Chapter 4: The Domain Turn

[Yggdrasil (DM Andy)]

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.

[X-Points East]

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.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

How about you explain your reasoning rather than direct us to various documents that don't explain your reasoning.

[Yggdrasil (DM Andy)]

Brandon, I can't see that version of the guide in the downloads section, are you just being consistent with its terminology?

[X-Points East]

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.

[Yggdrasil (DM Andy)]

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.

[X-Points East]

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?

[X-Points East]

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).

[Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)]

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.

[X-Points East]

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.

[Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)]

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.

[X-Points East]

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.

[Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)]

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.

[X-Points East]

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.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

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.