RoE Development > Regent Guide

Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types

<< < (9/9)

Yggdrasil (DM Andy):

--- Quote from: X-CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan) on September 11, 2013, 03:57:09 AM ---
--- 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). 
--- End quote ---

Actually the comparison is of realm A - income split over multiple regents and identical realm B - all income in the hands of one regent, because the problem noted is what happens when (generally board/computer-gamer type players) simply glomph every holding in their land.  The single regent has - at least - the same total income since the holdings and province levels are identical in the sample sets.

The inevitable efficiencies of cutting down on the courts of other regents then gives the consolidator a very large surplus to apply as they wish - most BR mechanic systems tend to have a "critical mass" point  in income generation and ROE is no exception - a domain that has base expenses of, say, 21 (4 for holdings, 6 for court, 3 for regent actions, 4 for at least 4 court actions) and income of 24 is eking its money out and likely has only 4-5 units; one with similar expenses but income of 36 is not 50% richer in practice as the gross suggests, but has 5x the surplus wealth to spend on military, buffing actions, etc - it's a serious temptation for the computer gamer who struggles with the concept of "dude, that's people not just resource-generating units, and its r-o-l-###ing-e playing not r-o-l-###-l playing"

They key risk with the tactic is the clean-up problem, short of a major ret-con or similar the game is routinely left with a very very broken set of domains which damages the game, quite possibly to breaking point, the fact that the player tends to have quit / been kicked out is therefore fairly redundant at that point.


--- 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 ---

Any time - any time at all - that there is a base effect - positive or negative - the mechanics should reflect it, so that the DM is freed up to focus on the ones in need of particular attention, fun, etc.  In practice different military units would cost more/less as pay rates vary, minor lordlings gain/lose ambition, etc - in the game the DM doesn't have time to consider how every unit is composed, their situation, etc, so they need a mechanic to set a "base", and the DM then intervenes when it's special or the player contrives a situation and asks for it to be recognised.  The only real restraint on bread-and-butter rules should be clarity and simplicity - it shouldn't be fear of setting a base or outlining a norm.

Ruideside/OM (RP):
Whatever, I am no longer going to discuss these things with you. You are way out of line.

Yggdrasil (DM Andy):

--- Quote from: Thurazor Regained/OM (RP) on September 12, 2013, 01:48:39 AM ---Whatever, I am no longer going to discuss these things with you. You are way out of line.

--- End quote ---

I don't mind someone asking me to explain rules, or why I think rules are good or bad.

I do mind when the person ignores posts, repeats points that have been answered without explanation of why they disagree with the answer, argues strawmen, etc.

When that person crosses the line into making statements that they know are false - or would know if they had read the other persons posts (the point on the poor applicability of the suggested mechanic for micro domains and minor divergences had been made more than once so my view on it was known) - I will slap them down for it.

Sometimes I'll be right, sometimes I'll be wrong, and sometimes I'll be tired; that's life I'm afraid.

One point of difference incidentally in a tabletop and a PBeM is the lack of face-to-face makes it much harder to identify nuances in position which - together with the much larger player size, lack of personal familiarity and divergent group norms - much of my desire for rules to warn of or divert from issue areas, reduce intervention in low-priority areas, etc comes from those practical problems - it isn't just concern over time available for tweaking and the 3 game issues discussed.

Ruideside/OM (RP):
Whatever, I am no longer going to discuss these things with you. You are way out of line.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page