Ruling Style

[Ben]

We need some fresh discussion here, so I've got an issue I really want some
feedback on.

The question is this: Is it better strategically as a landed regent to
control all the holdings in your realm, or to allow all the temples and
guilds and stuff go to other regents who pay you taxes?
I sort of figured that the more different regents in a given realm, the
more domain actions that realm would have to improve itself each turn--so it
could grow and improve a lot faster. That is my initial take on it from a
rules standpoint, but I'd like to hear from somebody who thinks it's a good
idea to keep everything in an iron grip.
Also, I'd like some perspective on what controlling holdings would
represent in game terms. Like, if we convert 15th century Europe into BR
game terms, then the Catholic Church would control all the temple holdings,
right? What about guilds? If a regent of a 20th century European kingdom
held all the law and guild holdings, would that regent be considered a
communist?
I'm trying to relate these things in the context of the BR game world.
Do you think the Brechts--with their quasi-renaissance type of society--
would have a different view of the proper way to run a nation in terms of
the types of holdings a law regent "should" control as opposed to the
Anuireans--who seem to have a more feudal style?


Ben

To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line

[Alaric]

Ben wrote:
>
> We need some fresh discussion here, so I've got an issue I really want some
> feedback on.
>
> The question is this: Is it better strategically as a landed regent to
> control all the holdings in your realm, or to allow all the temples and
> guilds and stuff go to other regents who pay you taxes?
> I sort of figured that the more different regents in a given realm, the
> more domain actions that realm would have to improve itself each turn--so it
> could grow and improve a lot faster. That is my initial take on it from a
> rules standpoint, but I'd like to hear from somebody who thinks it's a good
> idea to keep everything in an iron grip.
> Also, I'd like some perspective on what controlling holdings would
> represent in game terms. Like, if we convert 15th century Europe into BR
> game terms, then the Catholic Church would control all the temple holdings,
> right? What about guilds? If a regent of a 20th century European kingdom
> held all the law and guild holdings, would that regent be considered a
> communist?
> I'm trying to relate these things in the context of the BR game world.
> Do you think the Brechts--with their quasi-renaissance type of society--
> would have a different view of the proper way to run a nation in terms of
> the types of holdings a law regent "should" control as opposed to the
> Anuireans--who seem to have a more feudal style?
>
> Ben
>
> ************************************************** *************************

Unless the DM makes the peasants restless, it seems to be a HUGE
advantage if the ruler can manage to control everything in the province.
Having no competition on the inside makes it very easy to control
everything, not to mention the profit. On the other hand, it makes it
easier to keep out invaders because of the ability to use your other
types of holdings to bolster your claim. Then again, as a DM I would try
to make sure that that never happens (again), since I would think that a
guilder trying to muscle in on the temple or vice versa (or a
landed regent trying to gain either) would be met by stiff resistance
from the impinged upon and his allies.
Thx,
AlaricTo unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line

[Hadricon@aol.co]

well first of all Players have to get over this law thing they seem to have.
It is said in the text, that regents don't see other's law holdings as
threats. Most players on the other hand do, especialy in PBEMs.

Now that is over, I believe that a sepearate regent for each holding type is
important. Look at the NIT. If they devote themselves to a holding attle in
Boeruine, then that means their country is neglected. Or if they devote
themselves to the country, then the holdings are neglected. Having complete
control is not all it is cracked up to be. You end up vassaling off secure
areas so you can focus on the trouble areas, but that opens you up to
corruption. Its all a trade off really.To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line

[SCO Adam Theo]

Hello Birthrighters, Adam Theo here.
This day of Friday, May 28, 1999, at 3:17:09 AM

On Thursday, May 27, 1999, Hadricon@aol.com [Hadricon@aol.com]
Wrote in [BIRTHRIGHT] - Ruling Style:

Hac> Now that is over, I believe that a sepearate regent for each holding type is
Hac> important. Look at the NIT. If they devote themselves to a holding attle in
Hac> Boeruine, then that means their country is neglected. Or if they devote
Hac> themselves to the country, then the holdings are neglected. Having complete
Hac> control is not all it is cracked up to be. You end up vassaling off secure
Hac> areas so you can focus on the trouble areas, but that opens you up to
Hac> corruption. Its all a trade off really.


Here is my reply:
so very true. i have always wondered why a player will see a law
holding as his army, or his control over a province. it isn't. it is
his city guards, his court of laws in the provice. his ability to have
decrees inacted in the province. still very important, but not
critical, and not a sigh of someone trying to over throw you.

- --
Adam Theo, A Patriotic American Libertarian Capitalist.
SCO of Theoretic Internet Services, http://www.theoretic.com, http://www.theoretic.com
'Your Web Hosting, Email Forward, and Weather Forecast Solution,
With Just Two Words: Quality and Privacy.'
Mailto:adamtheo@Theoretic.com , ICQ:22377963
Using 1.33

To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line

[Cobos]

At 03:19 AM 5/28/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Hello Birthrighters, Adam Theo here.
> This day of Friday, May 28, 1999, at 3:17:09 AM
>
>On Thursday, May 27, 1999, Hadricon@aol.com [Hadricon@aol.com]
> Wrote in [BIRTHRIGHT] - Ruling Style:
>
>Hac> Now that is over, I believe that a sepearate regent for each holding
>type is
>Hac> important. Look at the NIT. If they devote themselves to a holding
>attle in
>Hac> Boeruine, then that means their country is neglected. Or if they devote
>Hac> themselves to the country, then the holdings are neglected. Having
>complete
>Hac> control is not all it is cracked up to be. You end up vassaling off
>secure
>Hac> areas so you can focus on the trouble areas, but that opens you up to
>Hac> corruption. Its all a trade off really.
>
>
>Here is my reply:
> so very true. i have always wondered why a player will see a law
>holding as his army, or his control over a province. it isn't. it is
>his city guards, his court of laws in the provice. his ability to have
>decrees inacted in the province. still very important, but not
>critical, and not a sigh of someone trying to over throw you.
>

I think the reason everyone sees lawholdings as so important, especially in
PBMG's is because you need 100% law to be able to keep your taxes at
severe. That at least is also the reason my RL players want all the law.
And of course the less regents there is with holdings in their lands the
less regents that can contest and do other sorts of malice.

SindreTo unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line

[Jeremy Baker]

> The question is this: Is it better strategically as a landed regent to
>control all the holdings in your realm, or to allow all the temples and
>guilds and stuff go to other regents who pay you taxes?
> I sort of figured that the more different regents in a given realm, the
>more domain actions that realm would have to improve itself each turn--so
it
>could grow and improve a lot faster. That is my initial take on it from a
>rules standpoint, but I'd like to hear from somebody who thinks it's a good
>idea to keep everything in an iron grip.


If you are part of a party of multiple blooded characters of different
classes, who can all agree on a direction for a realm and are friendly
enough to help each other out with regency points for ruling etc. then
obviously this realm will have an advantage over his neighbours if those
scions can control all the holdings and provinces of the realm.
If there is only one player, or the players don,t agree with each
other, than in a small realm, control of all the holdings appropriate to the
rulers class I feel is useful, ie. iron grip is good. However for larger
realms than this becomes a little unwieldy for realm control.

Jeremy.
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line

[Ben]

> > so very true. i have always wondered why a player will see a law
> >holding as his army, or his control over a province. it isn't. it is
> >his city guards, his court of laws in the provice. his ability to have
> >decrees inacted in the province. still very important, but not
> >critical, and not a sigh of someone trying to over throw you.
> >
>
> I think the reason everyone sees lawholdings as so important, especially
in
> PBMG's is because you need 100% law to be able to keep your taxes at
> severe. That at least is also the reason my RL players want all the law.
> And of course the less regents there is with holdings in their lands the
> less regents that can contest and do other sorts of malice.
>

That's the obvious advantage of grabbing all the holdings for yourself,
but would it outweigh the advantages of spreading them out? I mean, if you
have a realm where all the law is ruled by the landed regent, but there are
5 or 6 others that control the guilds and temples, there are something like
18 domain actions taken on those same holdings instead of just three. Your
realm would grow at an astounding rate.


Ben

To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line

[Cobos]

At 03:05 AM 5/28/99 -0500, you wrote:
>> > so very true. i have always wondered why a player will see a law
>> >holding as his army, or his control over a province. it isn't. it is
>> >his city guards, his court of laws in the provice. his ability to have
>> >decrees inacted in the province. still very important, but not
>> >critical, and not a sigh of someone trying to over throw you.
>> >
>>
>> I think the reason everyone sees lawholdings as so important, especially
>in
>> PBMG's is because you need 100% law to be able to keep your taxes at
>> severe. That at least is also the reason my RL players want all the law.
>> And of course the less regents there is with holdings in their lands the
>> less regents that can contest and do other sorts of malice.
>>
>
> That's the obvious advantage of grabbing all the holdings for yourself,
>but would it outweigh the advantages of spreading them out? I mean, if you
>have a realm where all the law is ruled by the landed regent, but there are
>5 or 6 others that control the guilds and temples, there are something like
>18 domain actions taken on those same holdings instead of just three. Your
>realm would grow at an astounding rate.
>
>
>Ben
>
>
>************************************************* **************************
>To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
>with the line I didn't mean this as an argument for grabbing all the holding yourself.
What I beleive is the best solution is if one realm has one PC of each
class, with them sharing the holding between them and with Lt's that gives
them 16 actions and excellent cooperation...It's more or less what happens
in my campaign... I know that in many games the commodity that is lacking
is not money or RP really but actions.... so of course if you feel you can
trust your vassals and LT's it is extremely efficient to use them. But of
course that is what the feudal system is all about, that is the very reason
that the feudal system started (of course also the fact that the level of
communication made direct controle over large domains impossible....)

SindreTo unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line

[Pieter Sleijpen]

Sindre Berg wrote:
>
> At 03:19 AM 5/28/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >Hello Birthrighters, Adam Theo here.
> > This day of Friday, May 28, 1999, at 3:17:09 AM
> >
> >On Thursday, May 27, 1999, Hadricon@aol.com [Hadricon@aol.com]
> > Wrote in [BIRTHRIGHT] - Ruling Style:
> >
> >Hac> Now that is over, I believe that a sepearate regent for each holding
> >type is
> >Hac> important. Look at the NIT. If they devote themselves to a holding
> >attle in
> >Hac> Boeruine, then that means their country is neglected. Or if they devote
> >Hac> themselves to the country, then the holdings are neglected. Having
> >complete
> >Hac> control is not all it is cracked up to be. You end up vassaling off
> >secure
> >Hac> areas so you can focus on the trouble areas, but that opens you up to
> >Hac> corruption. Its all a trade off really.
> >
> >
> >Here is my reply:
> > so very true. i have always wondered why a player will see a law
> >holding as his army, or his control over a province. it isn't. it is
> >his city guards, his court of laws in the provice. his ability to have
> >decrees inacted in the province. still very important, but not
> >critical, and not a sigh of someone trying to over throw you.
> >
>
> I think the reason everyone sees lawholdings as so important, especially in
> PBMG's is because you need 100% law to be able to keep your taxes at
> severe. That at least is also the reason my RL players want all the law.
> And of course the less regents there is with holdings in their lands the
> less regents that can contest and do other sorts of malice.

With more law holdings you are also a lot more resistant to "agitate"
actions and espionage actions. So that a landed regent takes all law
holdings seems to make perfect sense to me.

The problem with the random actions is, that they are 1 roll for 1
regent. If you use that rule, it is of no benefit to split all the
holdings (except roleplaying - priests of Haelyn going into trade does
not sound very good). Personally I roll random events (if I roll them,
that is) for a small group of provinces (5 ar the moment) and determine
who it affects. Bandits and monsters affect every holding for instance,
while an intrigue would be more related to 1 type of holdings.

Then again, I also do not allow a regent to rule ALL his holdings with 1
realm action. They are only allowed to rule the holdings of 1 type.

Pieter SleijpenTo unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line

[Hadricon@aol.co]

In a message dated 5/28/99 2:58:17 AM Central Daylight Time, cobos@saers.com
writes: