Ideas for economic over exploitation (i.e. devastation) of a province

[Torele Anviras/TA (Niels)]

free contest every turn would mimic the effect of excommunication spell.

If it is too harsh to put as effect on something that destroys magic, then perhaps it is also to harsh to be a spell effect?

Wizards would also have Honest Dealings to counter, if exploitation was illegal that is.

Excommunication is a targeted spell with a cost to cast and it can be dispelled, and there are in game reasons it is not used lightly.

There is no basis for comparison. Any guild could use the devastation rule to, for free, Contest a Source owner in 10-12 provinces all at once, with no cost and minimal social fallout.

And Honest Dealings, at last official count, is a Guild Buff spell. Devastation rules would count as a direct declaration of war on any local source holder. A level of escalation that I am not convinced was the intent of the concept.

I'll spend no more thought on That direction unless a GM appears to think it the best idea since forks.

[X-Points East]

OoC:

There are Silver Mines and Gold Mines in Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.20.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

Any guild could use the devastation rule to, for free, Contest a Source owner in 10-12 provinces all at once, with no cost and minimal social fallout.

You left out the fact that they actually get GB for doing it.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

But yeah, I agree. DMs should feel free to make negative events in provinces where guilds are allowed to run amok with this. Possibly giving stability penalty as well.

And the negative event method covers all the bases without necessitating any extra rules other than deciding how much extra GB it generates and how it affects the source potential.

[Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)]

Any guild could use the devastation rule to, for free, Contest a Source owner in 10-12 provinces all at once, with no cost and minimal social fallout.

You left out the fact that they actually get GB for doing it.

Well.  They couldn't do it in more than 6 provinces since devistation and exploitation were ment as rules to specifically mimic Talinies special situation.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

That doesn't follow at all. Yes the idea for the rule comes from the description of  Talinie, but there is no reason whatsoever to say that the guilds in my kingdom couldn't follow suit.

[Silver House/ClDh (Bobby)]

That doesn't follow at all. Yes the idea for the rule comes from the description of  Talinie, but there is no reason whatsoever to say that the guilds in my kingdom couldn't follow suit.

Aside from you, that is.  No reason aside from you.   

[Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)]

That doesn't follow at all. Yes the idea for the rule comes from the description of  Talinie, but there is no reason whatsoever to say that the guilds in my kingdom couldn't follow suit.

VANILLA:
Optional devastation rule:
To simulate degradation of a province, the DM may assign it a "devastation point" during any domain turn in wich the guilds collect more than half (round down) the GB allowed by the province guild holdings.
For every 20 devastation points permanently reduce the procince's magic potential by 1 level.
If the guilds stop cutting and mining in a province the devastation will heal 1 point per turn. However, the citizens loss of income will cause loyalty in that province to drop by one grade.


So, if we run as close to vanilla as possible then the provinces will run out of magic. The guilds wont get anything extra by devestating a province, and the bonus for the landed regent is that he/she doesn't get a negative prosperity modifier.

So if you wanted to nurf yourself, guilds and mages in your land then you could advocate that the rule should apply to you also.

That we twist the rules to actually generate extra income for the guild is fine.
That we twist the rules to hurt the province ruler when the province is devastated instead of when it is not, that is fine.
That we look at how big a nurf bat we will hit wizards in the domain with, that is fine.

But not if your going to use the combined new possibility of a gain as an excuse to put it on every province in the play area with secondary terrain of forest or mountain.

If that is your goal I think we up should keep the rule that guilds only get half income from holdings in Talinie unless they devastate(or holdings count as half their level round down), and the province get -1 prosperity unless the guilds devastate.

In light of that I think the nurf to the wizard need to be as apt and prompt as -1 prosperity and half income to guilds.

Perhaps then -1DAC to all magic actions in the province when it has been devastated.
And leylines and hookups in a devastated province run at double upkeep.


But you could have a point that since we border the same forest the same nurf should apply to your land.

[Torele Anviras/TA (Niels)]

The Vanilla wizard nerf implements just fine as it is:

"
To simulate degradation of a province, the DM may assign it a "devastation point" during any domain turn in which the guilds collect more than half (round down) the GB allowed by the province guild holdings.
For every 20 devastation points permanently reduce the procince's magic potential by 1 level.
If the guilds stop cutting and mining in a province the devastation will heal 1 point per turn.
"

So... If staying close to vanilla is the intent, then the wizard if nerfed every 20 rounds, at most. - But the Ruler and the Guild has to fight every turn about who takes the nerf. (-1 prosperity vs. half income).

And I'd be interested to see the tax difference between Heavy on Halved guild income, and Moderate on Full Guild income.

I am pretty sure the Ruler will tell the Guild to go ahead and devastate. - Leaving the 20 turn clock running.

SO, vanilla devastation can be used exactly as they are, but then it is in fact on the premise that the Talinie lands are poor and crappy to begin with, unable to sustain normal productivity.

Or applied everywhere, it is a Guild holding nerf. Someone gets the short end. A conflict device.

OR it is a result of the WAY the Guilds are making use of their activity. In which case the condition can be eliminared through some ingame quest sequence to alter work practices.

But yea, I think you (Linde) is correct that we, myself at least, misunderstood the premise and thought the Guild got EXTRA benefit from doing it. - But in fact, they MUST do it to match normal Guild income...

[Yggdrasil (DM Andy)]

From recollection, I thought that Dhoesone had fairly similar guild issues and worries over land as Talinie?

I don't think that the "you have to do it to make normal income" rule works - everywhere else the guilds can make full income without impacting source, etc - so why not in Talinie?  Is it's land and climate really so much worse than Hogunmark for example?  I'd expect guild boost vs non-guild hit would make more sense and lead to more interesting RP discussions.  I also can't see how the rule quoted works for provinces with empty guild holdings - why is a L2 producing at full income worse for the land than two L2's producing half income?

A prosperity hit that couldn't be countered by law - probably temporary - is an immediate balancer as all non-guild (and source) regents lose money making them oppose the guilds, the odd flood, avalanche, plague etc thrown in then tips the balance more towards "not on my turf" attitudes for rulers and restricts the action to only lands where the ruler is very weak.

Long term source damage is fine, but a relatively mild problem, damage to the terrain takes time but would upset the manor holders who tend to think in generational terms.


Not a ruling btw, those are for Matt, just an observation.

[Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)]

The Vanilla wizard nerf implements just fine as it is:

"
To simulate degradation of a province, the DM may assign it a "devastation point" during any domain turn in which the guilds collect more than half (round down) the GB allowed by the province guild holdings.
For every 20 devastation points permanently reduce the procince's magic potential by 1 level.
If the guilds stop cutting and mining in a province the devastation will heal 1 point per turn.
"

So... If staying close to vanilla is the intent, then the wizard if nerfed every 20 rounds, at most. - But the Ruler and the Guild has to fight every turn about who takes the nerf. (-1 prosperity vs. half income).

Nope.. Vanilla has guild and regent both perfectly content that they get to live without penalty and then every 20th turn the wizard take the hit for it.
That is IMO not balanced. Perhaps that is why the nerf only comes around every 5th year. But what do it add to the game that 30 years game time from now or sooner, all magic will be gone?


Now if we move the hit on prosp(and make it hit regardless of buffer), we in effect move the province ruler from being on the guilds side, able to sometimes sway to the wizard. To being firmly on the wizards side.
If we do that, then it would make perfect sense that the guilds actually made extra money, since they wouldn't do it for long.
And it would also make sense that the hit on the wizard was revised, since 20 turns would now never come up. (Either remove the nurf to wizards, or make it happen faster. There is no need for a mechanic that will never come in effect. And there is IMO no fun in just having a game clock that removes sources from the game as vanilla nurf in effect is.)



I haven't read up on Dhoesone. They might? It would make sense since they have provinces in the same forest.
But then I would have thought the devastation rules would have been added to the campaign setting rather than Talinie player secrets.

And if it apply in Dhoesone then you could make a case that it apply in all provinces of that forest. From Gorgons Crown to Taeghas.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

You're making it far more complicated than it needs to be.

[Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)]

I won't argue whatever ruling Matt make. But until he do I will question what the different models will bring to the game. Try to illuminate what faults the different models might have. And give my ideas on how the rules could be.

If that is to complicate things then you are right.

[Torele Anviras/TA (Niels)]

I'm back to thinking that Talinie needs a new reason for initial internal tension and dropping this mechanic completely.

[Ohlaak (Alan)]

I have always thought that the reduction in magic isn't tied to devastation per se, but rather the increased civilization.  This is to say that civilization is anathema to mebhaighl, not neccessary, the devestation/damage the land.

For instance, if I take an ancient forest, completely deforest it and you still a plains province with an MSP of 5.