other then realism) This is what I have designated as mage-itis. Mage-itis is
> a disease where playes of AD&D think only magic can have enigmatic rules and
> books upon books of stuff. Hence my choice of comparison. I new people would
> defend magic. It is the addictive drug of AD&D.

Well, I think his comments were actually pretty directly related to your
statements, but more on that in a bit....

My response, however, had nothing to do with being "addicted to magic". (I'm
still a little unclear on what that means, but I don't think it's important.) My
response was about how your changing the terms in his statements was invalid. For
instance, you just said:

Guilds are guilds...
Trade is trade...
They don't interact with one another really...

By changing your terms I get:

Men are men...
Women are women...
They don't interact with one another really....

You can't just change the terms of a statement/argument without reassessing it's
truth value. That was the point.

> The fact is both are interchangable since both are rules. While one will
> effect a larger scale then the other is not relavent. What I am saying is just
> because you don't like the idea is not reason to say it is the anti-christ of
> D&D gaming. It would be a useless thing like the spell components... magic
> item creation rules... andothe magic related things that I feel are fiddly
> foo..

Hmmm. Well, first off I don't think I even remotely said anything that would
imply that an idea I didn't like was "the anti-christ of D&D gaming". I usually
reserve such judgment for members of Congress, studio execs and third world
dictators...

Secondly, I don't think "both are interchangeable since both are rules." You
can't just swap the rules of chess and checkers. Lots of the domain rules are
difficult to translate in standard AD&D terms.

Personally, I'd like to see a little more interchangeably between the domain rules
and the standard AD&D core rules. The domain rules are intentionally abstract.
For the most part I'm OK with this, but there are a few glaring examples when the
abstract domain rules don't mesh with the standard AD&D rules, which I would like
to see rectified. Mostly these things have to do with the Rule Province action
(which increases population WAY too quickly), the value of the GB (which I've
changed to 10,000gp in my campaign) and the warcards/battle rules.

> Now that that is said..... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
>
> You missed my point entirely. Never once was I implying that rules such as
> Kenneth be exacted upon the birthright masses.
>
> Here is the passage
> rules for Exploratory Trade. I don't like this "have to establih route" thing
> to do trade. A few ships loaded with wood to Khinasi Plains area, or iron to
> Vosgarrd would make a good profit, but would not have to be done each time.
> There are other things, but that gives you the general idea... I would like
> more involved trade rules. >>
>
> Now how Kenneth got xyz from this I will never know. We know from the current
> rules that different products are produced in differnt areas. We know in the
> current rules that trade routes must be in a different area(be it culture or
> other factors).... now here is what I am saying. Iron in Vosgaard is worth a
> LOT. While they have a LOT of trees. Now wouldn't a trde route from Vosgaard
> to say an Iron Rich Area be more then an inter provience trade route. It
> would stand to reason so. Take a boat load or iron to the City of Anurie...
> and a boat load to Voasgaard. Now while it would be common sense that the
> same boat load would be worth more in vosgaard then the Imperial City, since
> they would have access to many others.
> So a simple rule of want/need modifiers to a trade route would fix this.
> Maybe a bonus for the first few turns the route is in place. Since after that
> the iron would be less valuable in that area....OH MY GOD THE COMPLEXITY
> ASTOUNDS ME!!!!! MY BRAIN, IT CAN'T COMPUTE ALL THOSE FACTORS... THE GAME IS
> RUINED FOR ME FOREVER!!!!! ARRG!!!!!!!!!

Ho-kay....

I really don't think either of us missed your point. I'd say that I think you
missed mine if I wasn't so afraid you'd type in CAPS at me again....

If I'm understanding your point correctly, you're saying that you think there
should be more "realistic" trade route rules, based upon the Exploratory Trade
action using different products and influenced by the demand that various regions
will have. In your comments you gave examples; iron in Vosgaard, wood in Anuire.
I can't speak for Kenneth, but what I got from his message was that descriptions
of particular commodities the way you suggested would lead inevitably to the kind
of game bogging detail that the macro rules covering trade routes are meant to
avoid. Your examples are iron and wood. Well, wouldn't formulating rules for
those items lead inevitably to someone wanting to trade not just iron and wood but
things like wood and iron products? Sure, iron sells for more in Vosgaard than in
Anuire, but I'm pretty sure a steel sword sells for even more.... What about
luxury items? I bet a few Rjurik women would go nuts for some Khinasi silks. On
the other hand, how are you going to judge those cultural interactions without
some pretty significant (and detailed) rules? That's the more significant X, Y, Z
conclusion....

As for guilds being guilds and trade being trade, and how they don't interact with
each other really, I don't think I can agree with that. Personally, I see guilds
as being physically represented by market places, not production centers. They
are the grand bizarres, the city squares, the stores, markets, shops, etc. They
are the centers of trade and the revenue that is generated from them is the profit
that merchants get from reselling products that they purchase wholesale. I think
they are directly related to trade and that's why it takes a guild holding to
start a trade route. The guild is where the goods from the distant or
not-too-distant province arrive and are sold to generate the income that the trade
route gives to the guilder.

This definition of guild holdings seems to fit pretty well with the domain rules
regarding both guilds and trade routes, but I'm not married to it, so if you have
a better one I'm perfectly happy to hear it.

I have played games that have trade as a major emphasis and they take things into
consideration the way I think you are suggesting. Traveler, for instance, had
pretty good rules, though the updated Megatraveler stuff was much more
intelligently done, I thought. Since "rules are rules" and, therefore,
interchangeable maybe you could do something like that in BR? A couple of points
about that system, however.

1. It was meant to cover the trade of characters operating a single trading
vessel, which is a much more limited than the macro trading rules in BR.

2. Specific commodities could be defined if one wished to, but it was much more
related to the general properties of the planet(s) where the goods were originated
and where they were sold. If one were going to do this kind of thing in BR it
would probably be similarly abstract.

One last point regarding this whole issue. While it is true that iron in Vosgaard
is worth more than iron in Anuire, but your leaving out a couple of factors. Not
everyone will want to sell their goods in Vosgaard (or Rjurik, Khinasi, whatever)
even if they could get more money for them there. Things like travel time become
an issue. Profitability is directly tied to turn around times and if you can sell
your goods closer to home for half the profit that you would earn if you sold them
somewhere that it takes twice the travel time to get to it negates the additional
money you could earn. Distance often counters profit if you want to employ
"realism" in BR trade because you run into more problems with transportation.
Ships sink, bandits strike, the mules get sick, it rains, the roads get washed
out, you have to pay tolls, ferrymen, etc. That kind of thing should also
influence trade if you are going to start adding details like demand...

Me, I like the macro rules for trade that take all these things for granted,
though I'd be interested in hearing your suggestions for more realistic rules.
Maybe the problem I'm having in understanding your points is that you aren't
making many concrete suggestions for how the rules should be changed. Like I've
said, I think its the obligation of the person who wants more realism to come up
with those rules. For me the deciding factor in the value of those rules is
whether or not they fit into the existing rules and most importantly do not bog
down play. If you have a better system I'd be happy to discuss it.

Gary

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

In a message dated 1/9/99 3:42:14 AM Central Standard Time,
GeeMan@linkline.com writes:

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

In a message dated 1/9/99 3:42:14 AM Central Standard Time,
GeeMan@linkline.com writes:

>

That was in response to Kenneth's dialog. As I thought was appaernt. I am
sorry if you mistook your comments for anti-chirst naming..... oh that didn't
sound good... anyway I am sorry.

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

In a message dated 1/9/99 3:42:14 AM Central Standard Time,
GeeMan@linkline.com writes:

>

Well I disagree. They are the same. Extra rules for reality. Not just both
are rules. It would be that same if you interchange the rules of movement in
chess and checkers if you are refering to their use in the game... not what
they do or what spaces they move, The change worked because when the
implements where change the arguement still made sense. That is the bottom
line.

[Gary V. Foss]

JulesMrshn@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 1/9/99 3:42:14 AM Central Standard Time,
> GeeMan@linkline.com writes:
>
> By changing your terms I get:
>
> Men are men...
> Women are women...
> They don't interact with one another really....
>
> You can't just change the terms of a statement/argument without reassessing
> it's
> truth value. That was the point. >>
>
> Once again no. I did game terms... and more specifically EXTRA game terms.
> They are related. Your plugins were not.
>
> Celric magic is Cleric Magic
> mage magic is mage magic
> the don't really interact.
>
> Strength bonuses are strength bonuses
> Dexterity bonuses are deterity bonuses
> they don't realy interact
>
> see what I mean

Mage spells and cleric spells DO interact, as do Strength and Dexterity
bonuses. Mages cast spells that cause damage, clerics can heal that damage.
They can cast spells the effect one another or cancel each other out (Dispel
Magic). Also strength bonuses are countered by dexterity AC adjustments.

That illustrates how replacing the terms creates a basic logical fallacy. It's
got nothing to do with the source of the terms. You can't just replace the
terms in a True-True-True argument and expect it to remain True-True-True. If
you replace the terms you have no way of telling if the argument is still
valid. True-True-True can just as easily turn into True-True-False.

THAC0 is THAC0
Armor Class is Armor Class
They don't really interact

Spells are spells
Saving throws are saving throws
They don't really interact

It doesn't matter if you throw game rules, NCAA rules, Roman Law, moral
statements, aardvarks, banana peels, professional wrestlers or cookie recipes in
there. The logical format is flawed.

Gary

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

In a message dated 1/9/99 3:42:14 AM Central Standard Time,
GeeMan@linkline.com writes:

>
Well its that or trying to find my text. I was using caps to add to the
absurity for sarcastic intent. Sorry if that offended you.


>
No no. Once again statements are differnet. Not all tpoints are the same.
Exploritory Trade rules for in Cerilia (Ie one time trade route)
Now..... second point
using different products and influenced by the demand that various regions
will have. In your comments you gave examples; iron in Vosgaard, wood in
Anuire.
I can't speak for Kenneth, but what I got from his message was that
descriptions
of particular commodities the way you suggested would lead inevitably to the
kind
of game bogging detail that the macro rules covering trade routes are meant
to
avoid. >>

What inevitabilites are we talking about. The rules are there already. Iron
is Scarce here... oh complex... you are just nay saying for the sake of nay
saying here. That is all it needs to be.




Cultural items are covered in the current rules, aka different cultures
different trade areas. these would not be massive enough needs to warrent
extra GBs.... I am talk raw and in the need items,ones that the entire nation
needs to function, not sundry items a few rjurk wenchs desire.



Guilds are an asscioation of artisans in my defination. Not the BR defination
whihc would change if trade holdings were included.