Twilightpeaks.net
RoE Development => Regent Guide => : Ruideside/OM (RP) July 15, 2013, 11:05:21 PM
-
We had a good discussion in chat about the ways to handle this in game terms, and in the end i think the simplest and most accurate way to do this would be through the terrain rules.
Here is a rough outline of how I see it working.
1. Guild holders can chose to over exploit a province.
A. This generates extra income
B. It progressively degrades the terrain of the province eventually to Barren.
C. The rate at which the terrain is degraded is dependent on the cumulative total of the extra GB extracted.
D. The effects of the terrain degradation would affect the province in line with the secondary terrain rules.
E. At some point the devastated secondary terrain will become the primary terrain.
2. Other possible effects.
A. Negative impact on prosperity over time (though the terrain degradation will have this effect as the province level drops).
B. Negative impact on Source levels and magic Potential over time (though the terrain degradation will have this effect anyway).
Advantages of this system
1. The terrain degradation will affect all aspects of the provincial economy (maximum level, Growth Multiplier, and maximum Magic Potential) with one simple mechanic.
2. The exact rate at which the degradation happens need not be a constant across all provinces, and can be determined by the DMs for each province individually and tracked in secret, so that the players won't know when they will be going too far.
3. The process is reversible, in as much as the terrain can, if given enough time, revert back to its original state, unless it has gone too far.
-
I prefer a Prosperity modifier as the primary 'detriment' to the exploitation, with the GMs having the option of throwing Events at those provinces stemming from the damage done to them - flooding, sidhe raids, etc. This isn't mechanized clear-cutting, tearing down dozens of acres in a day, and changing terrain types on the scale you're suggesting seems out of the scope of the game. Devastation should have consequences, but not on that scale. If stronger pressure is needed to respond to player behaviors, I think the GMs can apply it on a case-by-case basis as needed.
-
If prosperity is used though, then it will be automatically offset by Law and lowered taxes. The penalty needed to discourage it would have to be disproportionally massive. It is trivial to set up provinces to ignore -3 modifiers in single turn.
I like the base premise RP is working from. But I agree the progression of this has to be on a timescale that matches the tools and abilities actually available.
Maybe we should just drop the devastation as a thing? - It is a major part of the initial tension in Talinie though, so that would have to be reworked.
-
Rulers should be doing Heavy taxes as a normal thing, which is a -2 Prosperity. That means that the (ignore -2) from Law holdings is fully occupied. Handling any prosperity loss would require reduced taxes, which will be a 25%-30% loss to the Law-holder's income. Widespread Agitation would be at least as expensive. That should be plenty to 'encourage' law-holders to dislike such activities. When you add in random events caused by them, plus the fact that the Guilds will be strengthened, I think that's far more than a 'trivial' issue.
-
Well Bobby, you'll notice that 2A is just that, the prosperity hit.
I'll see what sort of more formal rule set I can come up with, then we can tweak the numbers some.
-
Keep in mind guys that we are not talking huge provinces here. A 50x50 area is not hard to clear cut - we're talking about an area half the size of Connecticut here.
-
I don't think it unreasonable to say that area can be stripped over a period of a few years.
-
If you read the canon descriptions of the great oak wall, the land would already have been stripped ;)
-
I don't know if this rule is going to be an attempt to make the vanilla rules for devastation of provinces in Talinie due to guild compatible with RoE.
Vanilla rules: It hurt the magic, and possibly prosperity/stability, giving negative events and so on. And it give the guild extra money.
Loose proposal from me:
Only Guild holdings of lvl 1+ can use exploitation.
Exploitation by a guild raise its level as per bless(+1), for the purpose of collecting gold, but not for RP or for resisting contests and so on.
(either one or both of following effects)
Exploitation by a guild make positive agitation impossible.
Exploitation impose a -1 prosperity modifier on the provinces affected.(per holding doing it)
(either one or both of following effects)
Exploitation count as the guild extra ordinary being able, and forced, to impose hardness on create/rule source actions
Exploitation by a guild count as a free contest on source holdings in the province (this action can't be supported with RP/GB by the guild since it is an unforeseeable side effect. But it can be opposed with RP/GB by the owner of the source holding), lowest source holding in each affected province is always targeted.
-
Free Contest every turn, in every province, is too powerful though.
Hardness as a side-effect is pretty cool though.
IMO.
-
free contest every turn would mimic the effect of excommunication spell.
If it is too harsh to put as effect on something that destroys magic, then perhaps it is also to harsh to be a spell effect?
Wizards would also have Honest Dealings to counter, if exploitation was illegal that is.
-
Those are some good ideas Linde, but they really don't give the landed regent any reason not to exploit, a single prosperity hit is easily overcome.
I do, however like the contest to affect source levels, that's an idea worth perusing. However, making it happen every turn is putting an awful burden on the wizards, especially as there isn't any real detrimental effect on anybody else.
One idea I was toying with was that when the number of extra GB equaled the Maximum Source potential, then the max potential would be permanently reduced. Perhaps, as a way of making it a little less onerous on the source holder, we could use that sort of measure, so that the free contest happens whenever the extra GB equals a multiple of the MSP. If the amounts of cash are too low, then the free contest could be triggered at 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 of the MSP and so on.
-
What about a stability penalty?
-
You know, the more I think about it, the more I think that on a turn-by-turn basis, the simplest way to handle it is to consider it a negative event. that will affect prosperity and stability, throw in some negative effect on sources and there you have it.
Terrain being degraded can be implemented as the DMs deem appropriate if the exploitation is continuous and long term, but other than that, just use the existing event rules.
That even opens up the possibility of a regency penalty as well, if the DMs deem it appropriate.
-
Those are some good ideas Linde, but they really don't give the landed regent any reason not to exploit, a single prosperity hit is easily overcome.
I do, however like the contest to affect source levels, that's an idea worth perusing. However, making it happen every turn is putting an awful burden on the wizards, especially as there isn't any real detrimental effect on anybody else.
One idea I was toying with was that when the number of extra GB equaled the Maximum Source potential, then the max potential would be permanently reduced. Perhaps, as a way of making it a little less onerous on the source holder, we could use that sort of measure, so that the free contest happens whenever the extra GB equals a multiple of the MSP. If the amounts of cash are too low, then the free contest could be triggered at 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 of the MSP and so on.
Well, not being able to agitate positively, combined with prosperity penalty make it bad. In effect lowering your max tax to medium. If you then have a negative event or the need to muster forces, then you would need to have taxes at fair not to take a prosperity hit.... If the province ruler only have the law, and part of the manor then that would be a serious blow to his income.
And if you want your wizard to cast spells for you, you would likely want the guilds to stop asap.
With the rules I proposed I would seriously consider taking action against the guilds who exploits. If for nothing else, then to keep the wizard, who can cast subversion and make my life hell, happy.
But yeah, I agree. DMs should feel free to make negative events in provinces where guilds are allowed to run amok with this. Possibly giving stability penalty as well.
-
free contest every turn would mimic the effect of excommunication spell.
If it is too harsh to put as effect on something that destroys magic, then perhaps it is also to harsh to be a spell effect?
Wizards would also have Honest Dealings to counter, if exploitation was illegal that is.
Excommunication is a targeted spell with a cost to cast and it can be dispelled, and there are in game reasons it is not used lightly.
There is no basis for comparison. Any guild could use the devastation rule to, for free, Contest a Source owner in 10-12 provinces all at once, with no cost and minimal social fallout.
And Honest Dealings, at last official count, is a Guild Buff spell. Devastation rules would count as a direct declaration of war on any local source holder. A level of escalation that I am not convinced was the intent of the concept.
I'll spend no more thought on That direction unless a GM appears to think it the best idea since forks.
-
OoC:
There are Silver Mines and Gold Mines in Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.20.
-
Any guild could use the devastation rule to, for free, Contest a Source owner in 10-12 provinces all at once, with no cost and minimal social fallout.
You left out the fact that they actually get GB for doing it.
-
But yeah, I agree. DMs should feel free to make negative events in provinces where guilds are allowed to run amok with this. Possibly giving stability penalty as well.
And the negative event method covers all the bases without necessitating any extra rules other than deciding how much extra GB it generates and how it affects the source potential.
-
Any guild could use the devastation rule to, for free, Contest a Source owner in 10-12 provinces all at once, with no cost and minimal social fallout.
You left out the fact that they actually get GB for doing it.
Well. They couldn't do it in more than 6 provinces since devistation and exploitation were ment as rules to specifically mimic Talinies special situation.
-
That doesn't follow at all. Yes the idea for the rule comes from the description of Talinie, but there is no reason whatsoever to say that the guilds in my kingdom couldn't follow suit.
-
That doesn't follow at all. Yes the idea for the rule comes from the description of Talinie, but there is no reason whatsoever to say that the guilds in my kingdom couldn't follow suit.
Aside from you, that is. No reason aside from you. 8)
-
That doesn't follow at all. Yes the idea for the rule comes from the description of Talinie, but there is no reason whatsoever to say that the guilds in my kingdom couldn't follow suit.
VANILLA:
Optional devastation rule:
To simulate degradation of a province, the DM may assign it a "devastation point" during any domain turn in wich the guilds collect more than half (round down) the GB allowed by the province guild holdings.
For every 20 devastation points permanently reduce the procince's magic potential by 1 level.
If the guilds stop cutting and mining in a province the devastation will heal 1 point per turn. However, the citizens loss of income will cause loyalty in that province to drop by one grade.
So, if we run as close to vanilla as possible then the provinces will run out of magic. The guilds wont get anything extra by devestating a province, and the bonus for the landed regent is that he/she doesn't get a negative prosperity modifier.
So if you wanted to nurf yourself, guilds and mages in your land then you could advocate that the rule should apply to you also.
That we twist the rules to actually generate extra income for the guild is fine.
That we twist the rules to hurt the province ruler when the province is devastated instead of when it is not, that is fine.
That we look at how big a nurf bat we will hit wizards in the domain with, that is fine.
But not if your going to use the combined new possibility of a gain as an excuse to put it on every province in the play area with secondary terrain of forest or mountain.
If that is your goal I think we up should keep the rule that guilds only get half income from holdings in Talinie unless they devastate(or holdings count as half their level round down), and the province get -1 prosperity unless the guilds devastate.
In light of that I think the nurf to the wizard need to be as apt and prompt as -1 prosperity and half income to guilds.
Perhaps then -1DAC to all magic actions in the province when it has been devastated.
And leylines and hookups in a devastated province run at double upkeep.
But you could have a point that since we border the same forest the same nurf should apply to your land.
-
The Vanilla wizard nerf implements just fine as it is:
"
To simulate degradation of a province, the DM may assign it a "devastation point" during any domain turn in which the guilds collect more than half (round down) the GB allowed by the province guild holdings.
For every 20 devastation points permanently reduce the procince's magic potential by 1 level.
If the guilds stop cutting and mining in a province the devastation will heal 1 point per turn.
"
So... If staying close to vanilla is the intent, then the wizard if nerfed every 20 rounds, at most. - But the Ruler and the Guild has to fight every turn about who takes the nerf. (-1 prosperity vs. half income).
And I'd be interested to see the tax difference between Heavy on Halved guild income, and Moderate on Full Guild income.
I am pretty sure the Ruler will tell the Guild to go ahead and devastate. - Leaving the 20 turn clock running.
SO, vanilla devastation can be used exactly as they are, but then it is in fact on the premise that the Talinie lands are poor and crappy to begin with, unable to sustain normal productivity.
Or applied everywhere, it is a Guild holding nerf. Someone gets the short end. A conflict device.
OR it is a result of the WAY the Guilds are making use of their activity. In which case the condition can be eliminared through some ingame quest sequence to alter work practices.
But yea, I think you (Linde) is correct that we, myself at least, misunderstood the premise and thought the Guild got EXTRA benefit from doing it. - But in fact, they MUST do it to match normal Guild income...
-
From recollection, I thought that Dhoesone had fairly similar guild issues and worries over land as Talinie?
I don't think that the "you have to do it to make normal income" rule works - everywhere else the guilds can make full income without impacting source, etc - so why not in Talinie? Is it's land and climate really so much worse than Hogunmark for example? I'd expect guild boost vs non-guild hit would make more sense and lead to more interesting RP discussions. I also can't see how the rule quoted works for provinces with empty guild holdings - why is a L2 producing at full income worse for the land than two L2's producing half income?
A prosperity hit that couldn't be countered by law - probably temporary - is an immediate balancer as all non-guild (and source) regents lose money making them oppose the guilds, the odd flood, avalanche, plague etc thrown in then tips the balance more towards "not on my turf" attitudes for rulers and restricts the action to only lands where the ruler is very weak.
Long term source damage is fine, but a relatively mild problem, damage to the terrain takes time but would upset the manor holders who tend to think in generational terms.
Not a ruling btw, those are for Matt, just an observation.
-
The Vanilla wizard nerf implements just fine as it is:
"
To simulate degradation of a province, the DM may assign it a "devastation point" during any domain turn in which the guilds collect more than half (round down) the GB allowed by the province guild holdings.
For every 20 devastation points permanently reduce the procince's magic potential by 1 level.
If the guilds stop cutting and mining in a province the devastation will heal 1 point per turn.
"
So... If staying close to vanilla is the intent, then the wizard if nerfed every 20 rounds, at most. - But the Ruler and the Guild has to fight every turn about who takes the nerf. (-1 prosperity vs. half income).
Nope.. Vanilla has guild and regent both perfectly content that they get to live without penalty and then every 20th turn the wizard take the hit for it.
That is IMO not balanced. Perhaps that is why the nerf only comes around every 5th year. But what do it add to the game that 30 years game time from now or sooner, all magic will be gone?
Now if we move the hit on prosp(and make it hit regardless of buffer), we in effect move the province ruler from being on the guilds side, able to sometimes sway to the wizard. To being firmly on the wizards side.
If we do that, then it would make perfect sense that the guilds actually made extra money, since they wouldn't do it for long.
And it would also make sense that the hit on the wizard was revised, since 20 turns would now never come up. (Either remove the nurf to wizards, or make it happen faster. There is no need for a mechanic that will never come in effect. And there is IMO no fun in just having a game clock that removes sources from the game as vanilla nurf in effect is.)
I haven't read up on Dhoesone. They might? It would make sense since they have provinces in the same forest.
But then I would have thought the devastation rules would have been added to the campaign setting rather than Talinie player secrets.
And if it apply in Dhoesone then you could make a case that it apply in all provinces of that forest. From Gorgons Crown to Taeghas.
-
You're making it far more complicated than it needs to be.
-
I won't argue whatever ruling Matt make. But until he do I will question what the different models will bring to the game. Try to illuminate what faults the different models might have. And give my ideas on how the rules could be.
If that is to complicate things then you are right.
-
I'm back to thinking that Talinie needs a new reason for initial internal tension and dropping this mechanic completely.
-
I have always thought that the reduction in magic isn't tied to devastation per se, but rather the increased civilization. This is to say that civilization is anathema to mebhaighl, not neccessary, the devestation/damage the land.
For instance, if I take an ancient forest, completely deforest it and you still a plains province with an MSP of 5.
-
I have always thought that the reduction in magic isn't tied to devastation per se, but rather the increased civilization. This is to say that civilization is anathema to mebhaighl, not neccessary, the devestation/damage the land.
For instance, if I take an ancient forest, completely deforest it and you still a plains province with an MSP of 5.
Very good point, though humans typically leaves quite a mess where they live. - And Elves live in a way that does not lower the magic level, so there is no direct link between the number of people or level of civilization being the cause.
Devastation, I think, is an aggravated form of the ongoing disruption to the natural order that human cultures evoke.
-
Also goblins, orogs, and such like also reduce source, so civilization is at best a relative term.
-
I've always seen it as a consequence of CHANGE, rather than civilization or 'non-nature-plants-and-animals-look-at-the-darling-bunnies-sweetheart' sort of things. Province growth and development is a boulder thrown into Mebhaighl's pond, sending waves rippling through it that prevent it from being what it should be somehow - from flowing into the world, or from building up to usable levels, or whatever it is that it does. Elves don't maintain Source because they're more magical or because they're ecologically sustainable, they maintain it because they don't change the place very much - they build around what's already there, with a minimal impact. The province remains largely what it always was, and so they make a much smaller splash, smaller ripples.
By that token, anything that radically changes a province would reduce Source - an earthquake, a tidal wave, a massive uncontrolled forest fire. On the other hand, the damage, the change caused by natural disasters usually fixes itself pretty quickly. The forest grows back, the animals return, and the province becomes pretty much what it's always been - and the Source stabilizes back out. When people move in, though, they don't tend to leave again. The province never reverts. Who knows? Maybe in a thousand years, the Source in civilized provinces will begin to return, as the magic finishes stabilizing in the new form of the province? Maybe humanity (and other races) change things too quickly and too constantly to allow that to ever happen. But for now, all we know is we disrupt things and elves don't.
-
The Complete Mage has rules on how sources recover after civilisation fades on page 22 - 1 level every fifth spring if the population simply leaves, 1 level each spring if the buildings, etc are also destroyed.
Its slightly contra-canon in that it associates mebhaighl with plant life rather than seeing it as springing from the depths of Aebrynnis, although in both cases its the snarling of ley-lines by "civilisation" which dissipates the mebhaighl not the population per se.