RoE Development > Regent Guide
Ideas for economic over exploitation (i.e. devastation) of a province
Ruideside/OM (RP):
We had a good discussion in chat about the ways to handle this in game terms, and in the end i think the simplest and most accurate way to do this would be through the terrain rules.
Here is a rough outline of how I see it working.
1. Guild holders can chose to over exploit a province.
A. This generates extra income
B. It progressively degrades the terrain of the province eventually to Barren.
C. The rate at which the terrain is degraded is dependent on the cumulative total of the extra GB extracted.
D. The effects of the terrain degradation would affect the province in line with the secondary terrain rules.
E. At some point the devastated secondary terrain will become the primary terrain.
2. Other possible effects.
A. Negative impact on prosperity over time (though the terrain degradation will have this effect as the province level drops).
B. Negative impact on Source levels and magic Potential over time (though the terrain degradation will have this effect anyway).
Advantages of this system
1. The terrain degradation will affect all aspects of the provincial economy (maximum level, Growth Multiplier, and maximum Magic Potential) with one simple mechanic.
2. The exact rate at which the degradation happens need not be a constant across all provinces, and can be determined by the DMs for each province individually and tracked in secret, so that the players won't know when they will be going too far.
3. The process is reversible, in as much as the terrain can, if given enough time, revert back to its original state, unless it has gone too far.
Silver House/ClDh (Bobby):
I prefer a Prosperity modifier as the primary 'detriment' to the exploitation, with the GMs having the option of throwing Events at those provinces stemming from the damage done to them - flooding, sidhe raids, etc. This isn't mechanized clear-cutting, tearing down dozens of acres in a day, and changing terrain types on the scale you're suggesting seems out of the scope of the game. Devastation should have consequences, but not on that scale. If stronger pressure is needed to respond to player behaviors, I think the GMs can apply it on a case-by-case basis as needed.
Torele Anviras/TA (Niels):
If prosperity is used though, then it will be automatically offset by Law and lowered taxes. The penalty needed to discourage it would have to be disproportionally massive. It is trivial to set up provinces to ignore -3 modifiers in single turn.
I like the base premise RP is working from. But I agree the progression of this has to be on a timescale that matches the tools and abilities actually available.
Maybe we should just drop the devastation as a thing? - It is a major part of the initial tension in Talinie though, so that would have to be reworked.
Silver House/ClDh (Bobby):
Rulers should be doing Heavy taxes as a normal thing, which is a -2 Prosperity. That means that the (ignore -2) from Law holdings is fully occupied. Handling any prosperity loss would require reduced taxes, which will be a 25%-30% loss to the Law-holder's income. Widespread Agitation would be at least as expensive. That should be plenty to 'encourage' law-holders to dislike such activities. When you add in random events caused by them, plus the fact that the Guilds will be strengthened, I think that's far more than a 'trivial' issue.
Ruideside/OM (RP):
Well Bobby, you'll notice that 2A is just that, the prosperity hit.
I'll see what sort of more formal rule set I can come up with, then we can tweak the numbers some.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version