How do you best describe the rules you use?

[Green Knight]

I have to say "Other", since I use my "Ruins of Empire" PBeM rule-set, not onlyfor my PBeM, but for my table-top campaigns as well.

[geeman]

At 02:40 AM 8/12/2006, Robbie wrote:

>I agree with your explanation regarding population density and
>rulership, but there is just one thing that doesn`t add up: sources.
>If all of these people are there from the beginning, either as
>loners, rogues, bandits, independent localr or whatever, then why
>aren`t they affecting the source potential of the province until
>they swear allegiance to the regent?

There area couple problems with the "population already exists and
population level is merely a reflection of the regent`s control over
that population" rationale. As you note it rather drastically
contradicts the source potential mechanic of the domain rules. It
also makes one wonder why a regent can`t rule a law, temple or guild
holding up higher than the population level. After all, if that
population exists and the population level of a province only
represents the control of some central authority that doesn`t mean
the uncontrolled population has no need to worship at a temple,
participate in a guild, etc. right?

It also brings up what is in my opinion the more problematic issue
and that is why can`t there be more than one province ruler? If
population is really static and the population level of a province is
just the control that the province ruler has over a number of those
people why can`t another regent step in and control a few levels of
the population too? Effectively, it turns population level into a
sort of holding rather than a province mechanic.

Now, personally, I have to admit I kind of like that as a
solution. Rather than province rulers ALL regents control
holdings. Instead of population levels all the effects (or most of
them, at least) of controlling a province can be rolled into law
holdings. The difference between law holdings and the "recognized
sovereign" of a province is pretty thin, really, and law holdings are
in many ways one of the most vaguely defined holdings, so I think it
would work pretty effectively. Population level can then be handled
as suggested above. (Though it still doesn`t address the source
potential problem.)

Gary

[geeman]

At 06:13 AM 8/12/2006, irdeggman wrote:

>The affect on sources would come from the infrastructure
>development. Roads, or paths connecting villages, etc.

Well, there already is a game mechanic for building roads and such
and it doesn`t interfere with the source potential of a province, so
unless there`s something particular about those roads as opposed to
the kinds of roads that would be constructed by increasing a
population level this rationale doesn`t really work all that well for me.

>The people are spread out so thinnly that the have minimal effect on
>the environment. It is when groups develop larger centers that
>major effects on the environment occur. Instead of small personal
>farms they are creating larger farms so that they can pay tithes and
>trade with others.

I think the idea of static population levels pretty much begins with
the premise that people are not spread out thinly. The increase in
population level really does nothing to change their distribution or
how they actually live or where. It just changes whether or not they
live under the umbrella of a province ruler`s
authority. Concentrating people into urban areas really doesn`t
change the fundamental dynamic of how a population exists. That is,
for urban areas to be created population has to increase. People
tend to live and work in such a way that is relatively harmless to
the environment not because they fail to recognize an authority, but
because their are so spread out that the impact of their activities
is absorbed by the ecosystem. In fact, the activities of small
populations are actually very often much more destructive to the
environment than larger populations. In a small population slash and
burn farming is common because it is very productive for the amount
of effort required. (It`s the preferred method of most primitive
peoples.) Unfortunately, it usually wipes out the area for plant
life after a few years of high yield crops. Such farmers move on to
another location and don`t return for a decade or so until the
original land has managed to grow back. It isn`t until population
increases that one must develop techniques that have less impact on
the environment. There are gobs of other examples of this process
ranging from specific farming techniques (like the methods used to
raise/breed animals) and the impact of light industrial techniques.

Yes, urban areas have a dramatic effect on the environment than does
a small group of slash and burn farmers, but if you take that same
number of urban people and distribute them without central authority
to engage in slash and burn farming (or other practices) that less
developed communities employ they will rapidly wipe out the
environment of a region the size of a province in a very short
time. The idea that increasing population level just takes rural
people and redistributes them into more urban, centralized or
controlled areas within a province doesn`t really add up IMO.

Gary

[geeman]

A few comments on the population level issue:

First off, I think there are merits and demerits to all of the
rationales I`ve ever heard used on the subject, and I`ve been reading
them for a long time now. Here`s a summary of them:

1. Population level represents an actual increase in the number of
people in a province. People often have trouble with this one
because we focus mostly on the issue of birth and child-rearing,
which takes a few years as I understand it. That is one way to
increase population, but the other is to keep the existing population
alive. A death prevented is actually better than a life created for
our purposes because we don`t have to deal with the issue of
child-rearing. When it comes to issues like death during childbirth
we get a double-whammy of effective population increases. Increase
the life expectancy of women in childbirth and population figures
start to tip up pretty quickly. Of course, not quickly enough to
rationalize the speed at which population level increases by a long
short, but as a rationale for population level it works in
conjunction with the ones below:

2. Population level increases the number of people in a province
through immigration. There exist in Cerilia large numbers of people
who live migratory, semi-migratory or are simply not counted among
the population numbers of a province and the rule action encourages
these people to settle down under the authority of the province
ruler. There are facts and materials supporting a large number of
people being unaccounted for in BR (particularly in the Rjurik lands)
and the idea of forcing them to settle down under a particular ruler
fits neatly into a few of the themes of the setting (again,
particularly in the Rjurik lands.)

3. Population levels already exist and the Rule action simply places
more of those people under the authority of the regent. To a certain
extent this rational and the first one are similar in that they both
assume some unaccounted population somehow are newly influenced by
the province ruler. I separate them mostly because the first implies
a rather broad migration while this one can simply mean there are
people living within a province. Effectively, however, the
rationales are very much alike, though this one does have some issues
as noted in the previous post regarding multiple province rulers,
holding levels going above population level, etc. To some extent the
immigration rationale has the same problems but because those people
are assumed to be on the move they are more easily discounted.

4. Population numbers really represent the total number of family
units or households rather than individuals. This one is really my
favorite because it solves several major issues. First, if
population numbers represent households rather than every single man,
woman and child of a province we get pretty close right there to
solving the issue of population density to make it more in line with
actual medieval and Renaissance population numbers. If every family
unit is made up of 4-12 people (which is pretty conservative given
that we could use any unit up to and including a small clan/tribe)
then a population level 5 province represent 25,000 families for an
actual population of 100,000 to 300,000. A population level 10
province could be as many as 1.2 million people. Second, it gives us
a good rational for the speed at which population level can go
up. Under such a rationale, increasing population level does not
increase the actual number of people in a province. Rather, through
a program of social and economic development the Rule action
increases the number of households under the regent`s
authority. That is, eldest children (or other dependents) are
married off and given the resources to start their own family
units. Where we might have two family units with 12 people in them
we then have three with 8 in them--still well within the range of the
aforementioned conservative family size. The third thing that such a
rationale does is fit neatly into the issues involved in mustering
units, particularly levies. Since overall population numbers have
increased the number of ready troops that can be maintained is a bit
more realistic. Furthermore, when mustering levies or other troops
it is the "head of the household" or most able-bodied of the family
units that is responding. Every old man, child or noncombatant is
not included in the population levels which determine the amount of
troops that can be mustered.

5. Increasing population level does not increase actual population
levels but represents developing more efficient bureaucracy. This
one I think we should be a little careful of because it can lead to
some pretty drastic shifts in explanation. That is, people might see
this as the development of a more effective _method_ of
government--at least, that`s how it has been presented in the
past--and I think that goes a couple steps too far into the realm of
something akin to social technical development. What I mean by
developing a more efficient bureaucracy has more to do with going
through a process of "trimming the fat" or otherwise administering to
the government itself. The population level increases because the
government is more efficient after the regent performs what we might
nowadays call an audit. Graft, incompetent officials, bad policies,
etc. are reviewed and dealt with. Things like that.

There are a few others that I`m sure I`m forgetting, but most can fit
in one way or another under the rationales listed above.

When it boils right down to it I think the solution is simply this:
All those rationales apply at once. Population levels do not
represent an actual count of the total number of people in a
province. There are uncontrolled people in a province and an
increase in population level represents an extension of the province
ruler`s authority over those people. It also represents an influx of
new people into a province who settle down as part of the regent`s
rule action which encourages such things. Most importantly, the
population levels represent "families" as an economic unit rather
than actual individuals. Thus, the population is really much higher
than we had previously assumed and can be expanded much more easily
by turning creating more family units. The weaknesses of any one
rationale can be covered by the strengths of one of the others, and
the whole system starts to take on a kind of holistic integrity where
the combination of the above rationales fit into the description of
population level and works with the rest of the domain system. For
instance, even though there are people in a province that are not
part of the population level a regent cannot rule up a holding higher
than the population level because the number of those uncontrolled
people is not high enough to represent a whole level of a
holding. Some immigration, creation of new family units, etc. would
be required for that....

The increase in population level is still very fast, but if one uses
the combination of those rationales it seems much more
reasonable. Plus, it allows for the full range of role-playing by
the DM and players. If one is to play out a Rule action the DM can
create adventures having to do with all of those rationales (one or
so a week) and have the PCs try to successfully accomplish them. It
makes for a really cool system.

Gary

[ausrick]

I have to say "Other", since I use my "Ruins of Empire" PBeM rule-set, not onlyfor my PBeM, but for my table-top campaigns as well.

I had to say BRCS 3.5 with lots of house rules, because I primarily use the BRCS 3.5, but I find myself adding more and more rules from Bjorn's Ruins of Empire rules. I like the idea of Manor holdings, and his approach to larger populations. I use an adaptation of Cry Havoc for my mass combat, and I pull a lot from the Ravenloft 3.5 for the Shadow World and to add just that little bit of supernatural darkness to the campaign.

[Fizz]

I voted other, but lately i've been wondering about running good ol' 2nd Ed again. Sometimes simplicity is a good thing- not worry so much about excessive rules and let the story take precedence.

-Fizz

[Autarkis]

Though I like the work everyone did on the BRCS and have played in several BRCS games, I never did understand the need to convert the entire Birthright Ruleset to 3.0 or 3.5. The Domain level play is basically unaffected by 3.5 rulesets with the only two things needing updating being the skills Administration, Diplomacy, Intrigue, Law, Leadership, Strategy and Siegecraft and updating the Blood Abilities to be racial templates. (And I guess war since it would be cumbersome to try and find war cards.)

I think both games have the same setting but approach it differently. In 2nd Edition, it is true Domain level play with the character really only determining regency collection. In BRCS 3.5, it is more about the character with him personally having more impact and Domains succeeding and failing based at the Character level (i.e. Skill Modifications to Domain Actions, Skill Modifacations to Regency Collection %, Feats, and "Domain" Feats.)

[gazza666]

I voted other, but lately i've been wondering about running good ol' 2nd Ed again. Sometimes simplicity is a good thing- not worry so much about excessive rules and let the story take precedence.

I guess that's a "horses for courses" thing.

Basing it on page count, I don't think there's much difference between the core three books of 2nd and 3rd edition. 3rd edition is a lot more consistent, though, so it manages to cram more rules into a similar space.

I'm pretty hard pressed to see a lot of rules as a bad thing - it's much easier to ignore rules than to invent them - but that's a personal preference.

[Green Knight]

Loyal to the orignal rules or the original setting? The two are not always easily compatible.

[Fizz]

I'm pretty hard pressed to see a lot of rules as a bad thing - it's much easier to ignore rules than to invent them - but that's a personal preference.

Yeah, i'm not saying more rules is a bad thing per se. It is a personal preference.

There are certainly a lot more things to keep track of in 3E than in 2nd Ed. In my experience those extra things don't add much to the story. That is, i've personally not found them to be worth the extra work.

But of course, your milage may vary.


-Fizz