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

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

We had a good discussion in chat about the ways to handle this in game terms, and in the end i think the simplest and most accurate way to do this would be through the terrain rules.
Here is a rough outline of how I see it working.
1.   Guild holders can chose to over exploit a province.
     A.   This generates extra income
     B.   It progressively degrades the terrain of the province eventually to Barren.
     C.   The rate at which the terrain is degraded is dependent on the cumulative total of the extra GB extracted.
     D.   The effects of the terrain degradation would affect the province in line with the secondary terrain rules.
     E.   At some point the devastated secondary terrain will become the primary terrain.
2.   Other possible effects.
     A.   Negative impact on prosperity over time (though the terrain degradation will have this effect as the province level drops).
     B.   Negative impact on Source levels and magic Potential over time (though the terrain degradation will have this effect anyway).

Advantages of this system
1.     The terrain degradation will affect all aspects of the provincial economy (maximum level, Growth Multiplier, and maximum Magic Potential) with one simple mechanic.
2.    The exact rate at which the degradation happens need not be a constant across all provinces, and can be determined by the DMs for each province individually and tracked in secret, so that the players won't know when they will be going too far.
3.    The process is reversible, in as much as the terrain can, if given enough time, revert back to its original state, unless it has gone too far.

[Silver House/ClDh (Bobby)]

I prefer a Prosperity modifier as the primary 'detriment' to the exploitation, with the GMs having the option of throwing Events at those provinces stemming from the damage done to them - flooding, sidhe raids, etc.  This isn't mechanized clear-cutting, tearing down dozens of acres in a day, and changing terrain types on the scale you're suggesting seems out of the scope of the game.  Devastation should have consequences, but not on that scale.  If stronger pressure is needed to respond to player behaviors, I think the GMs can apply it on a case-by-case basis as needed.

[Torele Anviras/TA (Niels)]

If prosperity is used though, then it will be automatically offset by Law and lowered taxes. The penalty needed to discourage it would have to be disproportionally massive. It is trivial to set up provinces to ignore -3 modifiers in  single turn.

I like the base premise RP is working from. But I agree the progression of this has to be on a timescale that matches the tools and abilities actually available.

Maybe we should just drop the devastation as a thing? - It is a major part of the initial tension in Talinie though, so that would have to be reworked.

[Silver House/ClDh (Bobby)]

Rulers should be doing Heavy taxes as a normal thing, which is a -2 Prosperity.  That means that the (ignore -2) from Law holdings is fully occupied.  Handling any prosperity loss would require reduced taxes, which will be a 25%-30% loss to the Law-holder's income.  Widespread Agitation would be at least as expensive.  That should be plenty to 'encourage' law-holders to dislike such activities.  When you add in random events caused by them, plus the fact that the Guilds will be strengthened, I think that's far more than a 'trivial' issue.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

Well Bobby, you'll notice that 2A is just that, the prosperity hit.

I'll see what sort of more formal rule set I can come up with, then we can tweak the numbers some.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

Keep in mind guys that we are not talking huge provinces here. A 50x50 area is not hard to clear cut - we're talking about an area half the size of Connecticut here.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

I don't think it unreasonable to say that area can be stripped over a period of a few years.

[Yggdrasil (DM Andy)]

If you read the canon descriptions of the great oak wall, the land would already have been stripped 

[Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)]

I don't know if this rule is going to be an attempt to make the vanilla rules for devastation of provinces in Talinie due to guild compatible with RoE.

Vanilla rules: It hurt the magic, and possibly prosperity/stability, giving negative events and so on. And it give the guild extra money.


Loose proposal from me:

Only Guild holdings of lvl 1+ can use exploitation.

Exploitation by a guild raise its  level as per bless(+1), for the purpose of collecting gold, but not for RP or for resisting contests and so on.

(either one or both of following effects)
Exploitation by a guild make positive agitation impossible.
Exploitation impose a -1 prosperity modifier on the provinces affected.(per holding doing it)


(either one or both of following effects)
Exploitation count as the guild extra ordinary being able, and forced, to impose hardness on create/rule source actions
Exploitation by a guild count as a free contest on source holdings in the province (this action can't be supported with RP/GB by the guild since it is an unforeseeable side effect. But it can be opposed with RP/GB by the owner of the source holding), lowest source holding in each affected province is always targeted.

[Torele Anviras/TA (Niels)]

Free Contest every turn, in every province, is too powerful though.

Hardness as a side-effect is pretty cool though.

IMO.

[Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)]

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.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

Those are some good ideas Linde, but they really don't give the landed regent any reason not to exploit, a single prosperity hit is easily overcome.

I do, however like the contest to affect source levels, that's an idea worth perusing. However, making it happen every turn is putting an awful burden on the wizards, especially as there isn't any real detrimental effect on anybody else.

One idea I was toying with was that when the number of extra GB equaled the Maximum Source potential, then the max potential would be permanently reduced. Perhaps, as a way of making it a little less onerous on the source holder, we could use that sort of measure, so that the free contest happens whenever the extra GB equals a multiple of the MSP. If the amounts of cash are too low, then the free contest could be triggered at 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 of the MSP and so on.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

What about a stability penalty?

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think that on a turn-by-turn basis, the simplest way to handle it is to consider it a negative event. that will affect prosperity and stability, throw in some negative effect on sources and there you have it.

Terrain being degraded can be implemented as the DMs deem appropriate if the exploitation is continuous and long term, but other than that, just use the existing event rules.

That even opens up the possibility of a regency penalty as well, if the DMs deem it appropriate.

[Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)]

Those are some good ideas Linde, but they really don't give the landed regent any reason not to exploit, a single prosperity hit is easily overcome.

I do, however like the contest to affect source levels, that's an idea worth perusing. However, making it happen every turn is putting an awful burden on the wizards, especially as there isn't any real detrimental effect on anybody else.

One idea I was toying with was that when the number of extra GB equaled the Maximum Source potential, then the max potential would be permanently reduced. Perhaps, as a way of making it a little less onerous on the source holder, we could use that sort of measure, so that the free contest happens whenever the extra GB equals a multiple of the MSP. If the amounts of cash are too low, then the free contest could be triggered at 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 of the MSP and so on.

Well, not being able to agitate positively, combined with prosperity penalty make it bad. In effect lowering your max tax to medium. If you then have a negative event or the need to muster forces, then you would need to have taxes at fair not to take a prosperity hit.... If the province ruler only have the law,  and part of the manor then that would be a serious blow to his income.

And if you want your wizard to cast spells for you, you would likely want the guilds to stop asap.

With the rules I proposed I would seriously consider taking action against the guilds who exploits. If for nothing else, then to keep the wizard, who can cast subversion and make my life hell, happy.

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.