Rjurik Bureaucracy

[masterdaorin]

Why? the manual explicitly says that the holdings belong to the jarls. In cases such as Svinik, they seem to allude that different holdings may represent different sheriffs loyal to the jarl or to the king.

That is one way of looking at it.

However, if, for example, there are two law regents, one for the jarl, and one for the king, then the king's law holding might also represent the jarl himself, and the jarl's holding could represent a chief loyal to the jarl. Or visa versa. The interpretation is up to your gaming group.

Such case would be exactly what happens in Anuire, such as in Medoere where Kalien has a mercenary company that actually works as the law instead of the theocracy in one of their provinces.

Source? Is that from the Endier SB?

An interesting case, I'm finding out, it's the blood skull barony. Here different rulers actually represent different leaders of different monster tribes. The fact that they have such low internal cohesion is the reason why the barony has not crushed its neighbors.

Indeed. And, they are a microcosm of the Highlands themselves, I'd argue.

Consider the White Witch's realm, as well...

The last time I played this "module", players got a bit frustrated on having a single domain action, expecially the wizard who was sadly useless (no one would spend time on farming source levels or even ley lines).

They should not have gotten only one domain action. They should have had three character actions, all of which might count as a domain action, so long as at least two of those three actions were role-played out.

At least, that's how I understand the rules.

As for NPC, Single Jarl stat are perfect for checking out what a small domain can do each round; as for the other kingdoms, I use my agenda system but I assume stuff are just harder and slower since there would be bickering between the king and the jarls. Jarls have 0 court level by default, so diplomacy occurs only if the players go talk to the jarls themselves.

I have found that if you break down each region into manageable "theatres of action" (meaning one realm is the focus of a group of realms sharing common interests and/or threats), then entire regions become manageable as five or six "theatres of actions" in a campaign. Then the DM only has to have those five or six regional players interact with each other, rather than having 16-20 or so individual realms, all with competing interests, each acting on their own in silos (for lack of a better term).

And, from there, the entire continent of Cerilia is engaged in the game play, all at once.

Druid grooves' politics have stronger ideological connotations than anuireans, for example they oppose Rule actions or look with suspicion at those who friend wizards, but at the end of the day they play exactly like the churches of Anuire, a political force to look to for official recognition. Ironically, Rjurik Highlands turns them into a giant conglomerate, and tells you "just split them where needed". This is what I'm doing. I removed The Emerald Spiral and gave some holding to the druid PC (druid/berserker) so he may cast spells once in a while.

Again, they seem to become interesting when the old debate Old ways vs New ways sparks. And that also is fuel for jarl-king bickering and much loved drama.

I'm not sure I'd argue they have stronger connotations - just a different focus, because of the religion's focus on different things important to that church's people.

Again, all holdings in this feudalistic world of Cerilia represent basically the same thing for that type of holding. I only see the variations stemming from the traditions of the culture, and not a fundamental difference in the way these different systems work via "in-world" mechanics.

Thus, for example, the fact that the Emerald Spire/Oaken Grove appears to be huge (and they are) compared to their counterparts elsewhere in Cerilia, is only because the leadership of these two churches is more unified than elsewhere - but deep divisions do exist. It is just that Rjurik priests would never attack the church itself - just certain leaders in it - which supports the more individualistic bent that the Rjurik people hold dear.

Thus, for example, whereas famed historical Anuirean priests have argued (successfully) that it has been their church's past leadership which is at fault for their faith's spiritual degradation, a Rjurik priest would never approach the same problem that way - they would say its "Njarl Sunbow, the High Druid (or whoever they disagree with)" who has been the real problem - he was just a poor druid; the faith's teachings aren't at fault. They can never be. The faith's teachings are as they have always been, and always will be. They are Nature's teachings, which are absolute, and the Way Things Are.

And that, I would argue, drives at the heart of the Old vs. New debate currently challenging the Rjurik's civilization.

And each of those temple holdings is still run by the local druid, which is the same way its done in Anuire for Haelyn's churches, etc.

[Witness3]

However, if, for example, there are two law regents, one for the jarl, and one for the king, then the king's law holding might also represent the jarl himself, and the jarl's holding could represent a chief loyal to the jarl. Or visa versa.

This enforces the idea of holdings as a kind of asset. This is also a RAW interpretation of holdings IIRC. Holdings have a really, really, broad meaning. I kinda stopped thinking this way when I've realized that if you start assigning holding levels to "real" stuff, you then have to remember what they represent . In the end I stick to seeing holding levels as percentages of political/commercial/public opinion control, as it is suggested to do for temple holdings raw.

The interpretation is up to your gaming group.

Yes, that goes without saying. One of the cool aspects of Birthright (2ED in general) is how much you can bend the interpretation of domain and domain rules. Also, this is kinda the golden rule for any d&d discussion :P

Source? Is that from the Endier SB?

Can't find it right now, but it's not endier sb as I didn't read it. could be the book of regency, RoE or even the Medoere SB.

They should not have gotten only one domain action. They should have had three character actions, all of which might count as a domain action, so long as at least two of those three actions were role-played out.

At least, that's how I understand the rules.

My understanding is that character actions are a different set of actions, such as training, travel, etc. Characters long-term action having effects similar to domain actions is something I often do too, however.

What I did this time fixed this: being heavy on diplomacy, diplomacy are now "character actions" but require travel, so they have to plan their route. Wizard has a couple of extra holdings and is handled as a second domain, this has really balanced it. The druid player can cast 1 domain spell per season as a free action, and seem happy that way, since this campaign is not heavy on domain.

I have found that if you break down each region into manageable "theatres of action" (meaning one realm is the focus of a group of realms sharing common interests and/or threats), then entire regions become manageable as five or six "theatres of actions" in a campaign. Then the DM only has to have those five or six regional players interact with each other, rather than having 16-20 or so individual realms, all with competing interests, each acting on their own in silos (for lack of a better term).

And, from there, the entire continent of Cerilia is engaged in the game play, all at once.

This is interesting. does it deviate from the "action zone" concept in vanilla BR? Do you use some rules to manage this? Also, how much influences your game? My players, for example, do not care about what happens outside their sub-continent at all, so I don't bother managing large areas.

Again, all holdings in this feudalistic world of Cerilia represent basically the same thing for that type of holding. I only see the variations stemming from the traditions of the culture, and not a fundamental difference in the way these different systems work via "in-world" mechanics.

I guess this is where the "it depends on the gaming group" things comes in. It's just not interesting enough to me that everything works exactly the same. I don't play BR as a civilization simulator so I don't need balance on a world-wide level, just on a story-wide level.

As for the Old vs. New, I've decided that that issue is the equivalent of the anuirean "restoring the empire" in Rjurik lands. The Law wants prosperity, but also wants independence from the druids and their sustaining spells, and that is achievable only by a more "anuirean" approach - settling and exerting human will over nature. Other wants to go the opposite way - return to nomadism, and just go away when the land becomes unforgiving. Churches and Jarls are split in that sense, and I use that to connect random events and make decisions in bidding wars and domain agendas. That is, of course, a personal choice and the way me and my group play it, I'm not saying anywhere that this is the correct or right interpretation of the issue.

[masterdaorin]

This enforces the idea of holdings as a kind of asset. This is also a RAW interpretation of holdings IIRC. Holdings have a really, really, broad meaning. I kinda stopped thinking this way when I've realized that if you start assigning holding levels to "real" stuff, you then have to remember what they represent . In the end I stick to seeing holding levels as percentages of political/commercial/public opinion control, as it is suggested to do for temple holdings raw.

True, but this percentage is ultimately concentrated into a single entity/person (i.e. a regent), so I'm not sure what you are getting at here...

This is interesting. does it deviate from the "action zone" concept in vanilla BR? Do you use some rules to manage this? Also, how much influences your game? My players, for example, do not care about what happens outside their sub-continent at all, so I don't bother managing large areas.

No, nothing fancy, I just make sure that these other groups are given the same treatment as the PCs' theatre of action is getting, at least in broad strokes, so that the "outside world" is also more or less progressing along realistically, as the PCs' area does.

I decided to start doing this after finding that my PCs also didn't care about what was going on outside their "bubble" - and I found that to be unrealistic, and not the kind of theme the BR game tries to address (IMO).

I have found that it creates a richer game - takes more work as the DM, but also suggests many new avenues of adventure/intrigue (and allows me to guide the players better in the story - oddly enough, it seems to focus their attention onto the stuff that is supposed to matter to them...).

I guess this is where the "it depends on the gaming group" things comes in. It's just not interesting enough to me that everything works exactly the same. I don't play BR as a civilization simulator so I don't need balance on a world-wide level, just on a story-wide level.

You create a different set of rules for each type of holding?

As for the Old vs. New, I've decided that that issue is the equivalent of the anuirean "restoring the empire" in Rjurik lands. The Law wants prosperity, but also wants independence from the druids and their sustaining spells, and that is achievable only by a more "anuirean" approach - settling and exerting human will over nature. Other wants to go the opposite way - return to nomadism, and just go away when the land becomes unforgiving. Churches and Jarls are split in that sense, and I use that to connect random events and make decisions in bidding wars and domain agendas. That is, of course, a personal choice and the way me and my group play it, I'm not saying anywhere that this is the correct or right interpretation of the issue.

I think you more or less have hit the nail on the head re: this paradigm shift in Rjurik society.

It's also interesting to note, IMO, the ironic reversal of change happening within these two cultures - namely, while Anuireans and their dominant religion are fracturing into more or less independent groups of churches, despite their cultural stress of a single unified religion, the Rjurik people and their religion are fracturing because their church is trying to maintain unity in a culture that stresses individuality and clan politics, but also recognizes the benefit of being more progressive...

I would even go so far to argue that each culture had a hand in influencing these changes in the other...