Renting Palaces and Trade Consortiums

[kgauck]

Its hardly idealism. Simply consider the number of vassals that exist, and then consider how many of them ever turn to rebellion, and finally how many are successful. But there is an even more important consideration, and one I mentioned above, consider how many of these nobles who ever consider rebellion were treated poorly by their ruler and have reasonable claims that their ruler broke his duty as liege first.

Most rebellions come about under some claim that the liege or his agents (often tax collectors, but not always) have violated the law and that it is the ruler who is outlaw. Rulers often push hard at the rules that protect their subjects because they need resources, sometimes desperately.

The statement I objected to was that vassalage should be risky, because "That's always the danger of having Vasals, they may turn against you." This places the initiative for rebellion in the hands of the vassal. You can be a good king, just and noble, but because the DM needs a story line, your vassals rebel. Further, it suggests that the simple act of creating a vassal, in which a PC knows a friend, perhaps even a cohort, for a long time, fight along side one another, and then this friend, might without provocation, become a traitor.

It is one thing to suggest that one's father created a vassal, and that this powerful friend of the father is a rival to the son (the PC), but to suggest that by its very nature, a vassal is a probable traitor is to tell players that they really can't trust anyone.

Since my view is that Birthright is a game about insiders, telling players to act like outsiders is the last things I find desirable. Rivalries and betrayals should flow from what the players do and the traits of the characters in question, not because DM's need conflict or because its inherent in the nature of vassals to betray.

Halskapa is at an early stage in selecting the next king, so every jarl wants to think they have a chance, as the process moves forward some jarls will realize that they don't have a chance and will start to throw their support behind some probable winner in hopes of rewards. Maybe the next phase is the three faction situation. All one needs is to pick three leading contenders and why one supposes the others are taking a secondary roll. Since this depends on the PC's, one is almost required to wait until one has an actual party before narrowing the field.

[ploesch]

I think you read allot more into that than I intended.

I meant simply that it is a risk. Not a great risk, not a likely traitor, just simply a risk. However slight or great depends on the GM, the PC and who the vassal is.

[ploesch]

Back on point, and to clarify.

IMO it's not necessary to create a new layer of complexity and add new rules and give additional actions to regents in order for the regents to support eachother versus a more poweful enemy or to help eachothers holdings.

[Rowan]

And you would rather solve the problem of running large domains by creating vassals, yes?

I don't see my solution as added complexity. It's an extension of existing rules, just breaking out of a straightjacket that dictates one court, one regent, story be damned.

Depending on how you want to explain the abstraction of a court and domain actions, I would agree that vassals are another solution--but they are a much more game-breaking one. My proposal limits the advantage players might get over other players by appointing more vassals (with 3+ actions each) than they, and diminishes the headache a DM might face in resolution of those actions, since there would be fewer.

[kgauck]

If making vassals is game breaking (I'm not sure if you are exaggerating since you put that term in quotes) then a better solution is to work on the question of why a vassals realm is so bad compared to other solutions.

My own sense of things is that the fellow who was recently enfiefed or entitled wasn't standing around doing nothing before and suddenly is out solving problems today. He was available before and is probably slightly less available to solve problems now that he has his own domain to look after.

[ploesch]

My issue with your proposal is that it's just more power gaming. Increasing the Regents personal power with no additional risk. The problem is that your proposal gives the regent more power with nothing balanced against it. There are limits to the number of actions available for a reason. That is to limit what a regent can do in a given season. The limits are there to encourage you to take additional risks when your realm reaches a certain level of complexity. The risks being giving up control of some of your provinces to a Vassal, or taking a chance on not being able to react to every event in a timely manner.

While having a vassal gives you 3+ more actions, the rolls, RP, GB, and expertise are all based off the vassals stats and skills, not the PC's. The vassal isn't going to level very fast, if at all, unless they are another PC. Also, if the Vassal is an NPC, they may not spend their actions the way you tell them too, not to mention there is always the risk, however small, that the vassal will turn against you. I'd say that even one more court action for a PC to take is more powerful in many ways than the 3+ actions the Vassal could take on behalf of the PC.

I will grant you, the current court system gives the regent more power without risk, but it is limited to being 1 court and the number of actions is limited by GB spent. That should be enough of a freebee. If it isn't then I think that your realm has grown too large and/or complex for you to continue overseeing everything yourself.

That is what all those actions represent, what the regent can personally oversee.

Once you've reached the limit of what you can personally oversee, the answer isn't "lets add rules so i can get more actions" (ie oversee more). The answer is "time to Vassal a trusted lieutenant" so you have more freedom to work on your plans.

That's not to say the current system is perfect. I just don't think this is a good or balanced solution. In fact, i think it's one that a GM could use very effectively against players.

[Rowan]

Lieutenants, especially ones further removed and more independent like in this consortium scenario, are just as risky story-wise as vassals. They'd be even more likely than personal lieutenants to become great captains, because they have access to information and resources from multiple realms. Any extra courts, likewise, are more independent.

From my reading of the rules, it seems that a regent can only be personally involved in one action per month, domain, court, or otherwise. Anything you don't stack your single character action onto is not personally overseen, so I don't agree with your assessment that the current limit to actions would be any different as far as what one could personally oversee than in my scenario.

I've already explained that I think that vassals are already actively serving the realm under the abstraction of the Court system. As Kgauck points out, it's not like these people were doing nothing prior to their appointment as vassals. No, I think it is better explained that vassals are employed normally in the running of a realm, and any expansion of the Court, appointment of lieutenants, or creation of full-fledged underling regent vassals is just giving more authority, staff, and administrative support to the various individuals involved. In that sense, it's just as well explained story-wise to have these other systems, and it remains an easier, more stream-lined game to run simply by virtue of having to deal with less bookkeeping, since vassals are handled under the abstractions of Courts and Lieutenants in most cases. So long as the DM keeps in mind that any of these folks can have their own agendas, storywise it is little different than appointing vassals in the manner that you speak of. I imagine that a regent with a World Class Court has to spend most of his time just holding the thing together, anyway, as the intrigues of court can get quite out of hand--one loses centralization and autonomy by increasing one's court or number of lieutenants, which is why many regents spoken of in RoE don't trust any.

[ploesch]

I'm not arguing that a vassal would suddenly pop into existence. But there is, game mechanics wise, a huge difference between a vassal that serves you as part of an abstraction of court and a Vassal by the rules. This goes back to muddying of the waters I spoke of before.

Since we are talking about a rules suggestion or change, we should keep it at that level more than an RP level. Yes, they are intertwined, and some rules should/should not exist for RP reason just as some rules exist purely for game mechanics reasons.

This is one of those thing that, IMO, would be imbalanced in the long run.

I'm at work, so I can't go searching for it now, but if memory serves a regent can lend RP to the success of any court action, as well as his own actions, and maybe lieutenant actions, can't remember for sure. At any rate, any action that a regent can lend RP to is definetely an action they are closely enough involved in to be at least considered to be actively overseeing. Courts and lieutenants simply allow the regent to do more because the minor details and paperwork is handled by a subordinate.

At this point I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've said my peice. It's nothing personal, I just don't think the game would be served by giving regents more actions in this way.

[geeman]

It sounds to me like the issue with renting palaces and creating
trade consortiums might be better handled by using something like the
shared rulership guidelines I posted several years ago. In the
archives they can be found at:

http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0101D&L=BIRTHRIGHT-L&P=R1944&I=-3

and

http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0101D&L=BIRTHRIGHT-L&P=R2090&I=-3

Gary

[Rowan]

RP can also be spent directly through the vassalage bond, so again it's no different than appointing vassals, except that it's easier bookkeeping and doesn't imbalance the game as much as the appointment of vassals could. I just don't understand why you see it as so different, or that my option is somehow more favorable to regents, when to me it seems that the only difference between the two is that my proposal actually ends up giving the regent fewer actions by proxy than yours.

Gary, I'll check those out at a later time, thanks.