Chap 5 - Fortifications and contest actions

[Osprey]

Out of curiosity, what is the motivation for limiting the scope,
interpreting (read: role-playing possibilities) and purpose of the Contest
action? Aside from trying to tell OTHER people how to game, why would
someone want to set such limitations at all? More importantly, is there
any tangential evidence to support that opinion (such as the evidence
already cited that describes the opposite?)

Um...how else do you create definitions, rules etc.? In other words, how is one to design any sort of coherent game system at all unless there are some clear definitions of rules, terms, and relationships?

It is quite simply impossible to create any sort of game system without limitations. It is not a system at all at that point.

Even envisioning a game as only a set of loose guidelines (minimal limitations), you'd still be without any relevant dice/rules-set for representing the outcome of chance and probability.

Getting way more specific, this is D&D Birthright, and D&D is easily one of the most rules-heavy, detail-oriented RPG's on the market, so don't you think it's rather likely that a domain-level adaptation for 3.5 D&D will strive to be equally detailed, rules-oriented, and limited?

This rather broad explanation is pointing toward the general tendency in the BRCS project to narrowly define every aspect of the BRCS revision project. Hell, we're taking polls on the most narrow of details within far larger systems...if this weren't grounded in a D&D project, the whole idea of taking several weeks to run polls about such details as this would have been thrown out as ludicrous long ago.

But D&D is the heaven (or hell) of rules lawyers and power gamers, number crunchers and staticians. It is no wonder to me that it fosters such a microscopic examination of every detail and every possible relationship of each piece of the rules. And, of course, endless debate and argument as we are all caught up in the whirlwind, losing the forest for the trees...

In the end, I'll restate what I've been saying all along. I don't have that strong an opinion on the matter, I wouldn't mind if fortified holdings were a bit harder to contest than usual, I just think it's simpler to have it not be one more modifier to remember when performing domain actions.

What I'd really prefer to see is an end to such exhaustive effort wasted on such miniscule points of debate, and much more energy expended in hammering out the larger pieces of the BRCS. At our current pace, 3.5 D&D will be obsolete by the time the BRCS is finished. Sounds like doom and gloom, I know, but it's the friggin truth. If we keep polling on miniscule details while not polling on things like "Hey, can we live with this version of Chapter 5?", we ain't gonna' see the end of the BRCS project. Fact.

Osprey

[geeman]

At 06:50 AM 10/15/2005 +0200, Osprey wrote:

>>Out of curiosity, what is the motivation for limiting the scope,
>>interpreting (read: role-playing possibilities) and purpose of the
>>Contest action? Aside from trying to tell OTHER people how to game, why
>>would someone want to set such limitations at all? More importantly, is
>>there any tangential evidence to support that opinion (such as the
>>evidence already cited that describes the opposite?)
>
>Um...how else do you create definitions, rules etc.? In other words, how
>is one to design any sort of coherent game system at all unless there are
>some clear definitions of rules, terms, and relationships?
>
>It is quite simply impossible to create any sort of game system without
>limitations. It is not a system at all at that point.
>
>Even envisioning a game as only a set of loose guidelines (minimal
>limitations), you`d still be without any relevant dice/rules-set for
>representing the outcome of chance and probability.
>
>Getting way more specific, this is D&D Birthright, and D&D is easily one
>of the most rules-heavy, detail-oriented RPG`s on the market, so don`t you
>think it`s rather likely that a domain-level adaptation for 3.5 D&D will
>strive to be equally detailed, rules-oriented, and limited?
>
>This rather broad explanation is pointing toward the general tendency in
>the BRCS project to narrowly define every aspect of the BRCS revision
>project. Hell, we`re taking polls on the most narrow of details within far
>larger systems...if this weren`t grounded in a D&D project, the whole idea
>of taking several weeks to run polls about such details as this would have
>been thrown out as ludicrous long ago.
>
>But D&D is the heaven (or hell) of rules lawyers and power gamers, number
>crunchers and staticians. It is no wonder to me that it fosters such a
>microscopic examination of every detail and every possible relationship of
>each piece of the rules. And, of course, endless debate and argument as we
>are all caught up in the whirlwind, losing the forest for the trees...
>
>In the end, I`ll restate what I`ve been saying all along. I don`t have
>that strong an opinion on the matter, I wouldn`t mind if fortified
>holdings were a bit harder to contest than usual, I just think it`s
>simpler to have it not be one more modifier to remember when performing
>domain actions.
>
>What I`d really prefer to see is an end to such exhaustive effort wasted
>on such miniscule points of debate, and much more energy expended in
>hammering out the larger pieces of the BRCS. At our current pace, 3.5 D&D
>will be obsolete by the time the BRCS is finished. Sounds like doom and
>gloom, I know, but it`s the friggin truth. If we keep polling on miniscule
>details while not polling on things like "Hey, can we live with this
>version of Chapter 5?", we ain`t gonna` see the end of the BRCS project. Fact.

While I guess I can understand the frustration here to some extent, but I
feel obliged to comment that I find it misplaced and, essentially,
egoistic. What you describe in largely pejorative terms is, in reality,
exactly why many people engage in the hobby; it could even be used as the
definition of the hobby. Gaming (not just D&D--every single major RPG
gaming system extant) is an ongoing process of development, interpretation
and innovation. Now, that sometimes seems to tick off people who claim to
be avid practitioners, but it strikes me as odd that people would dedicate
so much time to the process without recognizing the fundamental (ongoing)
nature of it--even when things like the licensing agreement and the
introductory texts of the books proclaim that it is part of a continuum for
all to see. If this is something that is troubling, then one is probably
better engaging in hobbies that have more clearly defined goals. Jigsaw
puzzles, for instance, or knitting. If one wants to engage in an ongoing
process (which just about anything intellectual, for that matter) then its
best to recognize that one is not going to really "finish" as such. That
it is ongoing is, in fact, one of the primary merits of the process.

That aside, I was looking for something a little more specific than the
above screed about the pitfalls of gaming and design philosophy. To reiterate:

"...what is the motivation for limiting the scope, interpreting (read:
role-playing possibilities) and purpose of the Contest action? Aside from
trying to tell OTHER people how to game, why would
someone want to set such limitations at all? More importantly, is there any
tangential evidence to support that opinion (such as the evidence already
cited that describes the opposite?"

That is, in THIS CASE (the Contest action) what is the basic inspiration
for the interpretation that contest must only be viewed in a non-violent
way and game mechanics must consequentially be based on that limited
interpretation? How did the interpretation come about in the first
place? From what materials is it derived? What are the merits of the more
narrow description? There have been a lot of posts insisting that the
Contest action is non-violent, but no actual support for that opinion that
I`ve read. What is its basis?

I`ve cited materials from the original Rulebook that support the broader
(and, I think, more playable) interpretation of the process. What supports
the narrower view?

When it comes to the comments at the beginning of the quoted text above
(here again)

>Um...how else do you create definitions, rules etc.? In other words, how
>is one to design any sort of coherent game system at all unless there are
>some clear definitions of rules, terms, and relationships?

I`m going to suggest that this issue has really very little to do with such
a dynamic. There`s no reason why the rule itself can`t be inclusive AND
clear; all the terms, rules and relationships defined and still
useful. The suggestion that people are going to have trouble remembering a
single modifier strikes me as being... well, not much of a concern. It`s a
simple modifier of the kind that appears in all levels of the game and
something that anyone with the ability to count on their fingers can handle.

Gary

[irdeggman]

At 06:50 AM 10/15/2005 +0200, I`m going to suggest that this issue has really very little to do with such
a dynamic. There`s no reason why the rule itself can`t be inclusive AND
clear; all the terms, rules and relationships defined and still
useful. The suggestion that people are going to have trouble remembering a
single modifier strikes me as being... well, not much of a concern. It`s a
simple modifier of the kind that appears in all levels of the game and
something that anyone with the ability to count on their fingers can handle.

Gary

I will respectifully disagree with this.

In essence because Birthright was (in 2nd ed also) the single most detailed and bookkeeping RPG in existence. IMO it pretty much still is even with the efforts to streamline as much of the maintainence and random rolls of the 2nd ed system.

To open things up as you suggest makes for a game without structure (except as created by a DM - hence a huuge amount of house-rules) and as Osprey pointed out does fly against the premise of D&D in general.

As far as the Contest action specifically - well 2nd ed was very very clear on the subject. Fortifications had a single function and a singel function only - to defend against troops. Troops were used to occupy a province (a self-declared war action). Contest actions did not involve any troop movement.

The BRCS terminiology is amazingly similar to that used in the BoR (hmmm I wonder why) so it attempts to remain consistent with the 2nd ed game to the maximum extent possible.

People are constantly asking for rules specific details on just about everything pertaining the to system. That is why, while it seems like I am micromanaging the project - there is in fact some semi-Intelligent design to the process,

Osprey, I did ask for volunteer to ovesee (i.e., edit) individual chapters with the hope of getting things done quicker but. . .

(Yes I do remember your semi-volunteer e-mail, and appreciate it).

Still looking for volunteers by the way. You must be able to separate what you want in a game and what the masses want - that is to say this can't be a means of writing your own house-rules into "Official" ruleset. I have had many things that I felt strongly about get overruled by the masses and went with the overall decisions made.

[soudhadies]

As far as the Contest action specifically - well 2nd ed was very very clear on the subject. Fortifications had a single function and a singel function only - to defend against troops. Troops were used to occupy a province (a self-declared war action). Contest actions did not involve any troop movement.

The vote has clearly gone one way so it may be moot to continue the argument. However, I will lay out once again what my reasoning was:

1. You are completely right about the relationship between the contest action and fortifications in 2nd ed.

2. In 2nd Ed the most similar parallel in the rules to the contest action was rebellion or great captain/heresy, e.g. denial of regency and gold collection with the threat of total loss of control.

3. Fortifications do not protect against rebellion (rebel troops maybe, but not rebellion itself) or great Captain/Heresy.

4. In the revised rules, the most similar parallel in the rules to the contest action is the pillaging rules, e.g. reduction of a certain number of holding levels.

5. Fortifications do protect against pillaging.

6. Hence, a change in the contest action itself may suggest a change in the relationship between that action and fortified holdings.

I realize that a "looks like a duck/quacks like a duck" argument about parallel game mechanics doesn't always make sense. And it looks like in this case it does not make sense to about twice as many people as it does make sense to. However, I think that when certain parts of the game are fundamentally changed, such as the contest action was, we should at least be willing to entertain arguments that point to the possible ripple effects of the change.

[irdeggman]

Alright this poll is finally closed.



Here are the results:



Should fortifications provide a bonus when defending against contest actions?



Yes 18

No 28

Abstain 3



Moving RaspK_Fog and Benjamin’s votes from Yes to No makes it:



Yes 16

No 30

Abstain 3





Very, very close to clear majority (twice as many in one side or another).



Issue decided. Fortifications do not provide a bonus against contest actions.

[doom]

<Unlurk>

For what it is worth, I think that there are three general actions which attempt, in toto, to provide abstract mechanisms for interfering with someone's power base. These categories are supposed to be catchalls for representing (abstractly) pretty much everything. There will always be situations that don't fit exactly into one category.

(1) The most extreme action is "Occupy Province". This action actually involves sending around mustered forces (trained or untrained, military or mob) to burn, sink, or otherwise savage the physical resources and key personnel of a holding. Currently, this is the only action for which fortification level plays a role.

(2) "Contest holding" is relatively tame by comparison. The contest action is an attempt to undermine the power base of a holding by providing a competing option that fills the same need (that is, a holding of the same type is required). The sentence about this action being like "declaring war" is completely lame and the person who wrote it should be shot (probably me). Fortifications should play no role whatsoever in this particular abstraction. Your assets might be safe, but you cannot protect your more diffuse powerbase (the general populace) with walls and soldiers.

(3) "Agitate" represents any attempt to actually sway public opinion against the regent of a domain (or the domain itself) without actually erroding the permentant physical or social power base. Agitate does no direct damage to the holdings, but the holdings power may be temporary erroded if the public actually becomes hostile to the regent or domain. The administration can, of course, attempt to control any negative spin or, perhaps, eventually hand over the holdings to someone in better public favor. Again, it wouldn't seem that hiding safely behind walls would necessarily help here.

</unlurk>

- Doom

[Master Spaz]

birthright
why it is so funny to play birthright?
because it is a decalque (french), an imitation of the politic schemes of the world
contesting is a politic action; it is not a war move so the question is
what is this poll?
when you invade a province, it is stipulated in the rule book, you can reduces all or some ennemy holdings to 0.
but when you contest someones power, it is mostly through a scheme of intrigue, gossips, black mail, and treason; these sneaking easier between fortificaiton walls
lol
don't you remember?

Birthright is THE game for the real players...