Rules (Holdings)

[Kent Lerch]

Greetings,
Craig recently wrote:
" I'm only going on memory here (as my rulebook is in the other room), but I
think I remember reading about this under the desc. for Contest. Memory
tells me that a regent with a 0 level holding *CAN* contest others. "
Unfortunately the rulebook does >not< make an explicit statement here. The
longer I think about it the more reasonable the assumption seems. I started out
as an adherent of the point of view that only control of a level 1 holding
allows you to do specific actions (Agitate, Contest, Trade Route), but
especially the argument on the impossibility of advancement of a holding in a
holding-saturated province is a strong one.
"In places like Ilien where all of the available law holdings are already taken,
there
would be no way to have another regent attempt to set up a level 1 (or higher)
holding without first contesting the regent of Ilien. Thus, they set it up in
such a way that a 0 level could contest, as you have to have an actual holding
in the province before you can contest anyway."
I see your point. Now we've only got to convince Jaanus ... ;-)
" The only problem I have with this is that a successful contesting of a
holding, in two consecutive turns causes that holding to fail. This means a 0
level can, after two successful turns of contesting Ilien's Law, reduce the
Level 7 to a 0. I'm more apt to say that the success reduces the targeted
holdings level by one, showing a more gradual loss of influence and respect in
the area, and allowing for competetiors to rise under a similar graduation. This
doesn't always fit in (like in times of compelete military conquest) but it does
during "peace time" contests. Which can happen...."
You got a point here! I hadn't seen this problem at all, but it >does< seem a
bit unreasonable to blow away a level 10 holding with one Contest action ... I
agree that a gradual reduction might be more appropriate. One the other hand,
this would require two Contest actions per holding level, which might make it a
bit steep too. What about saying that the second successful Contest action
causes a loss of one holding level per domain turn until one of the conditions
given in the description for the action (defender succeeds with a rule action
etc) takes place and stops the loss of levels.
And just a few words referring to Jaanus' latest comments:
"Hmm.. well. You say a level 1 holding doesnt have to have even a room to be in.
It goes roughly against your own words. You were looking around if anyone knows
if the guild holding level 0 can have a trade route. If a level 1 guild wont
even have a room to be in.. where will we the traded goods be at??? Where will
caravans targeted at? At the "influence"? No, friend. There must be a building
to be placed at. Read the player secret books and you will see."
You have misunderstood my statement. I wanted to point out that the physical
manifestation (the warehouse) is not the same as the Holding. Otherwise the
building of a warehouse would suffice to create a Holding. And: why are you so
strictly opposed to Holdings without buildings? I mentioned quite a few
historical examples like the mendicant monks. Robin Hood and his band of merry
men also come to mind (an (out-)law holding, if you ask me).
It is OK if you point to the Players Secrets, but these only give you tips as to
how it can be done, not as to how it >should< be done. If we do it just this
way, we limit our campaigns by adhering to the accessories' designer's
imagination. I think historical examples are quite a valid way to show the
shortcomings and/or faults of a game design rule, and would like to get a bit
more open-minded discussion here instead of an "Oh forget about it."
In the same way, my comment on practicability referred to other GMs experiences.
Craig pointed out a few of his problems with the Contest action which I had not
thought of before. This helped me quite a bit. What does not help is a comment
like yours:
"Please dont whine about practicability because all the things you are asking
about (the guild thing of level 0 and opening a trade route and contesting
another guild) are already happened in my campaign..."
Of course you are free to do what you want. However, the fact that you have done
so does not necessarily make your example one to follow! Practicability means a
bit more than "I have done so". BTW, I try not to be touchy and do know that
statements made via email tend to inflame other people even if the poster never
intended such a thing, but I have noted quite a few condescending remarks in
your last posts. Some of us out here have some experience in gaming >and< can
read the rulebooks too. So, please give me some arguments and don't tell me to
"forget about it" and stop "whining" (Just felt I had to say this, no flame war
intended!)
Hoping for feedback on the rules questions
Kent

[Jaanus Lillenberg]

Hello Kent and stuff :)

> I see your point. Now we've only got to convince Jaanus ... ;-)
> " The only problem I have with this is that a successful contesting of a
> holding, in two consecutive turns causes that holding to fail. This means a 0
> level can, after two successful turns of contesting Ilien's Law, reduce the
> Level 7 to a 0. I'm more apt to say that the success reduces the targeted
> holdings level by one, showing a more gradual loss of influence and respect in
> the area, and allowing for competetiors to rise under a similar graduation. This

I agree that. I wouldnt allowe any PCs neither NPCs to "destroy" the holdings
in that way. I ruled it just like Kent (if I understood him right) that
in one domain action round One regent can contest Anothers holding only
by one level. PLUS all the advances the defender gets, because of his higher
level of holding, being ruler of land (and in the case of Ilien
Hubaere Armiendin (Hearts regent) would support with additional RP if asked.
Thus it would be almost impossible to establish any law holding in Ilien.


> doesn't always fit in (like in times of compelete military conquest) but it does
> during "peace time" contests. Which can happen...."

> strictly opposed to Holdings without buildings? I mentioned quite a few
> historical examples like the mendicant monks. Robin Hood and his band of merry
> men also come to mind (an (out-)law holding, if you ask me).


I bet they still had "motherchurch" somewhere. And they were JUST famous and
wellmet by the folk. That doesnt mean they had holdings. People still
went in another church and donated there. (of course they also donated
to the monks). About Robin Hood. They were still bandits (althought I really
like them) who harrassed the local level 1 law holding in province (lets
say level 3). Because Nothingham still had the influence in the city
and in some villages he had his "dogs" in.
Any comments??

> It is OK if you point to the Players Secrets, but these only give you tips as to
> how it can be done, not as to how it >should< be done. If we do it just this


Well. What I want to say, is I like the way the Secrets are written :).
And thats what I do. Of course I will use the information with domains
I havent books for, but for the domains I'v got books, I use them with the
pleasure and perhaps only some small modifications.

Well greets (I am not fighting)

Jaanus Lillenberg

- ---
jaanusl@postimees.ee