RoE Development > Regent Guide
Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
Ruideside/OM (RP):
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.
Ruideside/OM (RP):
--- Quote ---It also reflects the inherent tensions in different types of organisations competing for the regents time.
--- End quote ---
Sorry Andy, but it does no such thing.
Torele Anviras/TA (Niels):
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.
Yggdrasil (DM Andy):
--- Quote from: Thurazor Regained/OM (RP) 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.
--- End quote ---
Sorry Andy, but it does no such thing.
--- End 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.
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.
Ruideside/OM (RP):
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version