View Poll Results: How should Domain Attitude affect domain action checks?
- Voters
- 20. You may not vote on this poll
-
(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% -
(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% -
(8) Other (please specify in as much detail as possible)
4 20.00% -
(9) Abstain
1 5.00%
Results 21 to 30 of 35
-
10-20-2004, 05:49 PM #21
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
The down side to this would be the complexity involved. It is fairly easy to assign a single attitude to a province but exponentially more difficult to assign separate attitudes to each holding (and regent). So is it better to sacrifice realism for ease of play? IMO it would do more to bring in "new" players if we simplify the process as much as possible.
Duane Eggert
-
10-20-2004, 06:30 PM #22
That was why I was stressing that I didn't think it should change as often or as arbitrarily as Province loyalty.
I would rather have a complex rule, or even no rule at all than have a rule I thought just misrepresented the situation.
I mean sure you can lure the newbie in by making a simple rule, but once they realise its limitations, they'll likely just substitute a house rule for it anyway.
Perhaps one way to make my previous suggestion more palatable would be to refer to it by realm. Say I'm playing the WIT and I have a the attitude for six different realms to worry about, Avanil, Tuornen, Alamie, Endier, Taeghas and the Imperial City of Anuire. You could up the costs for trying to sway opinion across a large realm, or decrease it for a small realm. Or just charge based on how many provinces you have a presence in."As soon as war is declared, it will be impossible to hold the poets back. Rhyme is still the most effective drum."
-
10-20-2004, 08:47 PM #23
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
I only brought it up because one of the most complained about things from the 2nd ed rules was the bookkeeping involved. In fact the bookkeeping aspect actually drove many people away from playing the game in the first place. Collections (from holdings) caused the most problems which is probably why that portion of the BRCS-playtest was generally well received. It greatly simplified the system so that it represented what was happening but didn't bog the DM down with an inordinate amount of book work.
This attitude thing is really new ground, being a 3.5 concept, and there needs to be a balance between accuracy (i.e., detail) and ease of use. Not everyone wants to rely on having a computer to keep track of all of the details involved.
Note there is no real province loyalty anymore that is point of using the 3.5 mechanics (or terminology of attitude) was about. It is actually a pretty good use of the newer terminology/mechanics and only when being applied at a broader perspective (i.e, to regents other than the province ruler) that these questions come up.Duane Eggert
-
10-20-2004, 10:54 PM #24
Yeah, book-keeping can be a pain. I find that people have different expectations of the game, and that lots of people who enjoy it for the background are put off by the book-keeping.
Personally I quite like having a lot of detail, and wargaming elements to my games, but not every roleplayer thinks that way.
Maybe keep the basic province attitude rules and then have a bunch of optional rules to flesh out the stuff for other vested interests if it becomes desired or applicable?
What I prefer not to have is a rule that's going to only be aimed at a low common denominator. I think some people are just always going to be put off by book-keeping, so the book-keeping rules shouldn't really be aimed at them. Ultimately, you've got to give your players what they actually want in a game.
I have to say that the book-keeping rules do seem a lot clearer than the 2nd Ed rules. But then, I'm not a big fan of 2nd Ed D&D in general. Which is not to say that I didn't enjoy both running and playing 2nd Ed games, but only because I ignored huge chunks of it and took what I liked from the backgrounds."As soon as war is declared, it will be impossible to hold the poets back. Rhyme is still the most effective drum."
-
10-20-2004, 11:22 PM #25
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
It had crossed my mind to have a variant for keeping attitudes at the holding level. But let's see what people want to do before we start to get too far into the weeds here.
First thing is a general feel for the broad then a more specific detailing of mechanics or applications.Duane Eggert
-
10-22-2004, 08:00 AM #26
At 07:49 PM 10/20/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:
> The down side to this would be the complexity involved. It is fairly
> easy to assign a single attitude to a province but exponentially more
> difficult to assign separate attitudes to each holding (and regent). So
> is it better to sacrifice realism for ease of play? IMO it would do more
> to bring in "new" players if we simplify the process as much as possible.
It does take more effort to determine loyalty/attitude for each holding in
addition to each province, especially if one is dealing with a lot of
regents--like someone DMing a PBeM, for instance. In the context of a
small P&P game it probably can also be an issue if one is running a lot of
realms and regents.
Having said that, it`s not _a lot_ more effort. One already does a
loyalty/attitude shift check for regents who control provinces, so it`s not
particularly more complex or confusing for players than the existing system
is. This increases the number of such checks done, of course, but since
one is already computing income for those regents it folds pretty easily
into that part of the domain level of play. One does need to clarify or
expand a couple of the modifiers but not a lot.
Gary
-
10-22-2004, 08:00 AM #27
When it comes to the bookkeeping issue I think the thing that would be the
most help would to be to come up with a nice, complete domain sheet. I
know that`s probably easier said than done, but when it gets right down to
it the actual math isn`t particularly hard for determining loyalty, it`s
just a bunch of little notations that need to get made through the domain
turn (agitate action results, troop mustering, etc.) that needs to be kept
track of so they can be tallied up at the proper point in the next domain
turn. Might it be as simple as having two boxes on a domain sheet next to
each holding and province, one for positive attitude shifts and another for
negative ones that occur during the domain turn?
Gary
-
10-22-2004, 03:12 PM #28
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Gary,
It can actually be much more complex.
Say for instance a guild holding in a province. Should there be 2 separate attitudes - one for the province ruler and one for the guildmaster? How about attitude towards other holdings in the province? That (separate attitudes towards the province ruler and holding ruler) is the logic that people seem to be inserting into the discussion. So like I said earlier it is expontially more complex at that level - albeit more realistic.Duane Eggert
-
10-22-2004, 03:46 PM #29
There is always the option of giving a baseline for what happens on the province level and then include a sidebar or footnote that explains the reasons this could be done at the holding level, make clear that this requires more bookkeeping, etc. I know you have already made a great deal of effort not to make this thing a matter of variants, but that's the best way to handle this, I think.
-
10-24-2004, 06:10 AM #30
At 05:12 PM 10/22/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:
>Gary,It can actually be much more complex.Say for instance a guild holding
>in a province. Should there be 2 separate attitudes - one for the
>province ruler and one for the guildmaster? How about attitude towards
>other holdings in the province? That (separate attitudes towards the
>province ruler and holding ruler) is the logic that people seem to be
>inserting into the discussion. So like I said earlier it is expontially
>more complex at that level - albeit more realistic.
Pardon me for quibbling, but the vocabulary here seems to beg for a little
clarification.... When one brings up issues of complexity I consider that
more geared towards rules that are elaborate or otherwise difficult to
comprehend. In this case the same rules are going to be used, they are
just going to be applied to additional regents, meaning that (at a guess)
the modifiers for attitude shifts would have to be kept and counted up for
around four to six more regents per realm on average. That is certainly
more stuff to keep track of, but since there`s no new information or rules
being added its not any more complex than what one was doing before. The
issue here is really the amount of record keeping that is being done not
complexity.
It`s also worth noting that in a campaign in which there are province
rulers one is already keeping tracking of attitude, and during the time one
is doing so nothing is going on for other regents, meaning this particular
expansion would be more likely to take up what would otherwise be down time
for those running other regents. The additional effort on their part is
still not as likely to be as much as that of province rulers, however,
since fewer of the factors that affect loyalty/attitude are going to
influence holding regents, so the amount of effort required is not really
exponential in either complexity or record keeping.
Gary
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks