RoE Development > Regent Guide
Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
X-CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan):
--- Quote from: Thurazor Regained/OM (RP) on September 11, 2013, 02:03:55 AM ---You don't follow?
OK, I will say it as simply as possible.
We have 6 incomes.
--- End quote ---
I concur that you have X incomes (6 for this theoretical), the issue isn't about the number/size of your incomes, but rather how much of that potential maximum income you will be able to apply. The one-regent realm, while having less income can focus 100% of their income with one regent's decision. The multi-regent realm needs co-operation to be able to focus 100% of their income. Friction will make achieving the 100% focus only a theoretical possibility for the multi-regent realm (Chapter 7 of Clausewitz's On War is a good read here).
For the record I don't believe that a numbers based rule is needed, but rather the statement within the rules that domains that contain unrelated holding groups are more likely to experience internal friction (events, etc). This makes it clear to players that grabbing everything is likely to result in role-play challenges and leaves the reaction in the hands of the DM rather than a mechanic.
X-Points East:
OoC:
Might number of domain types conceptually impact a domain's loyalty?
Might number of domain types conceptually impact a domain's effectiveness?
Quotation from Regent Guide: "Stability is a measure of the overall loyalty and effectiveness of your domain."
Ruideside/OM (RP):
--- Quote from: X-CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan) on September 11, 2013, 03:57:09 AM ---For the record I don't believe that a numbers based rule is needed, but rather the statement within the rules that domains that contain unrelated holding groups are more likely to experience internal friction (events, etc). This makes it clear to players that grabbing everything is likely to result in role-play challenges and leaves the reaction in the hands of the DM rather than a mechanic.
--- End quote ---
I concur 100% with that. If the idea is to be broached at all (not something I am at all convinced of) then that is the way to do it.
Ruideside/OM (RP):
--- Quote ---Might number of domain types conceptually impact a domain's loyalty?
--- End quote ---
It may in some specific situations, either positively (Temple of a god of wealth/Luck, etc. owning trade & guild) or negatively (a regent of a LG realm owning evil temple holdings), but there is no reason to assume that it would in most situations.
If you think otherwise, then by all means tell us how you think it would do so so universally as to justify your proposed rule.
--- Quote ---Might number of domain types conceptually impact a domain's effectiveness?
--- End quote ---
Same answer as the above.
In fact, just the opposite actually, as there would be no conflicts between the various segments, so stability would be increased. If the law, nobles, and church (or the church & guilds) all agree on everything then there will be less strife and less political infighting.
The thing is, there is no inherent conflict between the interests of the various holding types, any such conflicts will be entirely case dependant, and be based wholly on role-playing considerations, so role-playing is the appropriate method of dealing with the issue.
Now, if you were to change your rule to be a suggested penalty that applies only to those rare cases where the specific situation creates a conflict, then it would not be an entirely bad idea. But in the absence of any such "fluff"-based case-specific conflict, it is.
Yggdrasil (DM Andy):
--- Quote from: Thurazor Regained/OM (RP) on September 11, 2013, 07:25:11 AM ---The thing is, there is no inherent conflict between the interests of the various holding types, any such conflicts will be entirely case dependant, and be based wholly on role-playing considerations, so role-playing is the appropriate method of dealing with the issue.
Now, if you were to change your rule to be a suggested penalty that applies only to those rare cases where the specific situation creates a conflict, then it would not be an entirely bad idea. But in the absence of any such "fluff"-based case-specific conflict, it is.
--- End quote ---
Where there are multiple regents for different holding types the inherent division occurs without need for DM intervention (the arguments over taxation levels, whether or not to bless provinces, building of castles, level of military, etc are classic examples). Where that division is artificially eliminated at game-mechanic level by removal of the named regents, this sort of mechanic allows the DM to insert a "base level" tension, which allows the DM to focus their (extremely scarce) time on those realms who are outside the norm.
Ideally all bread-and-butter stuff like low level internal dissent, synergies, tax rates, loyalty, military prowess, etc should be handled by the basic mechanics with the DM then only intervening when the realm is unusual one way or another or the DM is running a plan - if the DM has to look at and fiddle with every single little thing then the game first delays then collapses. As noted many times already the mechanics also make it easier for people to plan, negotiate, anticipate, etc.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version