Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewTall View Post
    The numbers make much more sense if you make the system linear, 1 point of population = 10,000 hearths / taxpayers / people / frog owners / etc.

    An alternative is to say that in any medieval setting you should only be measuring 'cream' though, the vast majority of activity is barely above subsistence and would not generate the free capital that the realm system takes as a given, as such the bulk of the people 'should' be 'free' - perhaps you could take a 'core members' approach under the standard population where the lower number is the number of members under central direction and the remainder are associated but simply beyond practical control.
    IMO a linear system like you suggest is even worse at low levels than the above suggested system is at high ones. I just can't see 10,000 families moving to a wild province just because you pay a single GB.

    Whilst there may be some merit in your "measuring the cream" as far as Guilds go, Temples are another thing entirely.
    Birthright priests are performing miracles daily so there'll be more bums on seats than the comparable RL issue where a guy who said we should care for each other was nailed to a tree

  2. #22
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    Ruling L0 to L1 should not, in my view, mean 10,000 families moving to a wild land. What it should mean in my view is the movement of several hundred families a year over a decade or two in exchange for cheap land, low rent, etc; the acceptance of the local families to rule by the lord; and the beginning of a semblance of efficient government. The former L0 province representing a mixture of low population, uncontrolled population, and wastage in the rule in its level rating.

    Also look at the numbers as the average in a range, L0 could be 0 - 5,000, L1 5,000- 15,000; L2 is 15,000 - 25,000, etc - the average is n/a, 10k, 20k, etc but allows provinces to grow by one level or two in a game without stretching realism too much.

    The population growth is the weakest area of the BR domain system, I modify it to make ruling much more costly (typically the square of the proposed level), slow growth via the build action rules, etc - not much impacts the lowest end but then you will always get issues there.

    Your church point is noted, although I do wonder of the impact of a pantheistic system as opposed to a monotheism on the political power of any one church, it has been noted on br.net before though that in RL people also thought that the church performed 'real' miracles (some still do) and that magic should not necessarily drive religion to be even more dominant than it was in history. While most church domains should have spell casting clerics in their ranks (if not all), there is also the issue of magicians and wizards who 'prove' that worship is not necessary to wield miracles - and of course the sidhe are notorious magic users undermining the miraculous nature of clerical magic.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewTall View Post
    Ruling L0 to L1 should not, in my view, mean 10,000 families moving to a wild land. What it should mean in my view is the movement of several hundred families a year over a decade or two in exchange for cheap land, low rent, etc; the acceptance of the local families to rule by the lord; and the beginning of a semblance of efficient government. The former L0 province representing a mixture of low population, uncontrolled population, and wastage in the rule in its level rating.

    Also look at the numbers as the average in a range, L0 could be 0 - 5,000, L1 5,000- 15,000; L2 is 15,000 - 25,000, etc - the average is n/a, 10k, 20k, etc but allows provinces to grow by one level or two in a game without stretching realism too much.

    The population growth is the weakest area of the BR domain system, I modify it to make ruling much more costly (typically the square of the proposed level), slow growth via the build action rules, etc - not much impacts the lowest end but then you will always get issues there.

    Your church point is noted, although I do wonder of the impact of a pantheistic system as opposed to a monotheism on the political power of any one church, it has been noted on br.net before though that in RL people also thought that the church performed 'real' miracles (some still do) and that magic should not necessarily drive religion to be even more dominant than it was in history. While most church domains should have spell casting clerics in their ranks (if not all), there is also the issue of magicians and wizards who 'prove' that worship is not necessary to wield miracles - and of course the sidhe are notorious magic users undermining the miraculous nature of clerical magic.
    We're drifting more into opinions about the anatomy of a province, and what you're doing in your campaign is different than me in mine, not better, just different. if you want to continue maybe we should create a different thread.

  4. #24
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by dooley View Post
    We're drifting more into opinions about the anatomy of a province, and what you're doing in your campaign is different than me in mine, not better, just different. if you want to continue maybe we should create a different thread.
    To each their own, if you are having fun with your approach then it is better than mine for you - no argument.

    In terms of anatomy though the perception of what a holding is has a huge effect on what the holding consists of. Personally I'd have the desired game-style drive the mechanic, so:

    I want a game where mechanically:
    1. All holding types are roughly comparable, rulers have an edge, but not overwhelmingly so.
    2. Holdings can be ruled up for a small number of GB per level, not requiring dozens of GB per level.
    3. Holdings can shift between regents in the course of a few years, possibly even a few seasons
    4. Holdings can 'change type' relatively easily - so a 'temple of haelyn' can become a 'temple of cuiraecen' without the need for 50 years of bloodbath and religious strife and a 'mining guild' can become part of an 'export guild' without the need for vast expenditure and mass unemployement.
    5. Provinces can grow a level in years not over generations within reason.
    6. Contest does not mean war.

    Those game-play style desires dictate my approach to designing the anatomy of a holding.

    So if we look at the power of RL religions in a medieval world, add 'real' miracles, and consider the outcome you are perfectly correct - the obvious outcome is that priests will absolutely dominate - to the point that over half the law, a slice of the guilds, and many whole provinces should be ruled by the temples and vassalage agreements (in mechanic terms solely) from rulers to priests would be commonplace - if other holdings were even possible. So to achieve '1' I need to find some way of socially weakening priests. As you note panteonism may not be a strong method (other suggestions welcome) but some method is necessary one for '1' to be possible. Similarly the 'pillage' action needs to be reined in to stop rulers being utterly dominant so I make it have major social consequences.

    Wishlist item 2 dictates that the holding is mainly influence - 1, even 10 GB simply can't build the infrastructure for an entire domain to reflect a single level. A business takes years to grow, it takes generations to spread the faith, etc - so 'the basics' all need to be present at sub-domain level rather than being part of it. When considering the anatomy of a holding then 2 dominates my approach, the anatomy can't be barns, bridges, directly controlled & dominated groups etc since that totally conflicts with the needs of 2. I make a unsupportable exception for 'special structures' since those are fun, but theoretically those are hard to justify.

    3 and 4 are desired to permit players/npcs to exchange holdings (willingly or otherwise), take over independent holdings, etc in a game timescale. If by contrast every domain led by a temple of Haelyn is 100% Haelyn worshippers all following the same creed, etc then socially there is no way to explain the holding being contested and taken over by a temple of Avani in just a few years - but you can explain that takeover if the anatomy of the holding is that a Haelynic temple dominates politically, but many of the sub-temples and members churches follow other faiths and simply accept the Haelynic temple as their leader.

    5. Allowing growth means either allowing variation in population within bands (so growth is a few hundred on top of the nearly there, not 10,000 from sratch), fluidity in measurement (is it 10k people, 10k taxpayers, 10k hearths, etc) or allowing population to mean effective control, a balance between control and inefficiency/corruption, etc. If I stick to 'bums on seats' (which I accept is the obvious perception of the stated mechanic) then growth is generational or immigration based only. 5 also therefore dictates the anatomy of a province holding with various knock-on effects.

    6. Being able to contest, rule, etc should be possible without requiring open warfare, mass murder, etc as otherwise social constraints make fluidity difficult. So I need a way for guilder A and B to contest, etc without the ruler feeling obliged to intervene. If the anatomy is that guild A owns 2 factories, three streets of craftsmen, 26 barns, etc then when they are contested down a level guild B must have carried out mass murder, arson, etc, etc - and the ruler must act or be exposed as powerless. If however Guild A has those assets at sub-domain level, and is in itself a network of vassalge agreements, trade rights, monopolies, etc then guild B is merely arguing legal rights, persuading right-holders to favour them, etc and can do so with minimal impact on other regents.

  5. #25
    whilst agreeing with several of your conclusions I disagree with several of the "Axioms" you've used to reach them.

    As a basic example I'm all for it being expensive to rule up a holding, and hellishly expensive to rule up a province.

  6. #26
    Special Guest (Donor)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    532
    Downloads
    11
    Uploads
    0
    I'm my games I prefer ruling holdings to be as cheap as possible, so contest is more a grab for influence than "I'm trying to destroy your huge investment".

    Buildings attached to holdings or provinces are the expensive things

  7. #27
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Vicente View Post
    I'm my games I prefer ruling holdings to be as cheap as possible, so contest is more a grab for influence than "I'm trying to destroy your huge investment".

    Buildings attached to holdings or provinces are the expensive things
    That's my take as well - I know players who will still declare war to the bitter end over a contest against a L1 holding, but if the cost is moderate then it is possible for others to be reasonable, 'damages paid', etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooley
    whilst agreeing with several of your conclusions I disagree with several of the "Axioms" you've used to reach them.

    As a basic example I'm all for it being expensive to rule up a holding, and hellishly expensive to rule up a province.
    To each their own my point was that the axioms drive the mechanics, which in turn impact the interpretation of the make-up of the holding - and vice versa, not to try and say that my way is the best way.

    Do you have problems with players getting unsatisfied over the rule holding difficulty? That was the original reason for me making the cost relatively cheap (relatively in this case meaning a player should expect to be able to rule up an uncontested holding every round given 2 other anodyne actions).

    Province cost needs to be high to prevent exponential growth and to encourage regents to look outwards, but I like rulers being able to rule up tiny provinces (L0-2) fairly easy - one a year, possibly 1 every 2 seasons, L(+1) squared may be excessive though, what do you use?

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewTall View Post
    That's my take as well - I know players who will still declare war to the bitter end over a contest against a L1 holding, but if the cost is moderate then it is possible for others to be reasonable, 'damages paid', etc.



    To each their own my point was that the axioms drive the mechanics, which in turn impact the interpretation of the make-up of the holding - and vice versa, not to try and say that my way is the best way.

    Do you have problems with players getting unsatisfied over the rule holding difficulty? That was the original reason for me making the cost relatively cheap (relatively in this case meaning a player should expect to be able to rule up an uncontested holding every round given 2 other anodyne actions).

    Province cost needs to be high to prevent exponential growth and to encourage regents to look outwards, but I like rulers being able to rule up tiny provinces (L0-2) fairly easy - one a year, possibly 1 every 2 seasons, L(+1) squared may be excessive though, what do you use?
    Currently I'm having no "major" problems with my players, they're the usual sort who sometimes just don't get it is all.

    I'm using what is in effect an influence and infrastructure way or ruling things up. In addition to the cost of the Rule action they already have to have spent (L+1) squared in building improvements for a province (less for a holding).

    Mind you I am running in the Giantdowns where there isn't really any infrastructure to begin with, I'd probably do things a bit different in the Anuirian heartlands as they've been semi civilised for centuries and already have some infrastructure.

    Additionally it takes some time between the rule action and when the population finally all arrives, or the holding improves.
    (L+1) squared /L seasons for a province if there is surplus population (war refugees, unsettled tribes in Rjurik/Khinasi lands, large province nearby to poach settlers from etc.) with modifiers due to terrain, roads/rivers, low taxes etc. The obvious dividing by zero when raising a province to L1 merely means it occurs that season. Holdings take twice their level in actions to increase.
    Last edited by dooley; 08-17-2010 at 01:13 AM.

  9. #29
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by dooley View Post
    Currently I'm having no "major" problems with my players, they're the usual sort who sometimes just don't get it is all.

    I'm using what is in effect an influence and infrastructure way or ruling things up. In addition to the cost of the Rule action they already have to have spent (L+1) squared in building improvements for a province (less for a holding).
    I've toyed with level squared for province, never actually tried it. I hadn't split out the infrastructure cost and the action, but I'd figured that failure should just delay success rather than wiping the slate clean. Would you amortise the infrastructure if they didn't suceed in the rule action after several tries?

    Quote Originally Posted by dooley View Post
    Mind you I am running in the Giantdowns where there isn't really any infrastructure to begin with, I'd probably do things a bit different in the Anuirian heartlands as they've been semi civilised for centuries and already have some infrastructure.
    Also all the provinces in the downs are small - level squared is 1, 4, 9, 16... it gets very tough to rule a province past level 3/2 with squaring the cost or L+1 squared.

    Quote Originally Posted by dooley View Post
    Additionally it takes some time between the rule action and when the population finally all arrives, or the holding improves.
    That was my thought behind using the build action rules (1d4 spend per season or slightly more if you hurry) for the rule action - the actions then led to an inevitable delay for larger province rule attempts.

  10. #30
    Once built the infrastructure does remain and counts against any future Rule attempt, and does marginally increase the natural population growth too.

    Sorry I didn't mention that the infrastructure of other holdings helps offset the costs. Barracks, Town hall, Mill, Inns, Healer Hall etc. things that people will want to live near and form a nucleus for expansion.
    With the major buildings named, and Paid for by the PCs, there's more emotional content when it gets destroyed for whatever reason

    Putting a road in so that people can more easily get to where you want them also reduces the infrastructure costs

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Holding attack/defense Holding system
    By bbeau22 in forum BRCS 4th Edition
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 08-28-2008, 12:49 PM
  2. How do I establish a holding
    By Bryon in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-09-2007, 02:57 PM
  3. anatomy of a castle
    By Mr.Froggatt in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-11-2004, 08:30 AM
  4. Contest Holding
    By Arius Vistoon in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-05-2003, 08:31 PM
  5. Need some Holding information
    By skisko in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-29-2003, 12:46 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.