Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

I'd got alliances with 4 realms, good relations with my jarls, had two churches and the guilds on my side, attacked with surprise following pre-espionage, etc.

Exactly. And that is exactly how it should be done. Such a coalition, whether started by a PC regent or an NPC regent, is precisely how such a situation should be handled. Not by an arbitrary rule that makes no sense, and that will have to be waived almost as often as it is applied.

This rule, like most of the rules being proposed by Brandon detracts from the role playing and makes the game more like a video games with the aim being min/maxing to game the system. And I am sorry, I completely disagree with you about dumbing the game down to attract players. All you get by doing that is a lousy set of rules and bad players.

And that is the reason for my vehemence, as you put it, I see an excellent set of rules being messed with in an unbeneficial manner for no valid reason. Take it from me, as somebody who has been tweaking and rewriting rules for a long time it is hard to improve on Bjorn's work - very hard, and this rule, like the others being proposed honestly seems to be making changes just for the sake of making changes rather than to correct a flaw in the rules, and take the game in a direction which will be detrimental to the quality of the game as a whole.

The rules should be as lax as possible to allow players to do whatever they want to, and the DM should then give events appropriate to those actions. That is the way the game is supposed to run. One should not be able to predict with certainty exactly how spreading oneself too thin will effect one. If you strip holdings from other regents without killing them, they will seek revenge. And it may take them a while to cobble together an alliance such as you did, but they will never stop trying. The greedy regent will have all sorts of problems based simply on the fact that he made a whole slew of enemies out of his potential allies.

Oh, and your math regarding the GB cost of the actions is way off. "I" have not spent anywhere near that much - but me, my vassals, and allies have spent a bunch - but there are several of us so the GB expense on any one of us is much less.

[Yggdrasil (DM Andy)]

The math is very simple Bob, each action costs 1 GB, each court action costs effectively 2 as you need the court, and then the court carries out the action.  The math is actually under-selling the point as it still assumes 100% efficiency in action coordination and mutual support.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

Yeah,but there like 6 of us spending on one side, and one on the other, so it actually costs each of us less.

[Yggdrasil (DM Andy)]

I don't follow.  You have 6 courts, 6 (sometimes competing) agenda's, etc - they have 1 court and 1 agenda.  Inevitably your cost base is higher as you are paying for 5 more courts and agenda's.

In practice there is a "sweet spot" in terms of number of actions vs more income and the sweet spot moves depending on circumstances, but the spot iss biased towards income (particularly gold) as gold is infinitely scalable in power terms whereas actions need income to be really effective, and successive actions past a certain point inevitably reduce in necessity/profitability - I've had plenty to do in realms (except when playing wizards) but while I could have used another 2 or 3 regent actions easily, another 10 wouldn't have added much as I could do my critical needs and run out of cash well before using the extra 10.

The potential inefficiencies of a multi-realm generally occur when the domains don't pull together if, say, 1 or the 6 hated you and worked against you constantly, 2 loathed each other and spent half their efforts attacking each other and you could only ever get one of them "on side", while another only helped if you paid in full leaving you with only 1 realm to "support you freely" the discrepancy in power gets very apparent very quickly.

The key problem with a romp 'n' stomp usually comes where there are no penalties from pillaging, and province/law get inherent income rather than directly from other holdings, that combination permits the threat of forcible divestiture to be made credibly, which in turn permits the very rapid growth-via-glomph for the consolidator and prevents the building of alliances, experience, etc that would otherwise form against them.  Bjorn's Law holding income rules undermine the tactic a lot (the consolidator would likely try to raise taxes first to get the same/similar income), I'll have to check if he has a pillage penalty.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

You don't follow?
OK, I will say it as simply as possible.
We have 6 incomes.

[X-CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan)]

You don't follow?
OK, I will say it as simply as possible.
We have 6 incomes.

I concur that you have X incomes (6 for this theoretical), the issue isn't about the number/size of your incomes, but rather how much of that potential maximum income you will be able to apply. The one-regent realm, while having less income can focus 100% of their income with one regent's decision. The multi-regent realm needs co-operation to be able to focus 100% of their income. Friction will make achieving the 100% focus only a theoretical possibility for the multi-regent realm (Chapter 7 of Clausewitz's On War is a good read here).

For the record I don't believe that a numbers based rule is needed, but rather the statement within the rules that domains that contain unrelated holding groups are more likely to experience internal friction (events, etc). This makes it clear to players that grabbing everything is likely to result in role-play challenges and leaves the reaction in the hands of the DM rather than a mechanic.

[X-Points East]

OoC:

Might number of domain types conceptually impact a domain's loyalty?

Might number of domain types conceptually impact a domain's effectiveness?

Quotation from Regent Guide:  "Stability is a measure of the overall loyalty and effectiveness of your domain."

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

For the record I don't believe that a numbers based rule is needed, but rather the statement within the rules that domains that contain unrelated holding groups are more likely to experience internal friction (events, etc). This makes it clear to players that grabbing everything is likely to result in role-play challenges and leaves the reaction in the hands of the DM rather than a mechanic.

I concur 100% with that. If the idea is to be broached at all (not something I am at all convinced of) then that is the way to do it.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

Might number of domain types conceptually impact a domain's loyalty?

It may in some specific situations, either positively (Temple of a god of wealth/Luck, etc. owning trade & guild) or negatively (a regent of a LG realm owning evil temple holdings), but there is no reason to assume that it would in most situations.
If you think otherwise, then by all means tell us how you think it would do so so universally as to justify your proposed rule.

Might number of domain types conceptually impact a domain's effectiveness?

Same answer as the above.

In fact, just the opposite actually, as there would be no conflicts between the various segments, so stability would be increased. If the law, nobles, and church (or the church & guilds) all agree on everything then there will be less strife and less political infighting.

The thing is, there is no inherent conflict between the interests of the various holding types, any such conflicts will be entirely case dependant, and be based wholly on role-playing considerations, so role-playing is the appropriate method of dealing with the issue.

Now, if you were to change your rule to be a suggested penalty that applies only to those rare cases where the specific situation creates a conflict, then it would not be an entirely bad idea. But in the absence of any such "fluff"-based case-specific conflict, it is.

[Yggdrasil (DM Andy)]

The thing is, there is no inherent conflict between the interests of the various holding types, any such conflicts will be entirely case dependant, and be based wholly on role-playing considerations, so role-playing is the appropriate method of dealing with the issue.

Now, if you were to change your rule to be a suggested penalty that applies only to those rare cases where the specific situation creates a conflict, then it would not be an entirely bad idea. But in the absence of any such "fluff"-based case-specific conflict, it is.

Where there are multiple regents for different holding types the inherent division occurs without need for DM intervention (the arguments over taxation levels, whether or not to bless provinces, building of castles, level of military, etc are classic examples).  Where that division is artificially eliminated at game-mechanic level by removal of the named regents, this sort of mechanic allows the DM to insert a "base level" tension, which allows the DM to focus their (extremely scarce) time on those realms who are outside the norm.

Ideally all bread-and-butter stuff like low level internal dissent, synergies, tax rates, loyalty, military prowess, etc should be handled by the basic mechanics with the DM then only intervening when the realm is unusual one way or another or the DM is running a plan - if the DM has to look at and fiddle with every single little thing then the game first delays then collapses.  As noted many times already the mechanics also make it easier for people to plan, negotiate, anticipate, etc.

[Yggdrasil (DM Andy)]

You don't follow?
OK, I will say it as simply as possible.
We have 6 incomes.

I concur that you have X incomes (6 for this theoretical), the issue isn't about the number/size of your incomes, but rather how much of that potential maximum income you will be able to apply. The one-regent realm, while having less income can focus 100% of their income with one regent's decision. The multi-regent realm needs co-operation to be able to focus 100% of their income. Friction will make achieving the 100% focus only a theoretical possibility for the multi-regent realm (Chapter 7 of Clausewitz's On War is a good read here). 

Actually the comparison is of realm A - income split over multiple regents and identical realm B - all income in the hands of one regent, because the problem noted is what happens when (generally board/computer-gamer type players) simply glomph every holding in their land.  The single regent has - at least - the same total income since the holdings and province levels are identical in the sample sets.

The inevitable efficiencies of cutting down on the courts of other regents then gives the consolidator a very large surplus to apply as they wish - most BR mechanic systems tend to have a "critical mass" point  in income generation and ROE is no exception - a domain that has base expenses of, say, 21 (4 for holdings, 6 for court, 3 for regent actions, 4 for at least 4 court actions) and income of 24 is eking its money out and likely has only 4-5 units; one with similar expenses but income of 36 is not 50% richer in practice as the gross suggests, but has 5x the surplus wealth to spend on military, buffing actions, etc - it's a serious temptation for the computer gamer who struggles with the concept of "dude, that's people not just resource-generating units, and its r-o-l-###ing-e playing not r-o-l-###-l playing"

They key risk with the tactic is the clean-up problem, short of a major ret-con or similar the game is routinely left with a very very broken set of domains which damages the game, quite possibly to breaking point, the fact that the player tends to have quit / been kicked out is therefore fairly redundant at that point.

For the record I don't believe that a numbers based rule is needed, but rather the statement within the rules that domains that contain unrelated holding groups are more likely to experience internal friction (events, etc). This makes it clear to players that grabbing everything is likely to result in role-play challenges and leaves the reaction in the hands of the DM rather than a mechanic.

Any time - any time at all - that there is a base effect - positive or negative - the mechanics should reflect it, so that the DM is freed up to focus on the ones in need of particular attention, fun, etc.  In practice different military units would cost more/less as pay rates vary, minor lordlings gain/lose ambition, etc - in the game the DM doesn't have time to consider how every unit is composed, their situation, etc, so they need a mechanic to set a "base", and the DM then intervenes when it's special or the player contrives a situation and asks for it to be recognised.  The only real restraint on bread-and-butter rules should be clarity and simplicity - it shouldn't be fear of setting a base or outlining a norm.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

Whatever, I am no longer going to discuss these things with you. You are way out of line.

[Yggdrasil (DM Andy)]

Whatever, I am no longer going to discuss these things with you. You are way out of line.

I don't mind someone asking me to explain rules, or why I think rules are good or bad.

I do mind when the person ignores posts, repeats points that have been answered without explanation of why they disagree with the answer, argues strawmen, etc.

When that person crosses the line into making statements that they know are false - or would know if they had read the other persons posts (the point on the poor applicability of the suggested mechanic for micro domains and minor divergences had been made more than once so my view on it was known) - I will slap them down for it.

Sometimes I'll be right, sometimes I'll be wrong, and sometimes I'll be tired; that's life I'm afraid.

One point of difference incidentally in a tabletop and a PBeM is the lack of face-to-face makes it much harder to identify nuances in position which - together with the much larger player size, lack of personal familiarity and divergent group norms - much of my desire for rules to warn of or divert from issue areas, reduce intervention in low-priority areas, etc comes from those practical problems - it isn't just concern over time available for tweaking and the 3 game issues discussed.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

Whatever, I am no longer going to discuss these things with you. You are way out of line.