Lending Support

[Green Knight]

Orginally posted by morgramen

Do people allow their regent players to support their domain action with BOTH the province level and any relevant holding levels they own, or are players limited to supporting with only a single source?

1. This was the original question. IMO, it would be excessive to allow support from BOTH sources.
2. From this, I derived that perhaps getting support from province level should be disallowed altogether.
3. This would remove the dilema: If I have BOTH a holding and province rulership, I only get influence from the holding. If I don't have a holding, I get influence from the province.
4. This sounds a bit absurd. Either you get influence from the province or you don't, regardless of your holding levels.
5. Given that I though BOTH source was excessive, I decided to disallow province levels altogether.
6. Then I proceeded to make some sort of justification for not allowing province levels to count (my six points above).

I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. I'm merely presenting a way of resolving this issue. If you find that both holdings AND province levels should apply, then this clearly isn't the way to go for you.

[Green Knight]

Orginally posted by Lord Shaene

Green Knight I would think when you use your province level to lend support that you are in actuality making a decree or influencing important people to make it harder to achieve success or failure in what they are doing. and its the province level that determines how much influence the regent has.

IMO, being the province ruler grants some influence expressed in the RPs you collect. Other than that, you need holdings to excert influence. This way, it is quite possible to be a figurehead ruler.

I suppose this is a departure from "canon" rules, but I enjoy the added flexibility.

[Green Knight]

Orginally posted by Abbess Allessandra

So, if you were a regent with holdings in an allied province, and someone was trying to set up shop next to you, couldn't you ask for the province rulers support? If that is the case then yes your holding and the rulers support would go towards the contestment.
Why couldn't it work if you were the province ruler and had holdings? I would think that since there is more at stake the ruler would have the most influence.(If the people support her, if they don't then it could work against the ruler)

If the first goes, so should the second. There is no real difference IMO.

OK, so maybe this wasn't the most clever comment I ever made. :)

[Lord Eldred]

Green Knight, there seems to be a major flaw in your argument. Regents gain regency from holdings as well. If your argument is that a province ruler should not be able to spend both the influence of the province level and the RPs generated from it. The same would go with holdings and thus you would have to eliminate both holding and province level influence and just go with RPs and GBs.

By the way that was a very intelligent argument you just made :P

[Green Knight]

There is no flaw as such. I'm fully aware that holdings collect regency - I think I noticed that a while back. :P

My point (again), was that IF you wanted NOT to apply BOTH province AND holding level, you had to get rid of at least ONE of them. I then went on to explain how this could be done.

I chose to get rid of PROVINCE LEVEL, as I interpret province rulership as little more than a formality. Holdings (under this model) would indeed be more powerful than pure province rulership, since the both generate RP and may be used to influence.

If you don't like this angle, that's cool, but it is not flawed. - It's merely a different way of doing things. Provinces and holdings are not the same, and exactly the same rules need not apply.

As for banning holdings too, that is an intriguing option that I have done some work with, but that's another story.

[Chioran]

Orginally posted by Green Knight

There is no flaw as such. I'm fully aware that holdings collect regency - I think I noticed that a while back. :P

My point (again), was that IF you wanted NOT to apply BOTH province AND holding level, you had to get rid of at least ONE of them. I then went on to explain how this could be done.

I chose to get rid of PROVINCE LEVEL, as I interpret province rulership as little more than a formality. Holdings (under this model) would indeed be more powerful than pure province rulership, since the both generate RP and may be used to influence.

If you don't like this angle, that's cool, but it is not flawed. - It's merely a different way of doing things. Provinces and holdings are not the same, and exactly the same rules need not apply.

As for banning holdings too, that is an intriguing option that I have done some work with, but that's another story.

It is not your argument that is flawed so much as it is the basis of your argument which is flawed. How can you say that province rulership is a mere formality. The ruler of a province holds great influential power. Take for example Yasser Arafat. I fine example of a province ruler. He is able to influence 14 year old children to strap on explosives and blow theselves up in the name of freedom. That is tremendous power!

What would seem appropriate is to use the province morale/loyalty modifier to adjust the amount of support you are able to lend. This would seem like an appropriate measure, but to throw it out completely does an injustice to the ruler.

[Lord Shaene]

Hmmm, just an off the wall idea, but after reading the posts, what if you did have a figurehead type ruling the province or if the ruler wasnt really in favor with the people, seems to me the influence a province ruler can give can A) give a positive influence B) he can try to influence and it have no effect at all or C) have a negative effect. now this would be seperate from gold and regency, it would be based strictly on holding or province level. example: say a guild holder from endier has a level 3 guild in Ilien, and the people of Ilien feel dubious towards Endier. ok now say there is another level 3 guild there controlled by a guild holder of ilien who is well liked by the people on Ilien. the guild owner of Endier decides he wants to rule up his guild to level 4. he exerts his holding influence, but the influence has no effect on the roll for success because the people dont neccessarily favor him. now the guild owner of endier knows the people of ilien dont favor him so he starts spending gold and regency to influence the roll. now the guild holder of ilien who is favored exerts his influence so that he doesnt succeed , since he is favored by the people the influence reduces the endier guilders roll. ok i hope im not losing you. now the endier guilder goes to the province ruler and asks for his support. the province leader likes the endier guilder and not the ilien one and agrees to help the endier guilder out. the province leader exerts his influence but the people hate the province ruler and so when he exerts his influence it actually hurts the endier guilders roll. so maybe set up a table on how a holding or province level influence affects the roll with some modifiers. now this is just an idea, im not really for it or against it , its just food for thought.

[Green Knight]

Orginally posted by Chioran

It is not your argument that is flawed so much as it is the basis of your argument which is flawed. How can you say that province rulership is a mere formality. The ruler of a province holds great influential power. Take for example Yasser Arafat. I fine example of a province ruler. He is able to influence 14 year old children to strap on explosives and blow theselves up in the name of freedom. That is tremendous power!

What would seem appropriate is to use the province morale/loyalty modifier to adjust the amount of support you are able to lend. This would seem like an appropriate measure, but to throw it out completely does an injustice to the ruler.

It was one of my basic assumptions that province rulership = no actual influence. As I said, this isn't in line with "canon" rules, but a different approach.

Once again I point out that I'm trying to come up with an EXPLANATION of how provinces can be banned from providing influence, given that you WANT to GET RID of it. It is not the other way around.

As for Arafat...that was...original. Who can tell if he's got a few guild holdings too, or simply lots of influence? Seems he's not getting anything done anyway, so perhaps that is an indication that province rulership doesn't count. Or maybe his provinces have been reduced to (0)? I don't think real life comarisons are any good. :)

[Lord Eldred]

I am confused. Are you for or against having provinces have influence? If you are against it, please back up your position and not weasel out of it by saying if you don't like it don't do it. Maybe we would like it if we understood the reasoning behind it better.

[Chioran]

G.K. If you want to get rid of it because you feel that it is excessive, then do it just for that reason. I dno't see why you have to puzzle through some other explanation. I would expect the players to be upset about this though. That not withstanding I really believe that it is inaccurate to say that prvince rulers wield no influence.