CHARACTER RULES

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

There's a difference between a tabletop game and a PBEM game? Really? Wow, I never would have guessed. Of course there is, the PBEM gives everybody the time to put more time and thought into things, I mean there's a whole lot of difference between having a week to mull over your options for the next domain turn and having 1 minute or two to do it, so there really is no excuse to take away from the game in the name of simplification in a PBEM, I can if I can run a face-to-face birthright campaign with  8 to 10 players (not everybody showed up every time) without anybody needing things "simplified", then I really don't buy the excuse that it is needed in a PBEM with a week or so turn around time for the DT - that dog just won't hunt, sorry.

[X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander)]

It wasn't my intent to be sarcastic or condescending.

Keeping workload for turn processing as low as possible is a valid concern. The workload scales almost exponentially from what I can see, so there is a big difference between 5, 10 and 20 players. Simplification generally lowers the workload, so I tend to err in that direction when possible.

It's part of why I prefer there being a clear relationship between proficiencies and what they apply to. In tabletop, asking for a clarification on something so you can decide if a proficiency applies takes half a minute, in a PbEM it might take 3 days. For those 3 days I can't resolve actions that directly interact with the action in question, and so on.

So that's why I like simple, concise and un-ambivalent rules when possible, especially in a PbEM. The more open to interpretation the rules are, the more communication they require to use and communication over email takes a long time.

Thematical simplification is for a different, but related reason. When me and a player have to agree on the rules for his or her domain, it's a short conversation to clarify the relevant points and/or misunderstandings in real life. Over email that will take longer. Having the rules generally be consistent and predictable across different roles help with this... less chance of a player discovering the bad way that loosing your regent destroys a mage domain, but not other domains, if domains work in roughly the same manner.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

It wasn't my intent to be sarcastic or condescending.

It was mine.

As for the rest, oh well, you see problems where I don't, and your solutions are themselves problems of even greater magnitude than the imaginary ones they are intended to solve.

I fully understand there are two basic approaches to playing this game, remember you got all pissy about it the last time I brought it up? And the rules at present have enough flexibility to allow each player to chose which approach they want, however, if the sorts of rule changes that everybody around here seems to want take place then that choice will be gone, and everybody will be forced to play one way - and that way is in my my experience (which when it comes to role playing games is pretty damned extensive) is a complete waste of time.

[DM B]

And

Keeping workload for turn processing as low as possible is a valid concern. The workload scales almost exponentially from what I can see, so there is a big difference between 5, 10 and 20 players. Simplification generally lowers the workload, so I tend to err in that direction when possible.

It is essential. If you try 10+ players you simply can't manage all the little details.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

That's odd, you can in person face to face, so I don't see how one can't when one has days to do it in rather than minutes.
Anyway, you guys have a fabulous rule set here, and while it may need a little tinkering here and there, it most certainly doesn't need a major overhaul, and it most certainly doesn't need this God awful set of character rules, but hey whatever, if you all want to geld your prize stud go for it.

[X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander)]

Anyway...

I've been thinking a bit about Regency Collection (RC) and perhaps some of my pondering can be of use to others.

The original way RC was done in 2nd ed worked fine due to the way multiclassing and classes in general was set up. It wasn't the fluid concept we deal with today.

3rd edition changed that and in 3rd ed, basing RC purely on class seems problematic. Consider a 4th level Fighter and a 4th level Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Cleric. They are equally good rulers, but the latter collects every kind of regency fully and can cast spells to boot. In actual combat encounters the single-classed character is clearly stronger, but we don't really use the 3rd edition system for adventures either. Adventures are more down to an ECL comparison, creativity, writing skills and role-playing.

So basing it on having the class(es) or not having the classes does not seem viable. Requiring a certain number of classes or levels to collect regency is problematic because it punishes low-level rulers and it weakens composite domains. Basing it on the degree of multiclassing is complicated and weird (oh, too many fighter classes compared to rogue classes, no more guild regency for you...)

So what to do about regency collection?

I see a few options...

a) Find a default regency collection "magnitude" and stick with it. The default could be that you collect full regency from provinces and 2 holding types, combined any way you want. So a Wizard might have full provinces, full sources, half law and half manors. Perhaps 3 full holding types, in addition to provinces, would better... then composite domains like Ilien and Dhoesone can work fairly well.

b) Level-based regency collection, like Brandon is suggesting here. As mentioned above, this potentially hurts composite domains and possibly Realm domains (Law, Manor and Provinces). It does mean that a high-level regent is an important asset to any domain, which I think is kinda cool... but it might tip the balance a little too much.

c) Some combination of a) and b). For example, every characters starts by being able to collect full province and 2 full holding types (or a combination of halves). Then at level X (maybe 10 in D&D, 3 in Brandon's system) you add another holding type, and a fourth holding type at lvl X x 2.

d) Everyone collects full regency from everything, possibly with the exception of sources and temples. This makes BS the only cap. In this model I like that classes allow you to exceed you regency collection maximum - holding levels of your classes "favoured type" does not count fully towards your max, depending on the number of levels. Fx. for each level of Fighter you have, 1 Law holding level does not counter toward your maximum collection. In Brandon's proposed system it should probably be 2/level. That way a Guild master can collect full regency from X + BS holdings, where X depends on his Guilder/Rogue levels.

Personally I lean towards option a). We figure out what the standard regency collection rate should be and then that is what everyone gets. For some reason I like provinces + 2½ holding types... I think it makes composite domains strong enough in that compartment. The could possible be an option of taking a Regent Action and waiting for some time to pass, in order to change your focus.

So a fighter/cleric with a realm and a temple might collect province, law, temple and ½manors.
A rogue/cleric with a temple/guild might collect province, temple, guild, ½manor.
A fighter with a realm might collect province, law, manor and ½guild.

And so on.

[DM B]

Well thought out post.

Last time I played around with regency collection I went back to basics; I grouped regents into 4 broad classes: Warrior, Rogue, Mage, Priest (I'm sure you recognize those 4 from 2ed!). Everyone collected from Provinces and Law, and then each group collected from one holding type (guess which). Very simple. It also mean that you didn't really need to use the 3E DnD system if you didn't want to - any character from any system could with relative easy be put into one of those 4 classes (or more than 1 class as needed).

I don't think I concluded, but those were my design notes.

[X-Points East]

OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.

[X-Points East]

OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.

[X-Points East]

OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.

[X-Points East]

OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.

[X-Points East]

OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.

[X-Points East]

OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.

[X-Points East]

OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.

[X-Points East]

OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.