Guilds represented abstractly

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

In a message dated 1/9/99 4:40:07 AM Central Standard Time,
GeeMan@linkline.com writes:

>
That is implemintation. Not pure rules.

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.

But not if the spirit in which they are intended are help true. you need
spirit of analagy then true true ture... and they will fit. The fourth
componinet cannot be ignored for it to work


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.

It isn't it the forth is filled. You are not acknowledging it.

3 + 3=6
3 + 2=5

Why do these work?
1) They are all numbers and of the same caliber
2) they are all in the same spirit.

3 + 3=6
fish + worm= mullet

No 4th overlying spirit to keep them the same

The logic works if you use it all.

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

In a message dated 1/9/99 4:40:07 AM Central Standard Time,
GeeMan@linkline.com writes:

>

Oh one more thing... If you want to fight on my logic, lets take it to
personal e-mail an spare thes kind folks....

Julian...

[Jim Cooper]

Gary V. Foss wrote:
> 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...<

And don't forget for guys like ME! That ought to be me! :D hee hee!

(As regards the rest of your post Gary, this is a first! You realize
you are DEFENDING Kenneth, right?!? Woo Hoo! Cool! Heh.)

Cheers,
Darren (Hey, its after 4 in the morning ...)

[Gary V. Foss]

Jim Cooper wrote:

> Gary V. Foss wrote:
> > 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...<
>
> And don't forget for guys like ME! That ought to be me! :D hee hee!

And Coop. Sorry, didn't mean to exclude ya'!


> (As regards the rest of your post Gary, this is a first! You realize
> you are DEFENDING Kenneth, right?!? Woo Hoo! Cool! Heh.)

It's a whole new year, baby! The Pressie is impeached, despite my vote last November, the economy is going nuts and I am poor, and Kenneth and I are on the same wavelength for a change.... I guess that can only mean there will be four more bizarre
signs of the apocolypse in the next 12 months before the impending 2k end of the world....

Gary

[Pieter Sleijpen]

I wonder if the Vos would pay for the iron or just take it :-)

Pieter Sleijpen


JulesMrshn@aol.com wrote:

> 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!!!!!!!!!
>
> Julian
>
> ************************************************** *************************
> >

[Pieter Sleijpen]

The Mystara gazzeteer of Darokin gives rules on trade and it does
include a simple way of calculating demands (by giving bonusses and
penalties on the chance and ammount of profit) and also traveling times.
If know one else knows them and you all are going to beg, then I might
write a summary of them. Still, it is for D&D so I am not sure if they
are useful or not.

Pieter Sleijpen

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

In a message dated 1/9/99 7:29:05 AM Central Standard Time, madfox@wxs.nl
writes:

>

That is the peral of Exploritory trades.... : )

[Sindre Berg]

JulesMrshn@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 1/9/99 3:42:14 AM Central Standard Time,
> GeeMan@linkline.com writes:
>
> 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....>>
> 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.
>
> think
> there
> should be more "realistic" trade route rules, based upon the
> Exploratory
> Trade
> action >>
> 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.
>
>
> ok now you are just arguing for arguing....I was giving examples... i
> wasn't
> giving an index on trade goods. Plus things only go where you take
> them. The
> current rules could all be taken further, but they are not. Why
> should these
> be?
>
> 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...>>
>
> 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.
>
> I see
> guilds
> as being physically represented by market places, not production
> centers. >>
>
> Guilds are an asscioation of artisans in my defination. Not the BR
> defination
> whihc would change if trade holdings were included.
>
> 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. >>
> Trade holding.... what you describe here
>
> Guilds are associations of artisans. Theives guilds, association of
> theives... the gold it would generate would be in the ply of their
> trade.
>
> 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.>>
>
> See preivous notes. Hence my seperation of a Trade holding. That
> definition
> is for a current guild holding
>
>
>
> You are arguing blind here.. You have not heard the rules in their
> entirety
> so you make assumptions that they are super complex or need to be.
> This is
> what has perterbed me. You did not say, well lets here those rules
> presented
> before I pass judgement, both Kenneth and You called the system bad
> before
> hearing it in its entirty. That is just plain wrong, and I could read
> it
> without responding. Maybe you have just explain to all the BR loving
> people
> why it did not catch on. People just rushed to assume that the system
> >>>>>inevitably
> factors. This system would right something I see as a wrong. That is
>
> Guilders being the dominance of merhcants, when the merchants would go
> to who
> ever paid for their ventures.
>
> According to the Webster's ninth New Collegate Dictonary guild is: an
> association of people with simular intrests or pursuits; a medieval
> association of merchants or craftsmen.
>
> Now the merchants is addressed... but what about the craftsmen. They
> could
> have an impact if they banded together into a strong guild. And it
> would make
> them even more powerful if the regent need a guild of such nature to
> raise
> certain units. Now you can think of a whole bunch of rule here f you
> wanted
> to... ye they would not be functional. So if you think grander and a
> little
> bit more specfici then current and a little less specific the xyz
> there are
> good rules to be had that make them no less complicated then
> calcualating the
> ingrediants required for making a spell. Which, to my recolection....
> (watch
> closely) is covered by the research rule... which states it is
> assummed that
> the character has the need components to learn or make taht spell
> ....::basks
> in the ohhs from the audience::: As you liked to state.. about macro
> vs
> micro... then you should of sticked to macro. And macro rules states
> they
> assume you have the material needed which is what I was refering to.
>
> Now I hope by doing a little seperation in this posts I have explain
> things a
> little but better. If you want me to formulate these rules I will.
> Right now
> I haven't play tested them, nor was I ever thinking of doing so. I am
> not a
> game designer.., I wished for these things. I could reiterate what
> I said
> earlier,but I am sure you got the picture, or if you still don't
> now... then
> you need to reread.
> *******************
> ************************************************** *****
> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
> line
> Actually part of this trading for big money with distant parts is
covered in th Netbook Trade action...it does not cover the artisan vs
merchant conflict, but it does the bring lots of steel to Vos part

Just my 2 kroner....
- --
Sindre

Take a look at my homepage and Birthright PBMG at:

www.uio.no/~sindrejb

[DavTyr@aol.co]

I must agree that more rules just get in the way. As a GM I only use the
rules that add to the game & not those that impede it. I also have a list of
house rules that I follow.

As a player I find that if I feel we need more rules, then what is really
going on is that I'm not enjoying myself the way things are being played. So
I reexamine why I feel this way and bring up my feelings before a session.
Usually I find that others in the group are feeling much the same way, & if
you have a good GM, and not one who thinks he is above everyone & is going to
do it his way no matter what, then that is how change comes about & everyone
not only becomes better friends for it but also has more FUN! After all that
is what it is all about, Right?

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

I have managed a BR game. Granted it takes a lot of work, but I find it is
easier to do what they suggest and keep the realm equivalent to the PCs in
growth. If you are really are having a lot of trouble here is some helpful
hints:

1) Write down each regent on a peice of paper. Do it in pencil for ease of
erase. Takeing the time to do this can save a DM's life.
2)Constant Taxes. For any country away from the PCs, roll the income once and
use that result over and over and over. Even better, just give them 1/2
possible income. Example: 1d6 income, give them 3.
3)Expand in threes. Pick three areas to expand. The rest have them react to
the PCs or other things.
4)No random events in NPC lands, unless you want one to happen for the sake of
the PCs.
5) Do all non esential turns before the session.
6) Be prepared. This is the most important thing I can give as advice,
because I ave been prepared and not prepared. Being prepared makes things
1000000000 times easier.
7) Templates of Growth. Sit down and look at each Guild/Holding/Landed
Regent. Work out a schedule of growth and decline. Choose a few to excell
and shadow the PCs, growing when they grow, contesting them if they come on
their land. These can be life savers and time savers. It takes maybe 2 to 10
hours (don't have to be in a row) to do this how ever many Realms you would
like to do this for, but it can save a lot of heartache. I suggest this on
all Realms away from the PCs. Like Diemed and Mieres in the Southern Coast.
That way you do all the rolling before the characters begin. Do this about
every 8 turns and everything should be fine.


The rules can be expanded with little to worry about. Guilds would be a
temple like holding in that they would pretty much be static because of their
purpose. All in all it might add a little work to the DMs load (An NPC here
and there), but then again it shouldn't be too much of a problem if you work
in advance and prepare. I have managed a BR game with the Regents in 5
completely seperate locations on Cerilia. It was tough, but my player were
happy, and I was happy because I could do each area! I think it would add
little to load compared to the roleplaying and choices for players it could
add.