Author Topic: Action example - Rule Holding  (Read 2484 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander)

  • Former players
  • Noble
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
  • Regency: 22
  • Gender: Male
  • Duchess Marya Tanar
Re: Action example - Rule Holding
« Reply #15 on: March 20, 2010, 10:10:06 pm »
Looking at it again, you are right... that list sucked. I do however think that Guild holdings have a case for being better at espionage, since where there's exchanged money, there is also exchanged money below the table. So to speak. However, it's not an overly compelling case, no.

Putting that aside...

To a certain degree, manor and guilds already have a niche. Manors can raise levies, Guilds can affect Trade holdings. Manors role is not that strong though, since levies are something you usually only use when the shit is about to vaporize the fan, but then they are very useful. Temple have a niche in being necessary for realm spells, same as sources.

So far I only see one solution, to the problems mentioned by Bjørn. It is to use the list Bjørn laid out and then remove hardness from the board. Holdings only help you do things, not defend against them, unless it is the holding that is being directly attacked. Inderectly holdings would still help you defend, as e.g. Law has a lot to do with prosperity and prosperity is, among others, the "armour" for your holdings. Perhaps more directly, your holdings provide income that help you defend yourselves through influence, and they give you the ability to spend influence.
Marya Tanar, The Sword Mage
Duchess and Mage of Tornilen

Offline X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander)

  • Former players
  • Noble
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
  • Regency: 22
  • Gender: Male
  • Duchess Marya Tanar
Re: Action example - Rule Holding
« Reply #16 on: March 20, 2010, 10:11:53 pm »
Ah, you posted while I was posting.

That sounds interesting, could you qualify it a bit further?

When do you get the +4 bonus? If you have ANY holding levels of the correct type, or if you have all of them? How does it work?
Marya Tanar, The Sword Mage
Duchess and Mage of Tornilen

Offline DM B

  • Green Knight
  • Deity
  • Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 5.210
  • Regency: 51
  • Gender: Male
    • Twilightpeaks.net - Hone of Ruins of Empire
Re: Action example - Rule Holding
« Reply #17 on: March 20, 2010, 10:49:25 pm »
That is not a neat solution...
DM Bjørn

Offline X-Ilien & PCE/GeM (Linde)

  • Former players
  • Noble
  • ****
  • Posts: 307
  • Regency: 12
  • Gender: Male
  • Countess Geraldine el-Mesir.
Re: Action example - Rule Holding
« Reply #18 on: March 20, 2010, 11:35:29 pm »
I'm currently leaning towards giving different types of holdings the ability to apply Advantage/hardiness to specific actions only, but allow Law to be more useful than the others (and retain guilds ability to affect trade).

For example:
Agitate: Law + Temple
Espionage: Law + Guild
Contest Holding: Law (except Source obviously)
Rule Holding: Law (except Source obviously)
Rule Province: Law + Manor

I like that idea ^_^

How about letting advantage/hardness give +1/+2 instead of +2/+4. If that makes it too weak you could also let advantage give you -1/-2 GB cost for the action (to a minimum of 0), and likewise have hardness add to the cost. (could work something like protection from realm magic, where you have to have RP allocated to power your spells, only you need GB in your offensive purse to bypass the hardness.)


That way you keep advantage from being the highway to take ten. And it is still nice to have and a pain to be up against.
Her Excellency Geraldine el-Mesir,
Countess of the Free City of Illien
Guildmistress of Port of Call Exchange,
Mage of Ilien & Protector of her people.


Offline DM B

  • Green Knight
  • Deity
  • Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 5.210
  • Regency: 51
  • Gender: Male
    • Twilightpeaks.net - Hone of Ruins of Empire
Re: Action example - Rule Holding
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2010, 07:59:12 am »
On specific advantages:
I like the very specific definitions, it reinforces the idea of a niche for each holding type. However, I would limit law somewhat more than you do - Law already provides the biggest income. It should be more useful on the action level as well, though not that useful. So...

Agitate: Manor + Temple + Guild
Espionage: Guild
Contest Holding: Law (except Source obviously) + Same Type
Rule Holding: Law (except Source obviously) + Same Type
Rule Province: Law + Manor
Rule Trade: Guild
Trade Venture: Guild
etc.

It needs to be conceptually sound, as well as somewhat balancing, so it's is hard.

Conceptually this isn't very sound, I think.   

It doesn't make sense that a law holder who controls more than 1/2 a provinces law wouldn't gain some advantage against espionage or agitate.  Nor is there an overly compelling case that says that a guild has a greater advantage when initiating or preventing espioange when compared to temple, law, or manor holdings.

Ultimately the advantages that you lay out are not particular niche either - guilds get numerous benefit, while temples, and manors are (further) marginalized.

Temples make money AND can cast you spells...guilds just make money. The only underpowered holding is manors - their own extra is controlling the levy - but that's mostly because of a mistake I made when setting up RoE...many more realms were supposed to tax manors at half rate or not at all.
DM Bjørn

Offline DM B

  • Green Knight
  • Deity
  • Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 5.210
  • Regency: 51
  • Gender: Male
    • Twilightpeaks.net - Hone of Ruins of Empire
Re: Action example - Rule Holding
« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2010, 08:15:31 am »
...although manors must always been seen in the perspective of province rulership; on the province/realm level that we are paying the vast majority of those that rule manors are also rule province...so indirectly they are making a lot more RP than any other group of regents (which with the new influence rules will make them more important). But only indirectly.

It's the ability to call the levy which is their forte...which for those realms with good militia can be really important (even if most players are chronic under-uses of their levy; but that's not the fault of the manors).

Now, if only I had gone ahead an added the special rule that manors in most of Anuire were only taxed half (and nothing at all in places like Diemed) due to old traditions and the legal rights of nobles...then manors would be all right.
DM Bjørn

Offline X-Osoerde (Alan)

  • The Dragon
  • Former players
  • Sovereign
  • ******
  • Posts: 1.394
  • Regency: 21
  • Gender: Male
Re: Action example - Rule Holding
« Reply #21 on: March 21, 2010, 05:22:27 pm »
On specific advantages:
I like the very specific definitions, it reinforces the idea of a niche for each holding type. However, I would limit law somewhat more than you do - Law already provides the biggest income. It should be more useful on the action level as well, though not that useful. So...

Agitate: Manor + Temple + Guild
Espionage: Guild
Contest Holding: Law (except Source obviously) + Same Type
Rule Holding: Law (except Source obviously) + Same Type
Rule Province: Law + Manor
Rule Trade: Guild
Trade Venture: Guild
etc.

It needs to be conceptually sound, as well as somewhat balancing, so it's is hard.

Conceptually this isn't very sound, I think.   

It doesn't make sense that a law holder who controls more than 1/2 a provinces law wouldn't gain some advantage against espionage or agitate.  Nor is there an overly compelling case that says that a guild has a greater advantage when initiating or preventing espioange when compared to temple, law, or manor holdings.

Ultimately the advantages that you lay out are not particular niche either - guilds get numerous benefit, while temples, and manors are (further) marginalized.

Temples make money AND can cast you spells...guilds just make money. The only underpowered holding is manors - their own extra is controlling the levy - but that's mostly because of a mistake I made when setting up RoE...many more realms were supposed to tax manors at half rate or not at all.

B, it was in reference to the action scheme above.

Incidentally, regarding manors - you can always fix the situation by random events  ::)
Yes, wyrmling, the meat is made all the more tender by armor...

Offline X-ETN/Maire Cwyllmie (Libor)

  • Former players
  • Noble
  • ****
  • Posts: 331
  • Regency: 12
Re: Action example - Rule Holding
« Reply #22 on: March 21, 2010, 11:30:32 pm »
I believe the main problem with the rule holding example was that just passive oposition from other regents can make it excessively difficult. Solution would be to abolish hardiness (and perhaps some base DDC adjusting). So if you are friend with law, they can make it a lot easier for you. If not, you are on your own and have to do it the hard way. If a law regent really wishes to make it harder for you, he would have to take a more active approach. Like spending influence or making decree proclaiming you criminal and enemy of the state. And hardiness from same holding type wouldn't be applicable too. After all you are trying to win a vacant slot, people different from their current customers/worshippers, so they can hardly hope to affect your action passively.

So the only passive modifier for create/rule holding (other than sources) would be law advantage. Or the other way round, no advantage and only hardiness (and different DDC's). Im sure one can make a sound explanation for this variant too :)

Offline X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy)

  • Former players
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 913
  • Regency: 42
  • Gender: Male
Re: Action example - Rule Holding
« Reply #23 on: March 22, 2010, 11:25:55 pm »
Passive resistance is already built into rule actions, so hardness seems excessive in that case.

Manors should have a better funky, perhaps if you own enough you could have the right to raise troops without permission?  Or raise better quality levies if you have lots of holdings? (All my fieldhands must learn the longbow... raise 1/4 of a levy as longbowmen)  It would make law holders a little sweeter to manor holders.

I'd note that historically temples have been very good at espionage - no morals, wealth, and the weight of guilt/social power etc on their side - confession may not be common to every faith but confiding in one's priest is endemic...
Robhan Khaiarén
High Marshal of Haelyn's Aegis
Work hard, walk with honour, be justly rewarded

Offline X-Points East

  • Grand-Maester of the P&H
  • Former players
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 626
  • Regency: 15
Re: Action example - Rule Holding
« Reply #24 on: March 26, 2010, 12:36:46 am »

I'm currently leaning towards giving different types of holdings the ability to apply Advantage/hardiness to specific actions only, but allow Law to be more useful than the others (and retain guilds ability to affect trade).

For example:
Agitate: Law + Temple
Espionage: Law + Guild
Contest Holding: Law (except Source obviously)
Rule Holding: Law (except Source obviously)
Rule Province: Law + Manor

OoC:

An hypothetical advantage/hardiness system follows (below the horizontal rule). . . .



Major Advantage = +2/+4*.
Minor Advantage = +1/+2**.
Advantage of any relevant type may stack on a given action; however, stacking the Advantage of multiple domains must be arranged through diplomacy.

Major Hardiness = +2/+4*.
Minor Hardiness = +1/+2**.
Hardiness of any relevant type may stack on a given action; however, stacking the Hardiness of multiple domains must be arranged through diplomacy.

Major Advantage
Law:  Create Manor/Temple/Guild/Trade & Rule Manor/Temple/Guild/Trade
Manor:  Rule Province
Temple:  Agitate
Guild:  Commission Ship, Construction, Espionage, & Fortify
Source:  Forge Extension, Forge Hookup, & Forge Ley Line
Same:  Contest Holding & Contest Source

Minor Advantage
Law:  Agitate, Contest Manor/Temple/Guild/Trade, & Espionage
Guild:  Create Trade & Rule Trade

Major Hardiness
Temple:  Agitate
Guild:  Espionage
Source:  Forge Extension, Forge Hookup, & Forge Ley Line
Same:  Create Holding, Create Source, Rule Holding, & Rule Source

Minor Hardiness
Law:  Agitate, Create Manor/Temple/Guild/Trade, Espionage, & Rule Manor/Temple/Guild/Trade

* Note:  In “+2/+4”, the bonus before the slash applies, when a domain may call upon at least half, but less than all, of the levels of a relevant holding type; and the bonus after the slash applies, when a domain may call upon all of the levels of a relevant holding type.
** Note:  In “+1/+2”, the bonus before the slash applies, when a domain may call upon at least half, but less than all, of the levels of a relevant holding type; and the bonus after the slash applies, when a domain may call upon all of the levels of a relevant holding type.


« Last Edit: April 09, 2010, 12:35:37 pm by Points East/EL (Brandon) »

Offline X-Elinie/RiD (Niels)

  • Former players
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Regency: 19
  • Gender: Male
  • Formerly Star of the East
Re: Action example - Rule Holding
« Reply #25 on: March 26, 2010, 08:27:26 pm »
How does any of this make the advantage/hardness rules simpler?

I kinda liked Bjørns proposal where a holding counted by its level. - With some restraints on which kinds of holdings could be used for which actions.

With a max cap of province level.

What weaknesses were there with that solution? - As I recall, it only got derailed on the "which holdings for which actions" question.
Formerly: His Grace, Patriarch Rashid ibn Daouta, Last Imperial Duke of the Eastern Marches, Duke of Elinie, Master of Sutren Hills, Holy Paladin of Avanalae, Light of Reason.

Offline X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander)

  • Former players
  • Noble
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
  • Regency: 22
  • Gender: Male
  • Duchess Marya Tanar
Re: Action example - Rule Holding
« Reply #26 on: March 26, 2010, 10:03:29 pm »
I don't think it got rerailed per se...

The problem is that that solution makes it very hard for a up-and-coming regent to rule his holdings. I think, if we want to stress playability and simplicity, then the simplest solution is this one:

Advantage works exactly as you and Bjørn described - Simply add up holding levels, subtract opposed holdings, certain holdings for certain actions, cap of province levels, cannot go below 0.

There is no hardness, except where holding level is included directly in the DDC (essentially, only for contest actions).

So, if taking a rule action...
If you have more applicable holding levels helping you, than resisting you, you get a bonus up to the province level.
If you have less holding levels helping you than opposing you, you simply get no bonus.

Could work, IMO. Only thing that needs settling is which holdings help what actions.
Marya Tanar, The Sword Mage
Duchess and Mage of Tornilen