Author Topic: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types  (Read 3916 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline X-Points East

  • Grand-Maester of the P&H
  • Former players
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 626
  • Regency: 15
Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« on: August 31, 2013, 06:54:13 am »

OoC:

For a composite domain, perhaps the threshold for annual stability increase could be reduced by the number of domain types beyond the first?

Hypothetically, in the following manner (with the four relevant domain types being landed, temple, guild, and sorcerous):

Annual Stability Increase

STABILITY
THRESHOLDS
1-Type
Domain
2-Type
Domain
3-Type
Domain
4-Type
Domain
LG
+2
+1
+0
1
LN/NG
+1
+0
1
2
LE/TN/CG
+0
1
2
NE/CN
1
2
CE
2

« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 07:29:43 pm by X-Points East »

Offline Ruideside/OM (RP)

  • Otmar Messer, Lord-Commander, etc., etc., etc.
  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Noble
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
  • Regency: 7
  • Gender: Male
  • Come let us discuss this...
    • Bob's Worlds
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2013, 08:10:17 am »
Why?
By the Grace of My Own Right Hand, Lord Commander of the Federated Free Companies, Governor-General of the Ruideside, Marshal of the Realm, and Captain-General of the Brethren of  the Black Flag.

My Tollanar blog: https://bobsworlds.wordpress.com/

"If reason won't work - try violence"

Offline Yggdrasil (DM Andy)

  • Demigod
  • Sovereign
  • *
  • Posts: 1.029
  • Regency: 2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2013, 11:31:01 am »
To reduce the benefits of Sun-King type courts.

To quote a ruler in a game I was playing "why tax the guilds when I can hold them?  Other regents are just wasted resource"

It also reflects the inherent tensions in different types of organisations competing for the regents time.
Sometimes the gods are neither subtle nor slow to anger

Offline Ruideside/OM (RP)

  • Otmar Messer, Lord-Commander, etc., etc., etc.
  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Noble
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
  • Regency: 7
  • Gender: Male
  • Come let us discuss this...
    • Bob's Worlds
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2013, 04:33:38 pm »
I'm afraid I don't see the issue, I don't understand what problem is being addressed here.
By the Grace of My Own Right Hand, Lord Commander of the Federated Free Companies, Governor-General of the Ruideside, Marshal of the Realm, and Captain-General of the Brethren of  the Black Flag.

My Tollanar blog: https://bobsworlds.wordpress.com/

"If reason won't work - try violence"

Offline Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)

  • **-Thuriene Donalls-** Bearer of the Rose Scepter.
  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
  • Regency: 2
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2013, 12:05:24 am »
Where does manor and trade enter this equation?

This is a fix to keep landed rulers from snatching up guild holdings if leidang become dependent upon guild control.

That you control 2+ different holding types already bear the handicap of having way to many ways to spend your limited actions. So to take out the nurf bat in that situation is a bit harsh.
Thuriene Donalls.
Thane of Talinie.
Supreme Hierarch of the Northern Imperial Temple of Haelyn.

"Those who hear the word of Haelyn and obey are like plants rooted in rich, fertile soil.
They will thrive, grow and be the most beautiful flowers in the garden of man."

Offline Ruideside/OM (RP)

  • Otmar Messer, Lord-Commander, etc., etc., etc.
  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Noble
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
  • Regency: 7
  • Gender: Male
  • Come let us discuss this...
    • Bob's Worlds
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2013, 03:31:05 am »
And there is no logical rationale for the effect either, it seems an arbitrary rule with no justification other than to discourage a course of action the DM finds undesirable - and I dislike such rules immensely.

If you want to dissuade people from having too many holding types, just have them attacked/contested by other domains of all the types they have. For example, if I have a domain with extensive land/manor, guild and temple holdings, then I can very easily find myself embroiled in a struggle with the neighbouring landed regent, facing a hostile takeover from some guild domain, and having a rival church proselytizing my holdings out from under me, leaving me to try use my 3 actions to counter the 9 actions of my various unrelated opponents - in short I am screwed.

This approach is infinitely preferable to a heavy handed arbitrary penalty that has no rational justification behind it.

Besides this rule totally hamstrings wizards, since they almost automatically suffer because every wizard needs a few money making holdings scattered about just to make ends meet.
By the Grace of My Own Right Hand, Lord Commander of the Federated Free Companies, Governor-General of the Ruideside, Marshal of the Realm, and Captain-General of the Brethren of  the Black Flag.

My Tollanar blog: https://bobsworlds.wordpress.com/

"If reason won't work - try violence"

Offline Ruideside/OM (RP)

  • Otmar Messer, Lord-Commander, etc., etc., etc.
  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Noble
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
  • Regency: 7
  • Gender: Male
  • Come let us discuss this...
    • Bob's Worlds
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2013, 03:33:57 am »
Quote
It also reflects the inherent tensions in different types of organisations competing for the regents time.
Sorry Andy, but it does no such thing.
By the Grace of My Own Right Hand, Lord Commander of the Federated Free Companies, Governor-General of the Ruideside, Marshal of the Realm, and Captain-General of the Brethren of  the Black Flag.

My Tollanar blog: https://bobsworlds.wordpress.com/

"If reason won't work - try violence"

Offline Torele Anviras/TA (Niels)

  • Xenophobia GM
  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Sovereign
  • ******
  • Posts: 1.028
  • Regency: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Mage of Talinie
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2013, 12:48:05 pm »
I am not a fan of such enforced srictures either... Especially since it is a bandaid on a patch that is the idea that leidang should be connected to guild/trade in any way.

Rip off both bandaid and patch and problem is solved. Reanalyze original issue (if any) and try again.

Offline Yggdrasil (DM Andy)

  • Demigod
  • Sovereign
  • *
  • Posts: 1.029
  • Regency: 2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #8 on: September 01, 2013, 08:37:42 pm »
Quote
It also reflects the inherent tensions in different types of organisations competing for the regents time.
Sorry Andy, but it does no such thing.

The idea is that reach type of holding has particular interest, goals, etc - so two holdings of similar types work well within the same organisation.

Where you get different holding types then the different structures, goals of members, etc are considered likely to have some sort of negative effect.  Stability hit is one (of many) ways to reflect that.

The problem I've come across in other games is the ruler seeking to replace the guilds, and sometimes both guilds and temples (although role-play tends to prevent the latter).  The ruler sees power and sees no reason to share it.

That should be less of an issue in RoE where vassals are much more prevalent, but then we saw some players stripping out vassals in RoE 2.

The "only so many actions" is a very valid point that argues against big realms, but I'm not sure if a single holding spread over 6-7 realms would have any less need for actions than if the same number of holding levels were combined in a single all-dominated realm and suspect that actually the sun-king realm would have fewer opponents at any given time simply due to reduced geographical spread meaning there aren't many other potential rivals - and of course the Sun-King would have huge advantage stacks under RoE rules.
Sometimes the gods are neither subtle nor slow to anger

Offline Ruideside/OM (RP)

  • Otmar Messer, Lord-Commander, etc., etc., etc.
  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Noble
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
  • Regency: 7
  • Gender: Male
  • Come let us discuss this...
    • Bob's Worlds
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #9 on: September 01, 2013, 10:00:36 pm »
Quote
The idea is that reach type of holding has particular interest, goals, etc - so two holdings of similar types work well within the same organisation.
That's a silly idea. Think about it. A temple of a god with a focus on crafts would be expected to have guilds, and one with a focus on trade or wealth would be expected to have trade holdings, etc.

And if you really do think that the supposed difference in goals, etc. would affect things (I do not subscribe to that point of view) then the DM should create those tensions - that's his job. But to have an arbitrary rule that basically says "If you do things out of the ordinary you will be penalized" is bad DMing, and bad rule writing.

If the ruler tries to grab everything, let him. he's just made a bunch of enemies who have a common cause against him. You should not write rules with specious explanations to prevent people from doing things differently.
By the Grace of My Own Right Hand, Lord Commander of the Federated Free Companies, Governor-General of the Ruideside, Marshal of the Realm, and Captain-General of the Brethren of  the Black Flag.

My Tollanar blog: https://bobsworlds.wordpress.com/

"If reason won't work - try violence"

Offline X-CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan)

  • Former players
  • Scion
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
  • Regency: 10
  • Gender: Male
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #10 on: September 02, 2013, 12:33:23 am »
If you really want a rule then insert something that is broad and at GM discretion.

"If a domain is made up of un-related holding types (i.e. GM discretion as to unrelated) then the annual stability increase due to alignment may be capped at a lower level. I.e. A priest of Saramie with temple, guild and trade holdings are all related, while a duke with province, law, manor (related) and source (not related) holdings are not all related."
Most Sacred Broker Ruormad Coumain, Patriach of the Celestial Jewel of Sarimie.
The wise man invests in times of plenty to ensure plenty in times of hardship.

Offline Yggdrasil (DM Andy)

  • Demigod
  • Sovereign
  • *
  • Posts: 1.029
  • Regency: 2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #11 on: September 02, 2013, 10:33:37 pm »
Quote
The idea is that reach type of holding has particular interest, goals, etc - so two holdings of similar types work well within the same organisation.
That's a silly idea. Think about it. A temple of a god with a focus on crafts would be expected to have guilds, and one with a focus on trade or wealth would be expected to have trade holdings, etc.

The concept to encapsulate in a rule is "how many potential disputes on what to do or who should do it will occur in the domain", and this gives rise to the question "will there be more or less potential disputes if there are twenty law holdings present in the domain, or 10 law holding, 5 guild and 5 temple" - the different holding types are more likely to have different needs, employee ambitions, etc than similar holdings so in the latter case the answer is generally going to be "more" - it might be the same, but if a general rule is wanted than it goes "more", it's no different to saying a lawful domain finds it easier to raise stability than a chaotic one.

The "minor side show" issue is one that I'm aware of, I'd expect less problems in a 90% temple + 10% guild domain than in a 50:50 scenario where no member knows if the next head will be a priest or a merchant, or if the year's surplus will be spent on a cathedral or bonuses.    I might be persuaded to an "x"% rule with lower divergences ignored, or that if there are less than "y" holding levels you'd ignore the problem, but I'd want to see how the book-keeping worked in practice.

And if you really do think that the supposed difference in goals, etc. would affect things (I do not subscribe to that point of view) then the DM should create those tensions - that's his job. But to have an arbitrary rule that basically says "If you do things out of the ordinary you will be penalized" is bad DMing, and bad rule writing.

If the player does something that will significantly increase tensions between their holdings then yes, that's for the DM to sort out on a bespoke basis (whether between different holding types or similar or even different levels within the same holding), but I wouldn't want to do that routinely, I'd rather have a simple stated rule than an arbitrary "the DM noticed this turn and thwacked me" approach - plus, by stating a rule up front people can plan for it which avoids the appearance of capricious smacking down of the unexpected.

If the ruler tries to grab everything, let him. he's just made a bunch of enemies who have a common cause against him. You should not write rules with specious explanations to prevent people from doing things differently.

The suggested rule doesn't prevent, it just states the cost up-front, people wishing to grab multiple types can still do so, the suggestion is merely a minor increase in DC to stability checks - you can come up with whatever fluff explanation you like if you don't consider that a merchant might have different ambitions, etc to a noble or a priest in how the profits and influence of the holdings should be spent.

Rules are written to handle broad-brush common areas to reduce need for fiat, discourage arbitrary decisions, and encourage strategic planning - but also to encourage certain styles of play.  BR was originally designed to give each class a holding type, historical counter examples (like Monks selling wool and wine, nobles investing in business, guilders buying titles, popes being princes and the like) were circumscribed to aid game balance (if taking things too realistically I suspect that theocracies would be endemic given historical church power and the addition of tangible proof via magic).  So in BR the divisions between land, church, guild, etc are greater than "would be expected" because that's the way the original designers built built the holding types, since I don't want to see the guilds crushed out of existence, or feel compelled to conquest, some sort of recognition in the rules to encourage "stay within the bounds" type play seems appropriate, although I'm a little concerned about how far the suggestion goes.  Where it works less well is "common pairs", i.e. province+law, or law+manor, or guild+trade, etc.  Possibly something to think more on - the issue may in reality only be on crossing guilds since RP protects temples more and sources are less "profitable" for rulers, but in Cariele for example the risk is the reverse of the norm.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2013, 11:54:14 pm by Yggdrasil (DM Andy) »
Sometimes the gods are neither subtle nor slow to anger

Offline X-Points East

  • Grand-Maester of the P&H
  • Former players
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 626
  • Regency: 15
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #12 on: September 02, 2013, 11:41:03 pm »

Where does manor and trade enter this equation?

OoC:

Conceptually, provinces, law holdings, and manor holdings could constitute landed domains; temple holdings could constitute temple domains; guild holdings and trade holdings could constitute guild domains; and source holdings could constitute sorcerous domains.


Offline Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)

  • **-Thuriene Donalls-** Bearer of the Rose Scepter.
  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
  • Regency: 2
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #13 on: September 03, 2013, 12:47:52 am »

Where does manor and trade enter this equation?

OoC:

Conceptually, provinces, law holdings, and manor holdings could constitute landed domains; temple holdings could constitute temple domains; guild holdings and trade holdings could constitute guild domains; and source holdings could constitute sorcerous domains.



IMO This doesn't match up with current rules as all classes except nobles and various fighters then gain regency from holding types of different domains.

I don't like the idea of putting domains into restraining boxes like that, but if it is done then I like this model better:

Landed noble: Province + Manor
Unlanded Noble: Manor + Guild
Temple: Temple + Manor
Guild: Guild + Trade
Wizard: Source + Trade
Druid: Temple + Source

Any: Law


This model will create a border around a domain, but allow for friction between domains of different types.


As you can see, this model will allow any domain to have 3 different holding types,
Landed will be the only who can hold provinces witch is a huge advantage when mustering troops keeping them as the strongest domain type.
Guild domains will have the advantage of having synergy between guild and trade, making rule trade easier for them.
Temple, druid and wizard will have the advantage of realm magic.


In conjunction with the proposed leidang rules this would allow a landed ruler to expel a guild and give the holdings to his unlanded vassals instead of being forced to either take the prosperity hit or create a vassal guild.

This model still doesn't take into account that all classes can gain regency from provinces.
And if this model or one like it is introduced, I think that classes should be made to only grant regency within a single domain. For IMO it doesn't make sense that you gain divine favor from your blood for governing something that hurt the stability of your realm, unless you have made the choice to diversify and taken a second or third class to justify it.
Thuriene Donalls.
Thane of Talinie.
Supreme Hierarch of the Northern Imperial Temple of Haelyn.

"Those who hear the word of Haelyn and obey are like plants rooted in rich, fertile soil.
They will thrive, grow and be the most beautiful flowers in the garden of man."

Offline X-Points East

  • Grand-Maester of the P&H
  • Former players
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 626
  • Regency: 15
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #14 on: September 03, 2013, 01:07:11 am »
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2014, 10:45:21 am by X-Points East »