Twilightpeaks.net
RoE Development => Regent Guide => RG v.3.5 draft editing => : DM B April 12, 2010, 07:58:21 AM
-
Use this for Chapter 4 feedback/questions.
-
Chapter 4 has undergone quite a bit of revision work. It now explains in greater detail how a DM should process a turn. It also discuses things like the timing of actions in structured or narrative time. A summary of important planning/processing elements for fighting wars is included. Should make it easier for players and DMs both to fill out/process DOs without diving deep into chapter 6/7. There are also changes to how income and taxation works.
-
Background color of pages seem to have been fraked up...the culprit will be punished!
-
The cerilian calendar has 12-months of 32 days with 4 additional holidays between the turns. The calendar flavor text is incorrect, I believe.
-
Page 11 sidebar is missing text at the bottom
-
I think you intended to tell us what monks collect regency from, despite them not being in cerilia br
-
Thanks. Will fix.
-
OoC:
Perhaps Druids could generate no regency from law holdings?
Perhaps Adepts could generate full regency from temple holdings or source holdings, rather than from temple holdings and source holdings?
-
In the highlands Druids are the core of the community - not isolate tree-huggers disinterested in people, so restricted them from law wouldn't fit thematically.
Adepts - Maybe full of one and half of the other? I'm not sure if we have enough adepts to worry about though.
-
Why random nerfs? - Nerfs should be based on observed problems, right?
Every single Elite class gathers at least something from Law. Clearly a design decision, taking it away from Druid would make him the odd one out.
Adept has very little power and spread as it is, why would it need nerfing?
-
PLEASE SEE THAT BRANDON IS TALKING ABOUT V 2.25 RULES.
HE IS NOT PROPOSING CHANGES TO OUR GAME, BUT TO THE RULES THAT ARE NOT IN EFFECT.
-
PLEASE SEE THAT BRANDON IS TALKING ABOUT V 2.25 RULES.
HE IS NOT PROPOSING CHANGES TO OUR GAME, BUT TO THE RULES THAT ARE NOT IN EFFECT.
I think you have pressed Caps Lock by accident there. :P
-
Linde - take it easy. You and Brandon have bounced heads enough times on this, I think. He wants to bring in 2.25 rules, you don't, and we all know both sides of that. Matt didn't slap you and Niels down for working up all those rules for Hire Help despite his not really being sold on needing them; don't slap Brandon for working up stuff based on 2.25. If Matt and Andy want to use it, they will; if not, Brandon will enjoy writing it up anyways. No one's being hurt by this, so let him do his thing however he wants.
-
In the highlands Druids are the core of the community - not isolate tree-huggers disinterested in people, so restricted them from law wouldn't fit thematically.
Adepts - Maybe full of one and half of the other? I'm not sure if we have enough adepts to worry about though.
Why random nerfs? - Nerfs should be based on observed problems, right?
Every single Elite class gathers at least something from Law. Clearly a design decision, taking it away from Druid would make him the odd one out.
Adept has very little power and spread as it is, why would it need nerfing?
OoC:
Perhaps Druids could generate full regency from temple holdings and half regency from law and source holdings? Or perhaps Druids could generate full regency from source holdings and half regency from law and temple holdings?
-
Linde - take it easy. You and Brandon have bounced heads enough times on this, I think. He wants to bring in 2.25 rules, you don't, and we all know both sides of that. Matt didn't slap you and Niels down for working up all those rules for Hire Help despite his not really being sold on needing them; don't slap Brandon for working up stuff based on 2.25. If Matt and Andy want to use it, they will; if not, Brandon will enjoy writing it up anyways. No one's being hurt by this, so let him do his thing however he wants.
Yeah, sorry. I just don't see it as random nurfs I see it as talk about proposed rules. So I was actually bopping heads with Niels there.
The slow and easy reply:
Adept is an npc class, so I imagine that no matter if we play 2.21 or adopt 2.25 it will be easier to get an adept than a heroic class.
That is why it is strange that it gain regency for two sources rather than one, like all other NPC classes except commoner.
I think this would make sense both in 2.21 and 2.25
Druid gain 2 full and one half, that is more than any other class..... Any other class that gain full regency for source.. except adept witch by standard I agree is overpowered, only get regency for source and half law.
So it is not a random nerf, it is more of a question of why do druids and adepts need a boost compared to all the other classes in their respective tier?
I would propose for 2.25 that:
Adepts give either source or temple depending on what magic they can cast. (so they only get one and are not the OP obvious 2. class choice for the lieutenant you're grooming to be your vassal.. Guilder being the first, so your vassal can gain full regency for temple guild and source.)
Druids gain full temple and source, or half source, full temple and half law (or another mix that add up to 2)
Wizard and sorcerer gain half law half manor and full source. (or another mix that add up to 2)
I think the same for 2.21 would make sense. Unless pure Druids and Adepts need a boost and pure Wizards need to be kept down.
-
Adepts clearly have an advantage by getting two full regency gain domains, when all of the other NPC classes get only one. Seems a bit out of balance, unless there is something offsetting that I am missing?
In looking at TABLE 4-5: CHARACTER CLASSES AND DOMAIN POWER, something that has always bothered me is why most PC classes add up to "2", while Wizards and Sorcerers add up to 1.5, and Druids add up to 2.5? Again, it seems out of balance, unless there is something offsetting that I am missing?
It also seems that the reference to multiclass XP penalty in calculating regency is now outdated vs. 3.5+ rules.
I would suggest that at some point, re-look at Table 4-5 with the 3.5 (or Pathfinder) rules in mind, and maybe reallocate some of the domains with the classes. Or, knowing you guys, you probably already have done that!
Just my 2 cents,
Greg
-
Adepts clearly have an advantage by getting two full regency gain domains, when all of the other NPC classes get only one. Seems a bit out of balance, unless there is something offsetting that I am missing?
In looking at TABLE 4-5: CHARACTER CLASSES AND DOMAIN POWER, something that has always bothered me is why most PC classes add up to "2", while Wizards and Sorcerers add up to 1.5, and Druids add up to 2.5? Again, it seems out of balance, unless there is something offsetting that I am missing?
It also seems that the reference to multiclass XP penalty in calculating regency is now outdated vs. 3.5+ rules.
I would suggest that at some point, re-look at Table 4-5 with the 3.5 (or Pathfinder) rules in mind, and maybe reallocate some of the domains with the classes. Or, knowing you guys, you probably already have done that!
Just my 2 cents,
Greg
OoC:
A suggestion follows. . . .
| Full Domain Power | Half Domain Power |
| Sorceror | Province & Source | Law & Guild |
| Wizard | Province & Source | Law & Manor |
| Druid | Province & Source | Law & Temple |
. . . Also, relatedly, here is a quote from Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.25: "Elves can be druids, but do not rule any temples."
-
I like that one.
-
Thematically in the Highlands I'd see Druids as more likely to be full law and half source than the converse - but likely the reverse elsewhere in Cerilia.
I'm not sure why they are getting any source though, I have thought that they should have the same collection as other priests given the similarity in role.
-
It reflects their connection with nature, since source is a measure of the unspoiled natural environment. It gives the player a non role-playing reason to behave like a druid.
-
Thematically in the Highlands I'd see Druids as more likely to be full law and half source than the converse - but likely the reverse elsewhere in Cerilia.
I'm not sure why they are getting any source though, I have thought that they should have the same collection as other priests given the similarity in role.
Don't druids cast primordial magic? I think this is why they get source access.
-
IMO druids should gain full regency from law and sources and half from province and temple.
They are far more concerned about controlling the woods and the magical forces in those places than to be involved in ruling and in controlling the souls of the flock.
-
Full regency from Law for Druids is just crazy to my mind.
-
Historically, even when the "real" druids were at the zenith of their "power", warlords, chieftains and/or kings still held much control (=law) over their people, and a case could easily be made that it was closer to zero than 50%. Translating based on a fantasy interpretation of this historical perspective, their greatest areas of effect IMO would be 1) Temple and (in RoE game play), #2 could be Source (which could be 100% or 50%, depending on what you are trying to accomplish). I think the real For game play, 50% for Law seems plenty to me, but as stated earlier, if you go full temple, full source, half law, Druids are/would be the only class that gets/would get 2 full and 1 half. All others add up to 2, excepts wizards and sorcerers who get 1.5, and from a game balance perspective this should also be considered, if not evened out here, then perhaps in other areas (as suggested on another thread).
-
IMO druids should gain full regency from law and sources and half from province and temple.
They are far more concerned about controlling the woods and the magical forces in those places than to be involved in ruling and in controlling the souls of the flock.
druids, not necessarily Druids. How anyone can look at the stranglehold the faith of Erik has on the Rjurik - dating back a thousand years - and tell me that those guys ignore their flock and political power amazes me. They've kept out Haelyn, Nesirie, Sarimie, etc to a greater degree than any of the other gods has done with their people so the notion that they are stereotype 2e druids from other settings absently wandering around talking to trees simply doesn't fit the setting. The druids care for the natural world because they care for their flock, not the other way around!
Erik hath pronounced however, his will be done :)
-
If we're to call Matt for Erik, could he please adjust his avatar accordingly, so we mere mortals can remember? :-)
-
Or add a signature.
-
OoC:
Suggestion:
Stability & Dynamic Domain Size
TINY — relevant levels less than or equal to 25% of regent's bloodline score
SMALL — relevant levels greater than 25% and less than or equal to 75% of regent's bloodline score
MEDIUM — relevant levels greater than 75% and less than or equal to 150% of regent's bloodline score
LARGE — relevant levels greater than 150% and less than or equal to 250% of regent's bloodline score
HUGE — relevant levels greater than 250% of regent's bloodline score
[[[Note: In this context, province, law, manor, temple, guild, and source levels are relevant, whilst trade levels are irrelevant.]]]
Example: A domain, whose regent has a bloodline score of 20, is tiny with 0-5 relevant levels; small with 6-15 relevant levels; medium with 16-30 relevant levels; large with 31-50 relevant levels; and huge with 51+ relevant levels.
Example: A domain, whose regent has a bloodline score of 40, is tiny with 0-10 relevant levels; small with 11-30 relevant levels; medium with 31-60 relevant levels; large with 61-100 relevant levels; and huge with 101+ relevant levels.
Example: A domain, whose regent has a bloodline score of 60, is tiny with 0-15 relevant levels; small with 16-45 relevant levels; medium with 46-90 relevant levels; large with 91-150 relevant levels; and huge with 151+ relevant levels.
-
OoC:
Suggestion:
Domain Size
TINY — levels less than or equal to 50% of regent's bloodline score
SMALL — levels greater than 50% and less than or equal to 100% of regent's bloodline score
MEDIUM — levels greater than 100% and less than or equal to 150% of regent's bloodline score
LARGE — levels greater than 150% and less than or equal to 250% of regent's bloodline score
HUGE — levels greater than 250% of regent's bloodline score
Example: A domain, whose regent has a bloodline score of 30, is tiny with 0-15 province/holding levels; small with 16-30 province/holding levels; medium with 31-45 province/holding levels; large with 46-75 province/holding levels; and huge with 76+ province/holding levels.
Example: A domain, whose regent has a bloodline score of 40, is tiny with 0-20 province/holding levels; small with 21-40 province/holding levels; medium with 41-60 province/holding levels; large with 61-100 province/holding levels; and huge with 101+ province/holding levels.
Example: A domain, whose regent has a bloodline score of 50, is tiny with 0-25 province/holding levels; small with 26-50 province/holding levels; medium with 51-75 province/holding levels; large with 76-125 province/holding levels; and huge with 126+ province/holding levels.
Why? I cannot see any reason to equate domain size with bloodline score. I can't see the relationship.
-
I was wondering the same thing Tristan.
-
I admit that he's gone me this time as well, unless its a subtle hint to the DM that the bloodline should have fallen as it couldn't have been sustained by the tiny holding / should have suffered as its once-might domain crumbled.
-
OoC:
Suggestion:
Stability & Dynamic Domain Size
TINY — relevant levels less than or equal to 25% of regent's bloodline score
SMALL — relevant levels greater than 25% and less than or equal to 75% of regent's bloodline score
MEDIUM — relevant levels greater than 75% and less than or equal to 150% of regent's bloodline score
LARGE — relevant levels greater than 150% and less than or equal to 250% of regent's bloodline score
HUGE — relevant levels greater than 250% of regent's bloodline score
[[[Note: In this context, province, law, manor, temple, guild, and source levels are relevant, whilst trade levels are irrelevant.]]]
Example: A domain, whose regent has a bloodline score of 20, is tiny with 0-5 relevant levels; small with 6-15 relevant levels; medium with 16-30 relevant levels; large with 31-50 relevant levels; and huge with 51+ relevant levels.
Example: A domain, whose regent has a bloodline score of 40, is tiny with 0-10 relevant levels; small with 11-30 relevant levels; medium with 31-60 relevant levels; large with 61-100 relevant levels; and huge with 101+ relevant levels.
Example: A domain, whose regent has a bloodline score of 60, is tiny with 0-15 relevant levels; small with 16-45 relevant levels; medium with 46-90 relevant levels; large with 91-150 relevant levels; and huge with 151+ relevant levels.
OoC:
For reference, see 4.5 STABILITY SEGMENT (and, in particular, the related sidebar), in Chapter 4 of Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.25.
-
How about you explain your reasoning rather than direct us to various documents that don't explain your reasoning.
-
Brandon, I can't see that version of the guide in the downloads section, are you just being consistent with its terminology?
-
Brandon, I can't see that version of the guide in the downloads section, are you just being consistent with its terminology?
OoC:
See the file attached to this post: Re: Chapter 4: The Domain Turn (http://www.twilightpeaks.net/forum/index.php?topic=1051.msg18861#msg18861).
-
Thanks Brandon, got it now. So its modeled on the Guide for the larger holdings, the Guide including an option to take account of bloodline to reflect that view that a stronger bloodline can defer the size at which the domain suffers a stability penalty.
So it isn't domain size that's being equated with bloodline score per se, its the effect of the domain size on stability being affected by strong bloodline for the larger domains.
I can see that your suggested modification is consistent throughout with bloodline score, while Bjorn only recognises bloodline in the larger domains, but your approach would hammer any non-blooded or tainted bloodline ruler (rare I know but all the same) and I think Bjorn's idea was that a small enough domain shouldn't really face stability problems from size regardless of bloodline.
I do wonder though if you couldn't have bloodline affect the smaller domains by raising their size thresholds, and then saying that smaller domains are more likely to gain stability - maybe checking twice a year if the domain is less than (MAX[half the size of the bloodline, 20]) or each season if the domain is less than (MAX[a quarter of the bloodline, 10]) for example.
That way you'd get a bloodline effect potentially throughout, but in a different fashion in the smaller domains.
-
OoC:
Suggestion:
Stability & Dynamic Domain Size
TINY — relevant levels less than or equal to 25% of regent's bloodline score
SMALL — relevant levels greater than 25% and less than or equal to 75% of regent's bloodline score
MEDIUM — relevant levels greater than 75% and less than or equal to 150% of regent's bloodline score
LARGE — relevant levels greater than 150% and less than or equal to 250% of regent's bloodline score
HUGE — relevant levels greater than 250% of regent's bloodline score
[[[Note: In this context, province, law, manor, temple, guild, and source levels are relevant, whilst trade levels are irrelevant.]]]
Example: A domain, whose regent has a bloodline score of 20, is tiny with 0-5 relevant levels; small with 6-15 relevant levels; medium with 16-30 relevant levels; large with 31-50 relevant levels; and huge with 51+ relevant levels.
Example: A domain, whose regent has a bloodline score of 40, is tiny with 0-10 relevant levels; small with 11-30 relevant levels; medium with 31-60 relevant levels; large with 61-100 relevant levels; and huge with 101+ relevant levels.
Example: A domain, whose regent has a bloodline score of 60, is tiny with 0-15 relevant levels; small with 16-45 relevant levels; medium with 46-90 relevant levels; large with 91-150 relevant levels; and huge with 151+ relevant levels.
OoC:
And perhaps domain size (in a bloodline-score-of-regent context) could modify, not base stability, but the threshold for annual stability increase?
-
I can see that your suggested modification is consistent throughout with bloodline score, while Bjorn only recognises bloodline in the larger domains, but your approach would hammer any non-blooded or tainted bloodline ruler (rare I know but all the same) and I think Bjorn's idea was that a small enough domain shouldn't really face stability problems from size regardless of bloodline.
OoC:
According to the alternative method in Draft 2.25 (in which the bloodline score of a regent is relevant), a domain, whose regent has a weak bloodline, is apparently tiny (stability-wise) up to the point, at which the domain's province/holding levels equal the regent's bloodline score; at bloodline-score-plus-one levels, the domain is apparently large (stability-wise).
-
I can see that your suggested modification is consistent throughout with bloodline score, while Bjorn only recognises bloodline in the larger domains, but your approach would hammer any non-blooded or tainted bloodline ruler (rare I know but all the same) and I think Bjorn's idea was that a small enough domain shouldn't really face stability problems from size regardless of bloodline.
OoC:
According to the alternative method in Draft 2.25 (in which the bloodline score of a regent is relevant), a domain, whose regent has a weak bloodline, is apparently tiny (stability-wise) up to the point, at which the domain's province/holding levels equal the regent's bloodline score; at bloodline-score-plus-one levels, the domain is apparently large (stability-wise).
If you took a moment to read the final paragraph, you would note that: "Small and tiny are unchanged; the only effect of a strong bloodline is increasing the penalty threshold."
Small and tiny are unchanged! So tiny would always be 0-20, small would always be 21-40.
To further underline that fact Bjørn even wrote that it is only the penalty threshold that is increased. So the smallest possible large domain would be 41 holdings.
That said, you gain enough benefit from a large BS already and as such I don't see the point in linking yet another bonus to BS.
-
I can see that your suggested modification is consistent throughout with bloodline score, while Bjorn only recognises bloodline in the larger domains, but your approach would hammer any non-blooded or tainted bloodline ruler (rare I know but all the same) and I think Bjorn's idea was that a small enough domain shouldn't really face stability problems from size regardless of bloodline.
OoC:
According to the alternative method in Draft 2.25 (in which the bloodline score of a regent is relevant), a domain, whose regent has a weak bloodline, is apparently tiny (stability-wise) up to the point, at which the domain's province/holding levels equal the regent's bloodline score; at bloodline-score-plus-one levels, the domain is apparently large (stability-wise).
If you took a moment to read the final paragraph, you would note that: "Small and tiny are unchanged; the only effect of a strong bloodline is increasing the penalty threshold."
Small and tiny are unchanged! So tiny would always be 0-20, small would always be 21-40.
To further underline that fact Bjørn even wrote that it is only the penalty threshold that is increased. So the smallest possible large domain would be 41 holdings.
That said, you gain enough benefit from a large BS already and as such I don't see the point in linking yet another bonus to BS.
OoC:
According to the alternative method in Draft 2.25 (in which the bloodline score of a regent is relevant), the tiny range is apparently unchanged. However, a domain, whose regent has a weak bloodline,—even though tiny (stability-wise) up to the point, at which province/holding levels equal the regent's bloodline score,—is apparently large (stability-wise) at bloodline-score-plus-one province/holding levels.
-
I can see that your suggested modification is consistent throughout with bloodline score, while Bjorn only recognises bloodline in the larger domains, but your approach would hammer any non-blooded or tainted bloodline ruler (rare I know but all the same) and I think Bjorn's idea was that a small enough domain shouldn't really face stability problems from size regardless of bloodline.
OoC:
According to the alternative method in Draft 2.25 (in which the bloodline score of a regent is relevant), a domain, whose regent has a weak bloodline, is apparently tiny (stability-wise) up to the point, at which the domain's province/holding levels equal the regent's bloodline score; at bloodline-score-plus-one levels, the domain is apparently large (stability-wise).
If you took a moment to read the final paragraph, you would note that: "Small and tiny are unchanged; the only effect of a strong bloodline is increasing the penalty threshold."
Small and tiny are unchanged! So tiny would always be 0-20, small would always be 21-40.
To further underline that fact Bjørn even wrote that it is only the penalty threshold that is increased. So the smallest possible large domain would be 41 holdings.
That said, you gain enough benefit from a large BS already and as such I don't see the point in linking yet another bonus to BS.
OoC:
According to the alternative method in Draft 2.25 (in which the bloodline score of a regent is relevant), the tiny range is apparently unchanged. However, a domain, whose regent has a weak bloodline,—even though tiny (stability-wise) up to the point, at which province/holding levels equal the regent's bloodline score,—is apparently large (stability-wise) at bloodline-score-plus-one province/holding levels.
The statement that tiny and small are unchanged is a specific exception to the optional general rule that large start at BS + 1
As you can read by Andy's comment he has come to the same conclusion.
-
The statement that tiny and small are unchanged is a specific exception to the optional general rule that large start at BS + 1
OoC:
The alternative method in Draft 2.25 (in which the bloodline score of a regent is stability-relevant) seems to indicate, conceptually, that, when a domain's province/holding levels are greater than the bloodline score of its regent, the domain is unstable (i.e., large or huge, depending on the extent); furthermore, that, below bloodline-score-plus-one province/holding levels, a domain is tiny at 0-20 levels, small at 21-40 levels, and medium at 41+ levels.
-
The statement that tiny and small are unchanged is a specific exception to the optional general rule that large start at BS + 1
OoC:
The alternative method in Draft 2.25 (in which the bloodline score of a regent is stability-relevant) seems to indicate, conceptually, that, when a domain's province/holding levels are greater than the bloodline score of its regent, the domain is unstable (i.e., large or huge, depending on the extent); furthermore, that, below bloodline-score-plus-one province/holding levels, a domain is tiny at 0-20 levels, small at 21-40 levels, and medium at 41+ levels.
Not quite true.
The method described in draft 2.25 state that no domains with 40 or less holdings get a penalty regardless of its regents BS.
So, conceptually, it seems to indicate that a domain over a certain size(40 levels) is unstable if it has more holding/province levels than its regents BS.
But I question the concept of linking BS to stability. It in effect make BS a stronger stat.
What, from a balancing point of view, does it bring to the game to make one stat stronger?
Answer: It makes it easier to game the system since you then have a more limited field of effort, or a new opportunity for improving your realms overall power level.
The only reason that the alternative rules in 2.25 could be acceptable, from a balancing point of view, is in fact that no realms with 40 or less holdings get affected by it. Thus, hopefully, making stability gain from investment in BS a long term plan that might not dominate the game.
The best solution from a balancing point of view would still be to ignore the option and go with static domain sizes.
-
The statement that tiny and small are unchanged is a specific exception to the optional general rule that large start at BS + 1
OoC:
The alternative method in Draft 2.25 (in which the bloodline score of a regent is stability-relevant) seems to indicate, conceptually, that, when a domain's province/holding levels are greater than the bloodline score of its regent, the domain is unstable (i.e., large or huge, depending on the extent); furthermore, that, below bloodline-score-plus-one province/holding levels, a domain is tiny at 0-20 levels, small at 21-40 levels, and medium at 41+ levels.
Not quite true.
The method described in draft 2.25 state that no domains with 40 or less holdings get a penalty regardless of its regents BS.
So, conceptually, it seems to indicate that a domain over a certain size(40 levels) is unstable if it has more holding/province levels than its regents BS.
But I question the concept of linking BS to stability. It in effect make BS a stronger stat.
What, from a balancing point of view, does it bring to the game to make one stat stronger?
Answer: It makes it easier to game the system since you then have a more limited field of effort, or a new opportunity for improving your realms overall power level.
The only reason that the alternative rules in 2.25 could be acceptable, from a balancing point of view, is in fact that no realms with 40 or less holdings get affected by it. Thus, hopefully, making stability gain from investment in BS a long term plan that might not dominate the game.
The best solution from a balancing point of view would still be to ignore the option and go with static domain sizes.
OoC:
Here follows a quote from Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.25 (italics in original): "Alternatively the DM can set Large size as one greater than your BS. Huge would then be your BS +40." This quoted passage is a clear statement with an apparent meaning. However, the clear statement is succeeded by text, which can be interpreted in multiple ways and the meaning of which is not apparent. For reference, here follows the succeeding text in the same Draft 2.25 (italics in original): "Small and tiny are unchanged; the only effect of a strong bloodline is increasing the penalty threshold." Perhaps the succeeding text indicates, explanatorily, how to treat domains, with levels under bloodline-score-plus-one; or perhaps the succeeding text indicates that the bloodline-score-plus-one rule only takes effect above some number of levels. In the absence of clarity with respect to the succeeding text, though, at least the initially quoted passage (to repeat, "Alternatively the DM can set Large size as one greater than your BS. Huge would then be your BS +40.") has an apparent meaning, in and of itself.
-
Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.
We all know how you read it, you have told us more than a few times and we don't read it that way so just put it away - you are getting tiresome.
-
OoC:
Here follows a quote from Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.25 (italics in original): "Alternatively the DM can set Large size as one greater than your BS. Huge would then be your BS +40." This quoted passage is a clear statement with an apparent meaning. However, the clear statement is succeeded by text, which can be interpreted in multiple ways and the meaning of which is not apparent. For reference, here follows the succeeding text in the same Draft 2.25 (italics in original): "Small and tiny are unchanged; the only effect of a strong bloodline is increasing the penalty threshold." Perhaps the succeeding text indicates, explanatorily, how to treat domains, with levels under bloodline-score-plus-one; or perhaps the succeeding text indicates that the bloodline-score-plus-one rule only takes effect above some number of levels. In the absence of clarity with respect to the succeeding text, though, at least the initially quoted passage (to repeat, "Alternatively the DM can set Large size as one greater than your BS. Huge would then be your BS +40.") has an apparent meaning, in and of itself.
I think the problem is how you think vs how I think.
If I wrote this statement: "Joe always eat all his bananas. On Wednesdays Joe gives a banana to his wife."
I would read the second line as an exception to the first. Whereas I think you would reason that he gives someone else's banana to his wife each Wednesday.
If seen with purely mathematical logic, the second way of looking at it would have more merit. But if looking at it as how humans in general communicate, then the first way of looking at it would have more merit.(IMO)
So the question is: Was the rules written as a document strictly adhering to mathematical logic?
Answer: No.
Reason: Just look at how prosperity and stability are defined!
-
I think there is a bit of ambiguity on this one.
I was discussing it with Brandon and I identified about 3 ways to interpret the effects.
-
Yes. It can be read in several different ways. So the question is in what way it is supposed to make sense.
My point is that when clarity is missing it makes most sense to interpret the rules from a game balancing point of view rather than using mathematical logic to determine which sentence has most merit.
So the discussion ought to revolve around how the different interpretations would affect game ballance rather than witch sentence the Norwegian author managed to write so it had a clear meaning in English.
-
Below is my preferable reading of the rule:
I read the penalty threshold as being the line between 60 and 61, when you get to the point where you have a penalty.
The effect of a strong bloodline is a greater threshold before a penalty.
Tiny and small stay the same, but it is silent on medium domain sizes.
I don't think that should mean medium size is skipped altogether.
I think that the rule is only intended to benefit a stronger bloodline, and not hinder anything else.
I think that it is only applicable for regents with a bloodline score in excess of 60.
Stability is huge. It affects so many aspects of the game. I don't think this was intended to bring upon more penalties.
By the way, Bjorn writes well in English. :D
-
Yeah he does.
I think that your preferred reading is valid as well, and actually prefer it over my own interpretation.
But people with a high BS have the bonus of being able to collect lots of regency already. In RoEII I tried to increase my BS as much as possible because the benefit IMO was worth the effort. To tie stability to BS would IMO make it so powerful that it would move from something I would do whenever possible to something I would feel I needed to do every turn. Is that desirable?
I think the 2.25 rules work best without the option to make domain size dependent of the BS of the regent.
-
But people with a high BS have the bonus of being able to collect lots of regency already. In RoEII I tried to increase my BS as much as possible because the benefit IMO was worth the effort. To tie stability to BS would IMO make it so powerful that it would move from something I would do whenever possible to something I would feel I needed to do every turn. Is that desirable?
I'm not sure I agree with the outcome, firstly a domain of 60 is pretty big (although the P&H for turn 1 shows 5 players are at it most are well short), secondly you can sidestep the stability penalty by use of vassals. So it could be argued that the mechanic is designed to drive creation / maintenance of vassals rather than encouraging high bloodline - getting most bloodlines up towards 60 would in practice be extra-ordinarily expensive, it would be much more cost effective for Joe with bloodline 30 or 40 to spin off a minor vassal or two when his domain grew to 60 than to spend 20 turns or so of regency income solely on raising his bloodline.
-
Again, I don't like rules whose purpose is to artificially force players to play one particular way. The advantages of having vassals are both many and manifest, if a player is either so unperceptive as to not see them, or so unwise as to ignore them, then let him suffer for that failing, but there is no need for a irrational rule designed to make him do so.
-
But people with a high BS have the bonus of being able to collect lots of regency already. In RoEII I tried to increase my BS as much as possible because the benefit IMO was worth the effort. To tie stability to BS would IMO make it so powerful that it would move from something I would do whenever possible to something I would feel I needed to do every turn. Is that desirable?
I'm not sure I agree with the outcome, firstly a domain of 60 is pretty big (although the P&H for turn 1 shows 5 players are at it most are well short), secondly you can sidestep the stability penalty by use of vassals. So it could be argued that the mechanic is designed to drive creation / maintenance of vassals rather than encouraging high bloodline - getting most bloodlines up towards 60 would in practice be extra-ordinarily expensive, it would be much more cost effective for Joe with bloodline 30 or 40 to spin off a minor vassal or two when his domain grew to 60 than to spend 20 turns or so of regency income solely on raising his bloodline.
You are probably right that in this setting you would hardly see people invest that much regency on BS since we won't have such big economies as some realms had in RoEII. But there is still a huge difference between looking at a domain at the beginning at a campaign and noting that only few will be affected in the start of the game, to knowing how the holdings are divided ten turns into the game. And spinning of a vassal, while keeping your stability up, will cost you GB income, and you are not likely to gain more than a few RP (and hopefully a somewhat loyal ally)
I like the limit of 60 better than the limit of 40, and don't like Brandon's reading at all. 60 is large enough that most regents won't be bothered by it. 40 will hit some, and since you likely drop from +1 to -1 stability then it stand to reason that you would try to circumvent the penalty, either by increasing your bloodline or by creating a vassal... And yes, creating a vassal first would be fastest in almost all cases.
But as soon as your RP income is larger than your BS, and if you have more holding levels than BS, then increasing BS is a sure way to more power. Linking BS to stability will then make it a sure way to keep your domain effective while granting you extra resources to do your actions. It is a double bonus: no penalties and RP to use in influence.
Vassals come with the risk of rebellion, they have their own agendas and they cost you money. The risk you incur by increasing your BS is next to none, if you have saved up a regency buffer.
Yes, there will always be faster ways to amass power, but IMO none will be at as low risk as just increasing BS to gain higher regency and offset negative stability modifiers for guilds and landed rulers.
Since wizard and temple domains have spells as well as normal actions to use their regency on, I see the variant as a "hidden bonus" to domains that doesn't cast realm magic, as they will be more likely to benefit.
I know that, in effect, linking BS to stability creates options for keeping your stability high.. A purely static border for domain size only foster vassals, whereas a dynamic border linked to BS gives the choice of increasing BS. But the option is only available to the few, and as such has the potential to be a game balance breaking option.
I wouldn't object Garth's reading of the variant being implemented. Only because, as you note yourself, there will be few if any who are affected by it.
But still, I would like the DM's to note that by linking stability to BS we give an extra option to those few lucky realms who are large enough.
And ask if it isn't better to have a system that doesn't link stability to BS and IMO is more fair for all?
-
OoC:
Suggestion:
Stability & Dynamic Domain Size
TINY — relevant levels less than or equal to 25% of regent's bloodline score
SMALL — relevant levels greater than 25% and less than or equal to 75% of regent's bloodline score
MEDIUM — relevant levels greater than 75% and less than or equal to 150% of regent's bloodline score
LARGE — relevant levels greater than 150% and less than or equal to 250% of regent's bloodline score
HUGE — relevant levels greater than 250% of regent's bloodline score
[[[Note: In this context, province, law, manor, temple, guild, and source levels are relevant, whilst trade levels are irrelevant.]]]
Example: A domain, whose regent has a bloodline score of 20, is tiny with 0-5 relevant levels; small with 6-15 relevant levels; medium with 16-30 relevant levels; large with 31-50 relevant levels; and huge with 51+ relevant levels.
Example: A domain, whose regent has a bloodline score of 40, is tiny with 0-10 relevant levels; small with 11-30 relevant levels; medium with 31-60 relevant levels; large with 61-100 relevant levels; and huge with 101+ relevant levels.
Example: A domain, whose regent has a bloodline score of 60, is tiny with 0-15 relevant levels; small with 16-45 relevant levels; medium with 46-90 relevant levels; large with 91-150 relevant levels; and huge with 151+ relevant levels.
OoC:
A related static option: tiny with 0-10 relevant levels; small with 11-30 relevant levels; medium with 31-60 relevant levels; large with 61-100 relevant levels; and huge with 101+ relevant levels.
-
Oh God, are you really trying to resurrect this?
-
Oh God, are you really trying to resurrect this?
@RP: You do not have to comment on everything.
@In general: A golden rule is that once the horse has been beaten to death it's OK to stop spanking it.
As you've already pointed out: The advantages of having vassals are many and manifest. I agree completely. That the majority of players seem to have great issues with having vassals - let alone being vassals themselves - is something that can't be remedied by any amount of rules. It's just bad role-playing on the part of those players.
The proposed division of domains into sizes was prompted by the need to help explain why a small dynamic domain might have a chance of getting set up and prospering in the first place. You see them throughout Cerilia - there aren't very many, but there a few - yet there is no logical explanation as to how they can continue to exist (and most of them don't if they get in the way of PC domain). Even role-playing only goes so far.
So the Domain Size rule will remain, probably as an optional rule. The exact formula is still up in the air, but it will be something simple (probably related to domain power).
-
That's a mistake.
-
What is happening here is that unnecessary and bad rules are being used to address some poor role-playing, which is actually being brought about by bad DMing.
If the DM is doing his/her job right, then the players will find themselves forced by circumstances to start making some vassals, either that or their realms will get swallowed up by their more sensible neighbours.
The same thing applies to those players who want to grab all the holdings of every type for themselves - if the DM is doing his job right, then they will either go down in flames or find themselves realizing that they actually would like to have a powerful priest controlling some of those temple holdings the next time a plague comes a-ravaging through his lands, or that it would be handy if all those rich guilders didn't hate him the next time he finds himself with a little temporary cash flow problem.
If you find yourself in a situation where the players all have these monolithic realms and they are not struggling desperately to hold them together, then you need look no further than the mirror to see the source of the problem. What you don't need is an illogical and irrational rule to punish the players for doing things which you as the DM should be seizing upon as weaknesses for you to exploit.
-
And furthermore, the issues that are being addressed all stem from the insistence that it is the domain and not the regent that is being played - that is the source of the pressure to not role play well, because with the focus on the domain rather than on the regent, there is no impetus to role play well, as there is no actual role to play - I mean think about it - how does one play the role of a faceless bureaucracy running a kingdom?
By returning the emphasis of the game back to it's proper place - the regents themselves and the interplay of their personalities, then the pressure to not role play is not only removed, but it is reversed - the pressure is now to role play well. The question is no longer "What, based on a study of the rules and my calculation of the odds is the best course of action?" to "What would a powerful wizard who hates being distracted from his arcane research do to handle this situation?", or What would Lord Rashnbold do when confronted with the opposition of the peasants?".
By making this one simple change in emphasis, every domain now becomes very different in the way it approaches every single problem, no two domains will approach the same situation the same way.
-
This sounds pretty much like saying any role-playing system is faulty for being a system when role-playing should be in focus? Surely you can both have a system AND role-play well? A system that's hopefully pretty robust and consistent. And a DM/players who know what role-playing is and act accordingly. I can't seem to grasp the problems you envision.
Btw: None of the situations you describe are common in my games. This is simply not the place where you find that sort of players. The rules don't reward that kind of play - and I as a DM certainly do not reward it IC.
-
That's a mistake.
Another RP special. Short, antagonistic and not really worth anyone's time.
What is the purpose of such posts? Are they supposed to make a point? To annoy people? I don't get it.
-
And furthermore, the issues that are being addressed all stem from the insistence that it is the domain and not the regent that is being played - that is the source of the pressure to not role play well, because with the focus on the domain rather than on the regent, there is no impetus to role play well, as there is no actual role to play - I mean think about it - how does one play the role of a faceless bureaucracy running a kingdom?
Is already addressed by the RoE ruleset. It's a strategic role-playing game. It's about domains and dynasties, BUT ROL-EPLAYED THROUGH CHARACTERS, IN PARTICULAR YOUR REGENT.
By returning the emphasis of the game back to it's proper place - the regents themselves and the interplay of their personalities, then the pressure to not role play is not only removed, but it is reversed - the pressure is now to role play well. The question is no longer "What, based on a study of the rules and my calculation of the odds is the best course of action?" to "What would a powerful wizard who hates being distracted from his arcane research do to handle this situation?", or What would Lord Rashnbold do when confronted with the opposition of the peasants?".
I can only point to my above comment. After who know how many hours of playing RoE I can say we've had a fair bit of interaction and personality.
By making this one simple change in emphasis, every domain now becomes very different in the way it approaches every single problem, no two domains will approach the same situation the same way.
Again this assumption that role-playing isn't important.
-
Btw: None of the situations you describe are common in my games. This is simply not the place where you find that sort of players.
Well that's good to know, however I find that a little hard to reconcile with your previous post...
That the majority of players seem to have great issues with having vassals - let alone being vassals themselves - is something that can't be remedied by any amount of rules. It's just bad role-playing on the part of those players.
So which is it, do none of the players avoid having vassals or do the majority of them? It can't be both.
And if the vassal problem doesn't exist, then why is there a need to institute rules to prevent that sort of thing? Why make the rule tying domain size compared to BS with stability? If there is no problem with people not making vassals, then why is there a need to make a rule to penalize them for not making vassals?
All the proposed rule will achieve, other than further penalizing those with low BS, is to encourage players to put off making any vassals until they reach that magic threshold where the penalties outweigh the perceived disadvantages of making a vassal.
The excuse that the rule is needed to "explain" the existence of small dynamic domains is a total fabrication, as the rule in no way explains them.
Another RP special. Short, antagonistic and not really worth anyone's time.
What is the purpose of such posts? Are they supposed to make a point? To annoy people? I don't get it.
That actually sounds more like your remarks in this post, after all, if saying something is a mistake is considered antagonistic then saying somebody's remarks are pointless and not worth anybody's time most certainly must be. Exactly what is the value to anybody in this post of yours? What possible purpose could your really have other than to let me know you don't really like the way I post. Well guess what? I really don't care. I learned many years ago that there were only three people whose opinion of me is of any importance - and sorry you aren't my daughter, nor are you one of my sons.
And yes there was a purpose to my post, the purpose is to make a point - which clearly you didn't get. Oh well, not really my problem. The fact that you don't get the point does not mean that there wasn't one.
And if anybody is antagonized by my innocuous remarks on here, then I suggest they turn off the computer and do some serious looking inward to see why they are so quick to seek out excuses to take offense where none exists.
Is already addressed by the RoE ruleset. It's a strategic role-playing game. It's about domains and dynasties, BUT ROL-EPLAYED THROUGH CHARACTERS, IN PARTICULAR YOUR REGENT.
Yes I know, and that is exactly why you have the problems that you need these rules to fix. Oh wait, that's right, you don't have the problems after all, but you still need the rules to address the problems you don't have, just in case.
After who know how many hours of playing RoE I can say we've had a fair bit of interaction and personality.
Playing when the various proposed new rules were not in effect, therefore this fact is of no relevance whatsoever. My point is that the proposed rules will discourage that sort of thing.
The present rule set is good, no not good, excellent, it is the best Birthright variant I have come across, that's why I use it in my campaigns. It needs a few tweaks here and there, and there is the odd bug in it, but it most certainly doesn't need clumsy rules like those being proposed, nor does it need rules that take it further and further away from its roleplaying roots.
As your rules now stand, a player can play his domain (though why anybody would want to is beyond me) or a player can play his regent, and players in the same game can play either way, both methods can coexist in the same game. that is one of the great strengths of what you created, and I see no reason to take that away fro the game in the name of "simplicity"
Look, there is no need to ruin your wonderful ruleset in an attempt to recreate a PBEM version of the Gorgon's Crown game, but what the Hell, it's your baby, you do what you want with it - you won't be the first person to come out with something awesome and then turn into a piece of junk in an effort to improve it when it needed no improving. So go ahead, geld your prize stud if you want, luckily I have a copy of the rules as they stand now, before the current effort to ruin... sorry, to "improve" them started, so nobody can ruin them for me. :)
Again this assumption that role-playing isn't important.
Well that assumption is based on the repeated statements by yourself and pretty much everybody else on here that it isn't. I am glad to know that that isn't the case, though if it really isn't, then perhaps you could explain the current drive to remove as much of the role playing aspect from the game as possible, I'd really appreciate it if you could, because it makes no sense to me to remove as many opportunities to actually role play if role playing is important to the game.
-
It's like Kasper all over.
RP, the rules Brandon is proposing as proposals, they havent been been adopted. You are coming across as a complete ass, and someone that doesn't really plans to be a true part of our community.
Go out and read the adventures and quests, take a look at some of the works done by players in this game - those who followed the Iron King to the Gorgon's doorstep, those who fought the insidious Eyeless One, the three brothers who fought the Chimera, the temples and magi that stood against the High Mage, the Holy order that tried, almost in vain, to prevent the destruction of Mhoried, the temple who made a champion of belinik give enough pause to know that he was almost lost and the woman who married him though loving another...
The examples of RPing are massive in this game and all occurred with a set of rules that we the players understood was a framework, the beginning, not the end.
Why not embrace this fact and move on?
-
RP, the rules Brandon is proposing as proposals, they havent been been adopted.
No shit? That's why I am arguing against their adoption, if they had been adopted then I wouldn't be arguing against them now would I?
As for coming across as an ass, oh well, no big deal, you see, to my eye it is you who is actually being an ass as your entire post is a ranty diatribe that is not actually related to any of the posts or points I have made, and in fact rather than disputing what I have said regarding RoE it confirms it. Honestly, if you aren't going to even bother to understand what you are responding to, then why bother responding?
Nobody has said that there WAS no role playing, what I said is that the proposed rules will remove all but the most peripheral and inconsequential opportunities for it - it will reduce it to mere "fluff", to use the term you are all so fond of here.
And as far as being a part of your community here, well if the price of that is to bite my tongue and not speak up when I think something is a mistake, then no, I am not all that interested, and if you think I am being rude, well I am not, I have curbed my language and made every effort to express myself without giving any offense or to insult anybody - something you may note none of you have done, you are now the fourth person to openly insult me in the last week or so simply because I do not agree with you on this topic.
It would be nice if we could discuss this like adults rather than having you all fly off the handle at imagined slights and taking every non-lauditory comment as some sort of personal affront and ranting on to counter points that have not been argued.
Why not embrace this fact and move on?
Because the proposed new rules are almost to a T poorly written, poorly thought out, ill-conceived, badly designed, and for the most part just plain stupid. Clear enough for you now?
-
OoC:
A related static option: tiny with 0-10 relevant levels; small with 11-30 relevant levels; medium with 31-60 relevant levels; large with 61-100 relevant levels; and huge with 101+ relevant levels.
I think that update to domain size is okay. Perhaps the same algorithm is also the best one for the ranges of weak, minor, major, great and true bloodlines.
I am still firmly against linking BS to domain size!
-
I think I agree, it's better with static sizes.
It also relates fairly intuitively to the fiction/fluff/in-character perspective. Smaller realms have to deal with less bureaucracy, there are less separate agendas at work, less feathers to smooth and so on. At an intuitive level, of course a small domain should be more effective and more stable (excepting other significant factors). Just think of the Roman Empire compared to other contemporary realms. It would fit with the idea that leading a medieval domain is in some ways more complicated than a modern country - there are far more individual power figures and divided loyalties to work with. People are far more loyal to their personal liege than their liege's liege, in general.
Also, keep in mind that this is just the minimum stability increase that is affected. There are numerous other ways to increase stability. I got Tornilen up to stability 2, even though it was a Chaotic Neutral realm. Constantly using decrees, diplomacy with my own nameless nobles, working at agendas, steady magical brainwashing of the populace and so on all helped. Maybe mostly the brainwashing.
An alternative way to make smaller domains more effective could be to make the maintenance costs climb more steeply. If the costs of maintaining a large increased faster, that would naturally encourage a consolidation of holdings/provinces.
Currently maintenance cost increase at roughly 1 GB/10 Holdings. If it went 10 holdings = 1 GB, 19 Holdings = 2 GB, 27 H = 3 GB, 34 H = 5GB, 40 H = 6 GB, 45 H = 7 GB, 50 H = 8 GB, 55 H = 9 GB, or something similar, then you can achieve something like the same effect.
-
I think I agree, it's better with static sizes.
It also relates fairly intuitively to the fiction/fluff/in-character perspective. Smaller realms have to deal with less bureaucracy, there are less separate agendas at work, less feathers to smooth and so on. At an intuitive level, of course a small domain should be more effective and more stable (excepting other significant factors). Just think of the Roman Empire compared to other contemporary realms. It would fit with the idea that leading a medieval domain is in some ways more complicated than a modern country - there are far more individual power figures and divided loyalties to work with. People are far more loyal to their personal liege than their liege's liege, in general.
Also, keep in mind that this is just the minimum stability increase that is affected. There are numerous other ways to increase stability. I got Tornilen up to stability 2, even though it was a Chaotic Neutral realm. Constantly using decrees, diplomacy with my own nameless nobles, working at agendas, steady magical brainwashing of the populace and so on all helped. Maybe mostly the brainwashing.
An alternative way to make smaller domains more effective could be to make the maintenance costs climb more steeply. If the costs of maintaining a large increased faster, that would naturally encourage a consolidation of holdings/provinces.
Currently maintenance cost increase at roughly 1 GB/10 Holdings. If it went 10 holdings = 1 GB, 19 Holdings = 2 GB, 27 H = 3 GB, 34 H = 5GB, 40 H = 6 GB, 45 H = 7 GB, 50 H = 8 GB, 55 H = 9 GB, or something similar, then you can achieve something like the same effect.
Yes. Static size seems the better option. I think that it should be the default option.
-
Why not embrace this fact and move on?
Because the proposed new rules are almost to a T poorly written, poorly thought out, ill-conceived, badly designed, and for the most part just plain stupid. Clear enough for you now?
I dub thee Kasper. Thanks, RP.
-
RP, the volume and tone of your recent posts come across as extremely argumentative, negative, and disrespectful of others. I have avoided chats and commenting on these and other posts because I do not want to be the target of your attacks, but enough is enough. Please tone it down and try to be more respectful of others (even if you don't care what they think). Thanks.
-
I'm sorry I come across that way, it is unintentional, but unfortunately unavoidable, but thanks for the input. I'll try to avoid doing so in the future.