Results 21 to 30 of 45
Thread: Domain actions query
-
05-02-2002, 02:22 AM #21
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 6:47 PM
> I`d hardly call a request use of anothers domain assets to be in any way
> routine regardless of the friendship, vassalage or other relationship
> involved. A regent has a responsibility to his people too, and to his
> domain.
The realm of the one is included in the larger realm of the other. Both
have the same obligations in the smaller realm. This is an essential part
of the vassalage agreement, at least as it has been applied in practice
(historically).
> Quite apart from that argument (which I find compelling enough in
> itself), to do otherwise would effectively allow a liege to have more
> than three domain actions creating a puppet who therefore should cease
> to exist (or should never have been) as a regent with all holdings and
> assets controlled by the liege. You can`t get around the three action
> limit like this. (or any way)
You are contorting the rules to maintain a game effect which can be balanced
with less blunt means. The rules should model a society, not the society a
set of rules intended to be general and ambiguous. If BR can`t model an
Arthurian, Norman, or other feudal society, I have to scratch my head,
because it certainly seems like those kinds of things were in the minds of
the designers.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
05-02-2002, 02:22 AM #22
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 474
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
>>Aleric wrote:
>>
>
>>Not only does this possibly mean a lot more book-keeping to track it
>>all, but it seems it would be very advantageous to create such mini-vassals.
>>
>
>Yes and yes. Hence the advice somewhere in the rulebook that you only
>actually resolve actions for those few NPC realms which are actively
>involved with the PC ones at any given moment, and just assume all the
>others either cancel each other out or determine a global change by DM
>fiat. As regards the advantage, be sure to heed Kenneth`s advice that it
>is crucial that no one group of (N)PCs be the only regents to come
>up with this idea.
>
>>Lieutenant - one domain action/turn undertaken using the resources of
>> the Lord
>>Vassal - three domain actions/turn undertaken using his own resources
>>
>
>Yup. Vassals also get to expend extra RP to modify success numbers, as
>all regents do; lieutenants can`t use RP that way.
>
>>Either could have holdings - but only the vassal must.
>>
>
>I would say that once you`ve got holdings, you`re a regent. There was
>some discussion a while back about whether one could be both a regent and
>a lieutenant at the same time; I for one was opposed to the idea. I say
>if you give them holdings, they cease to be your lieutenant, so you`d
>better make them your vassal.
>
You do have a point and it`s not unreasonable, but I`ll still allow the
LT to act (within the regents domain) as a personal favour to the regent
even if they are a regent in their own right. It`s all very well and
good to say "create a vassal - lose a LT", but what if the vassal
creates himself a regent (by Create Holding) ? or is created by another
action ? People do drift apart - enter service elsewhere - etc, so it`s
a difficult call. If the regent had more than one LT, it would be more
reasonable to say he loses one.
>>Both could be disloyal - so no difference there.
>>
>
>Roleplayingwise, yes. In terms of game mechanics, I don`t really think
>so. I`d let players control LTs pretty much completely, unless I had
>specific ideas to the contrary, but a full vassal I`d want developed into
>a separate NPC. I see LTs as extensions of the regent`s self and vassals
>as more independent agents, in part because I don`t mind every player
>getting 4 actions per turn instead of 3, but I do mind every player
>getting arbitrarily many actions per turn.
>
agreed
>
>
>>Admittedly creating a vassal means the Lord surrendering
>>some RPs (i.e. from the holding), but not a significant loss.
>>
>
>One major reason to create vassals is that you can do it without losing
>any RP income, and in fact *gaining* it, if your bloodline score is below
>your domain power. The consensus of the list seems to be that RP
>contributed by vassals don`t count against the maximum a regent can
>collect per turn. Someone will no doubt roast me if I`m wrong. =)
>
Yes and no. Yes mostly. Also if a warrior regent control guilds, he
can`t collect RP from them, creating a guilder vassal would allow the
vassal to collect RP, and pass some of it back to the liege (of course
at the cost of some GB loss).
The issue of bloodline score being below domain power is murky at best.
Not only does that mechanism not work, and make poor sense, it is rarely
followed in practice ( of the 22 regents whose RP generated is
calculated in RoE only 5 of them follow the rule - and one of these the
values happen to be equal so perhaps only 4 ? ). DAs income is specified
as excluding tribute from vassals - and while his RP generated is 23 RP
higher than his bloodline of 70, EM - one of his supposed vassals - is
one of the few to have her RP calculated "properly" -- and it`s all
still there! I have long regarded this as the single major flaw in the
BR mechanics.
But regardless of whether the mechanism for calculating the RP uses the
lesser of the two values or the greater of the two values - the
effective amount of RP collected by two regents can in fact be greater
than that collected by a single regent - so yes.
>
>
>>Given this, why create a lieutenant, when a vassal can do so much
>>more?
>>
>
>Well, everyone needs at least *one* lieutenant, just for the extra
>self-action that no vassal can directly provide (you can use LTs but not
>vassals to rule up your own personal holdings, for example).
>
>My answer is this: if a liege lord has as much control over his vassals`
>actions as he does over his lieutenants`, then you`re right; but since I
>don`t want every regent to invest everyone he can think of as a full
>vassal because it would be a bookkeeping nightmare, I need a way around
>that; less certain loyalty is one tool that looks good to me for use in
>that purpose.
>
Yes, a LT acts within the liege`s domain and is under the regents
control. A vassal on the other hand is independent and acts within his
own domain at his own direction (and in his own turn). A vassal can do
more - but not more for the liege.
>
>
>>Disloyalty: `A vassal is an independent regent - they are not likely
>>to follow any but their own interests. Acting essentially for their
>>liege is against their own interest!`
>>
>
>That`s not quite what I mean. What I mean is that a vassal is likely to
>prioritize the same interests rather differently. For example, things
>like, "Yes, my lord, I`d be happy to help you wage war against our enemies
>if only I were able, but at the moment I need every man-at-arms I have to
>hunt the bandits who have been reducing my ability to collect the taxes
>you deserve, and you really do need this money to wage the war... perhaps
>next year."
>
exactly. Although I`d say that a vassal is more likely to respond
favourably to a diplomatic request for aid.
> Keep the number of random events high enough that vassals are
>pulled in different directions from their lords. Also, once you have a
>large number of vassals, they begin to compete among each other, and
>interfere in each other`s pet projects. This should be an unending source
>of headaches for any regent who decides to create his own Parliament to
>run his realm for him (which is what large-scale vassal proliferation is).
>Then there`s the "magna carta" problem: if at any point all your vassals
>put together could overpower you, they may decide to unionize. Also, if
>you`re busy putting one vassal back in his place, the others will take the
>opportunity to slightly loosen their bonds while you`re not looking.
>
>IMO, lieutenants say, "yes lord, whatever you command."
>Vassals say, "well, I`ll see what I can do about your request."
>
yes
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
05-02-2002, 06:15 AM #23
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 474
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Kenneth Gauck wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
>Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 6:47 PM
>
>
>>I`d hardly call a request use of anothers domain assets to be in any way
>>routine regardless of the friendship, vassalage or other relationship
>>involved. A regent has a responsibility to his people too, and to his
>>domain.
>>
>
>The realm of the one is included in the larger realm of the other. Both
>have the same obligations in the smaller realm. This is an essential part
>of the vassalage agreement, at least as it has been applied in practice
>(historically).
>
Firstly, what history ? not England, Spain, Italy, Germany, France or
Spain ! (until unification) ? the U.S.A. ? Can Bush tell California that
its` tax rate is twice what the other states pay ?
Secondly, BR isn`t about realms/domains of that size in any case.
Thirdly, BR big "V" Vassalage rules are on the lines of France being a
Vassal to England (after Henry V beat them to a standstill). Still can`t
see England affecting the rate of taxation or directing French armies to
march on Spain in such a case - can you ? Small "v" vassals form such an
integral part of a domain that they take no independent action - they
have no domain actions of their own.
>
>
>>Quite apart from that argument (which I find compelling enough in
>>itself), to do otherwise would effectively allow a liege to have more
>>than three domain actions creating a puppet who therefore should cease
>>to exist (or should never have been) as a regent with all holdings and
>>assets controlled by the liege. You can`t get around the three action
>>limit like this. (or any way)
>>
>
>You are contorting the rules to maintain a game effect which can be balanced
>with less blunt means. The rules should model a society, not the society a
>set of rules intended to be general and ambiguous. If BR can`t model an
>Arthurian, Norman, or other feudal society, I have to scratch my head,
>because it certainly seems like those kinds of things were in the minds of
>the designers.
>
Contorting nothing!
The rules do model a society. However they do not attempt to model all
scales shapes and possibilities of society. Any rule system is closed to
its target area. To say that BR should model modern society and modern
nations is an absurdity, it was not designed to do so - and nor need it
be so.
The look of BR is close to Arthurian in that there are many Kings,
however with the exception of (historically) the Emperor of Anuire,
there are no High Kings. Cerilia for all it being called a continent, is
on the same scale as the British Isles - with a hundred small kingdoms
within it. There were many small Welsh Princes, each ruling their own
domain, but there was only ever two Welsh-born Princes of Wales which
would be on the scale of el-Arrasi for example. (except that Welsh
unification led to Welsh integration in England)
And yes, games do need to be balanced.
Historically - an example. King Henry V of England ruled England
absolutely (limited to 3 domain actions), all his vassals were
small-"v", the French king did not have such absolute power, his
vassals, the French Princes acted autonomously (each with their own 3
domain actions). When the eventually met in battle, each French Prince
was defeated in turn because there was no central command (they attacked
each in their own domain action - each weaker than the combined
England). The French King went on to swear fealty to England, and thus
his Princes were all still subject to him, etc. Still, as France
couldn`t impose her will on the Princes - England`s chances of getting
France to actually do anything were slim at the best of times. In three
generations time, the English Barons had revolted at the absolute rule
of their monarch forcing John left at home to LT his realm (with one
action) to give themmore autonomy, while Richard (who couldn`t even
speak English!), was off using up his domain actions (and GB) in a war
for glory (and that much vaunted honor - such a personal thing, don`t
you think?) trying to compete with the big boys of mainland Europe
(compete not cooperate - if they cooperated the Saracens would`ve been
much easier). Poor John, hamstrung by lack of GB (of course he was the
bad guy - he had to run a realm and finance a foreign war - he had no
realm of his own - his moniker was "John Lackland" - small wonder when
Richard stupidly got himself captured and held to ransom, he refused to
throw even more good GB after bad).
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
05-02-2002, 06:15 AM #24
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 9:29 PM
> Firstly, what history ? not England, Spain, Italy, Germany, France or
> Spain ! (until unification) ?
If you want to get into a contest of who can cite more feudal contracts, I`m
game, but I don`t think its suitable for the list. If you don`t think the
feudal system includes overlapping jurisdictions and powers then more power
to you, but I do see it that way. Plenty of game materials have described
it this way. Where feudal society existed, vassals mostly cooperated with
their lords, so in the game it shoudl always be possible to rebel, but the
common experience should be cooperation.
> Thirdly, BR big "V" Vassalage rules are on the lines of France being a
> Vassal to England (after Henry V beat them to a standstill). Still can`t
> see England affecting the rate of taxation or directing French armies to
> march on Spain in such a case - can you ?
France was never a vassal of England. Not in law, not in practice, not by
anyone`s claims. Your example is meaningless if it is intended to reflect
some historical situation.
> Small "v" vassals form such an integral part of a domain that they take
> no independent action - they have no domain actions of their own.
This is a silly and artificial distinction. NPC`s are not aware of their
vassalage having a capital or miniscule initial letter.
> The rules do model a society. However they do not attempt to model all
> scales shapes and possibilities of society.
You`re the one talking about the United States and California, not I, sir.
All my examples have been those which bear a likeness to BR. My claims were
that Arthurian, Norman, and other feudal societies should be governable by
BR rules. Vassalage has no meaning outside of feudal ideology. If I cannot
represent, at least generally, the history and literature of the mediaval
world - not all scales of shapes and possible societies, just the ones upon
which BR claims some heritage - then something is seriously amiss.
Since I can certainly re-write Arthur to sound like BR, and I can re-write
the histories of medieval England, Spain, Italy, Germany, and France to
sound like BR, why can`t I play BR to take some inspiration from Arthur and
these histories? Certainly that was the intention of the designers.
> Any rule system is closed to its target area. To say that BR
> should model modern society and modern nations is an
> absurdity, it was not designed to do so - and nor need it be so.
No one said it should, you are (again) attacking a straw man erected so that
you could knock it down. Again, who made an analogy to California and the
US? You did. You do not serve your argument by wandering away to attack
things no one has claimed, changing the subject, or stating the obvious. It
is not relevant to attack Ivanhoe as propaganda. If I want to make an
Ivanhoe based story in BR, who is to call that wrong? Its a good story.
Isn`t that the most important thing? So what if Odyssus benifited from the
sack of Troy, since that does not address the question that he was made to
go, though he was nobodies vassal. You confuse no one with off topic
arguments.
> And yes, games do need to be balanced.
Please cite some claim to the contrary.
> Historically - an example. King Henry V of England ruled England
> absolutely (limited to 3 domain actions), all his vassals were
> small-"v",
You need to go back and re-read your Shakespear and your history. These
vassals had independent power. The were the law for all but capital
offenses in their counties. They waged war on one another from time to
time. Skip ahead to the War of the Roses. The distinction between Vassals
and vassals is artificial and barely useful (if at all) as a metagame
concept. No such thing exists.
Your descriptions of French politics are inaccurate and not worth
correcting, since no BR purpose will be served.
I will play the game according to my vision of medieval literature and
society (with other elements thrown in for fun), I will describe the game
according to that vision (as everyone should share their own vision), and I
will not cease to cleave to my vision no matter your posting, Peter.
Good day to you.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
05-06-2002, 07:45 PM #25
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- United Provinces of Ceril
- Posts
- 1,028
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
[quote]Orginally posted by geeman
>Aleric wrote:
>
>I may just have misunderstood something basic about the mechanics of
>Birthright, but it seems to me its possible to create a lot of people with
>a lot of domain actions very quickly and advantageously.
>
>1) Is it true that any blooded character controlling even one level of one
>holding or Province is a regent and thus gets three domain actions per turn?
Yes. In fact, he needn`t even control one level. A 0-level holding will
suffice for entry into the "regency club" if you will--despite the fact
that the "regent" in question has collected no regency points or gold bars,
and his domain has not yet grown to the size that it will generate
any. Depending on what type of actions he wants to engage in, it`s
unlikely that he`ll have the RP (though he might have the GB) to actually
perform that many actions, but he still has access to three actions.
[quote]
Your answer brings up an interesting question. If you are not already a regent how does a blooded character ever become one. Since you have to have regency points to do anything, how do you get them to start?Lord Eldred
High Councilor of the
United Provinces of Cerilia
"May Haelyn bring justice to your realm"
-
08-09-2010, 10:38 PM #26
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Posts
- 50
- Downloads
- 15
- Uploads
- 1
[QUOTE=Lord Eldred;6007][quote]Orginally posted by geeman
>Aleric wrote:
>
>I may just have misunderstood something basic about the mechanics of
>Birthright, but it seems to me its possible to create a lot of people with
>a lot of domain actions very quickly and advantageously.
>
>1) Is it true that any blooded character controlling even one level of one
>holding or Province is a regent and thus gets three domain actions per turn?
Yes. In fact, he needn`t even control one level. A 0-level holding will
suffice for entry into the "regency club" if you will--despite the fact
that the "regent" in question has collected no regency points or gold bars,
and his domain has not yet grown to the size that it will generate
any. Depending on what type of actions he wants to engage in, it`s
unlikely that he`ll have the RP (though he might have the GB) to actually
perform that many actions, but he still has access to three actions.
Your answer brings up an interesting question. If you are not already a regent how does a blooded character ever become one. Since you have to have regency points to do anything, how do you get them to start?
According to the original 2E rules p52 it costs 1GB and no RP to Create Holding.
It also explicitly states on p59 that Ruling a Holding or Province to level 1 only costs 1GB and no RP (just above where it explains how multiple holdings can be ruled as a realm action).
Once succeeded at both, and if gain RP from holding type, begin to gain RP.
That's just game mechanics though, I'm sure every DM has their own take on how it happens in their campaign. Actually if it hadn't been for these rules my campaign would have had an entirely different beginning.Last edited by dooley; 08-09-2010 at 10:41 PM.
-
08-10-2010, 04:03 PM #27
Yes, it is a little late. So late that the original emails predate the D20 BRCS I believe.
My query though is whether Create Holding is enough. What about needing Ceremony so that you are actually Coronated as regent of the new holding? That may be contested by other regents. Or would such a coronation be merely symbolic (ie. you would get regency from the holding with or without the ceremony)?
Sorontar
-
08-10-2010, 04:25 PM #28
Oh good God! Please do not revive threads that have been dead for years!
Ius Hibernicum, in nomine juris. Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
-
08-10-2010, 04:50 PM #29
Why? Would you like people to ask the same questions in ten different threads, rather than just "continue" an existing conversation topic (even if most of the people in the original conversation have "left the room")?
Anyway, my questions about ceremony and new holdings still stands, whether they are in this thread or another.
Sorontar
-
08-10-2010, 07:47 PM #30
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Saginaw, MI
- Posts
- 56
- Downloads
- 27
- Uploads
- 0
Isn't the ceremony you are talking about Investiture? That is only needed for the passing of power between two people. When creating a new holding all you need to do is spend the GB to do it. You are not fully connected to the land yet, so the power of Investiture is not needed. And as you are creating something totally new, there would be no one to investiture with.
I've always thought of level 0 and new level 1's as being the start up Starbucks. You don't need the big corporate powers "lawyers, CFO's," and the like. So not "regency".
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks