Domain Actions - Attitude Effects

[Osprey]

I think attitude is best handled by on a regent by regent basis - that is, only one attitude per prpovince for a given regent, which keeps landed regents from having to make 2 attitude checks for every province (1 for land, 1 for law). Just use holdings as modifiers to actions, not the actual target of an attitude check. In BR we are most concerned about the character regents, not the organizations.

If we're talking about regents, then we need to decide:
1. Does a regent need to determine loyalty province by province or realm by realm?

2. Should all non-source regents check attitude by province or by realm?

3. Should source regents have attitude checks as well? What about in provinces where they have virtual guilds?

The discussion here is good, but these are pretty quantifiable concepts (can be polled), esp. #1 and 2. No. 3 is really more pthere for discussions' sake, 'cause no one's really mentioned it.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Hmmm Gary let's see if I can explain the level of compexity a bit more in detail.

There is a province A (level 5), ruled by regent A.

There are 2 different guilds in said province, B and C, ruled by regents B and C.

Regent A controls 4 levels of law holding in said provnce while regent C controls 1 level of law holds.

Should province attitude apply to regent A for his province and law holdings?

How about regent B? Should the province attitude apply to his guild holdings? Should he have a separate attitude of his guild holding towards him?

How about regent C? Should the province attitude apply to his holdings? Guild and Law? Should he have separate attitude for his holdings? All of holdings have the same attitude? Should he have a separate attitude for his guild and law holding?

What should the effects of guild B have on regent C's guild holding?
Regent A's province and law holding on regent C's law holding?

Should they be the same mechanic? What should that be at the holding level?

It is pretty easy to have a court affect domain attitude (BRCS-playtest). But should this affect all of the regent's holdings and provinces?


Should each province have its own court? Should each holding? Should courts be competing or complimentary (i.e., subtract from each other or add up).

Sorry Gary, but it is a rather complex issue. For one it is a bookkeeping nightmare (thus more complex). {I define complex as how much effort is required to do something not on the mathematical calculations since effort is what really matters. If the math is easy but has to be done over a lot of different iterations then the problem becomes complex.} For another should there be different formulas to use for landed regents than non-landed ones? It makes a lot of sense to have them be different - if we are going into an individual regent/holding distinction.

I tend to agree with Osprey on this one.

[geeman]

At 08:46 PM 10/24/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>Hmmm Gary let`s see if I can explain the level of compexity a bit more in

>detail.There is a province A (level 5), ruled by regent A.There are 2

>different guilds in said province, B and C, ruled by regents B and

>C.Regent A controls 4 levels of law holding in said provnce while regent C

>controls 1 level of law holds.Should province attitude apply to regent A

>for his province and law holdings?How about regent B? Should the province

>attitude apply to his guild holdings? Should he have a separate attitude

>of his guild holding towards him?How about regent C? Should the province

>attitude apply to his holdings? Guild and Law? Should he have separate

>attitude for his holdings?

>All of holdings have the same attitude? Should he have a separate attitude

>for his guild and law holding?What should the effects of guild B have on

>regent C`s guild holding?Regent A`s province and law holding on regent C`s

>law holding?Should they be the same mechanic? What should that be at the

>holding level?It is pretty easy to have a court affect domain attitude

>(BRCS-playtest). But should this affect all of the regent`s holdings and

>provinces?Should each province have its own court? Should each

>holding? Should courts be competing or complimentary (i.e., subtract from

>each other or add up).Sorry Gary, but it is a rather complex issue. For

>one it is a bookkeeping nightmare (thus more complex). {I define complex

>as how much effort is required to do something not on the mathematical

>calculations since effort is what really matters. If the math is easy but

>has to be done over a lot of different iterations then the problem becomes

>complex.} For another should there be different formulas to use for

>landed regents than non-landed ones? It makes a lot of sense to have them

>be different - if we are going into an individual regent/holding

>distinction. I tend to agree with Osprey on this one.



The reason this isn`t really a complex issue is that almost all of the

above questions can be answered with a single ruling. "All holdings and

provinces have an Attitude rating" addresses the majority of the questions

asked above. If one is going to extend the concept of attitude to holdings

it seems like the simplest and most logical extension of the concept. A

regent who controlled a province and two types of holdings would then have

an attitude rating for all three, and have three different attitudes

towards him.



"Prelate Jaffa is a great ruler... but he`s not a very good sheriff or

businessman."



Some of the other questions (regarding courts) don`t actually seem very

much related to the issue at hand unless I`m missing something. Is there a

reason why the attitude function of courts should be altered? I can`t see

any change that would be required for that or for the effects of the domain

actions that altered the original loyalty score. Why is that a problem

that adds to complexity?



Frankly, there are very few things in gaming that can`t be expressed in a

very detailed manner a la some "Sage Advice" column, but the reality of

this situation is that the issue can be pretty easily addressed. Yes,

there are decisions that have to be made regarding how the expansion of the

system should be applied. Despite every possible permutation being

described above, these questions really are not that complicated. None of

those questions posed above are particularly difficult to answer, and in

fact more than one person has presented ideas that address them in this

thread. When all is said and done, the text required to clarify exactly

how the system would be expanded might take up (at a guess) about 75-100

words, probably quite a bit less because the same rules that apply to

province attitude can also be used to describe holding attitude.



Bookkeeping is certainly an issue, and keeping track of loyalty shifts can

be a problem if one doesn`t have some sort of system. One does have to

have an additional box (or a value expressed after the holding or province

level--which is how I did it.) Since Attitude shifts are pretty much

single positive and negative points that system, as I noted before, need

only be a place to make tally marks next to the holding level in order to

account for the positive and negative shifts that occur during the domain

turn so that they can be counted during the attitude shift portion of the

domain turn after revenue is collected. One need not use a spreadsheet or

some other computerized way of tracking attitude if one can just keep

tallies next to the individual province and holding. It`s hardly the

"nightmare" you describe. Sure, people will have to keep track of shifts

for holdings, but if one takes a look at the kinds of things that affect

Attitude they are generally less likely to be at issue for holdings, so I

think this suggestion that the amount of bookkeeping will reach a level of

complexity that will be a problem isn`t true as long as the players in

question are able to count on their fingers....



Noting Attitude is quite simple:



Province Name (Population Level / Potential Source) - Attitude



Holding Type (Level) - Attitude



Keeping tally marks next to those notations is similarly easy. It`s no

more difficult or complex than several parts of the standard D&D character

sheet.



I feel obliged to note again that these issues were discussed pretty

thoroughly four years ago. Nobody thought it too complex then, nor did

anyone have any trouble grasping the issue. In my house rules I actually

did increase the complexity of the loyalty system much more than has been

discussed here. In addition to giving holdings a loyalty rating, that

rating had five fully articulated levels rather than the original four and

they were based on a 10 point sequence, I added several new modifiers,

etc. That system worked fine, so my experience is that extending the

system isn`t a problem.



Gary

[irdeggman]

This is another poll I'd normally be closing, but again with the recent board access problems. . . .

[irdeggman]

I'm closing this poll.

Based on the comments made I think maybe we need to relook at how to capture what domain actions should work like.

I might just leave that to Ian - but we need to make some progress here and can't just spend our time talking.

Here are the results of this poll:


How should Domain Attitude affect domain action checks?
(1) It should affect only the province ruler's actions [ 1 ] [5.00%]
(2) It should affect every regent's actions in the province [ 2 ] [10.00%]
(3) (1) above, except for actions involving sources [ 2 ] [10.00%]
(4) (2) above, except for actions involving sources [ 7 ] [35.00%]
(5) (2) above except that there is a lesser effect on non-province ruler's actions [ 0 ] [0.00%]
(6) (4) above, except that there is a lesser effect on non-province ruler's actions [ 3 ] [15.00%]
(7) It should not have any effect on doman action checks [ 0 ] [0.00%]
(8) Other (please specify in as much detail as possible) [ 4 ] [20.00%]
(9) Abstain [ 1 ] [5.00%]
Total Votes: 20