BRCS Chapter 5

[Birthright-L]

Ruling a domain.

There are a ton of miscellaneous changes and house rules which made their
way into this chapter. I`m going to go over it page by page, because it`s
pretty much the most important one, and also the most likely one to be
used in a vacuum (without bloodlines or cerilian races or awnshegh,
someone still might want to use the domain rules, I know, I know,
blasphemy.)

Page 88, some intro text, definition of a province, holding, and asset.
All ok.

Wait, a change, "A province`s level does not represent the entire
population of a province; it represents the buying power and prosperity of
the provinces [sic] loyal citizens and taxpayers." That`s a house rule,
not the original. Why the change?

Table 5-1, population per level. The increments in the population column
are arbitrary, and don`t provide a guide as to how to extrapolate beyond
level 10 for people wanting to run extremely populated areas with these
rules. It should use the "level is proportional to the square root of the
population" guideline, ie province 1 = 1000, province 2 = 4000, province
3 = 9000, 4 = 16,000, etc.

Table 5-2, max province level by terrain, is there any reason the maximum
levels of some of the types were changed, or was it just a desire for
arbitrary changes? At this point, I think the onus should be on the d20CS
group to explain why they made random changes like this, rather than us
having to question each change individually.


page 89, holdings. Some descriptions of holding types, fine. Holding
level description, ok. Maximum number of regents, (table 5-3), wasn`t the
old table different than this one? I want to say it went:

1-3=1 regent,
4-6=2 regents,
7-9=3 regents,
10+ 4 regents,

but I don`t have my book handy.

Where is it spelled out that domain level reduces source potential, and
how? Wait, I found it, but it`s not until page 132, that`s bad when the
domain rules are much earlier.

Also, the form of province level X/Y is familiar to old players, but you
don`t spell it out in the chapter. So it appears in the holding level
example on page 89 ("a guild(3) controls three-fifths of the potential
economic activity in a province(5/1).") without much context. That should
be spelled out right at the beginning.

Next up, the thrilling adventures of page 90! :)
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Mark_Aurel]

Yeah, this is probably the chapter with the most bugs and holes; you might want to say that it got shafted due to some unfortunate problems involving computers and their various components. There will be a patch document out pretty soon that will address some critical issues, and some of the contradictions and bad wordings there are.

Population and province level - this was actually the subject of a bit of a debate at one point. In demographic terms, Cerilia is pretty thinly populated. (I'm sure this debate was had before as well on the mailing list at some point) One of my drafts had even sketched out some quick rules for settlement patterns, but I didn't find it a very necessary or good addition. I might post it later. Anyway, there's four different ways of doing population count that I looked at - using the square of the level; using the levels in a cumulative fashion, and doubling (i.e. 1=2k, 5=30k, 10=110k); using the level and multiplying by 10 000, and simply using the existing numbers' averages (which is the model that is used). Each of these would have different effects on the overall population of Cerilia, as presented in the existing products. There's a couple of considerations about income versus population as well - making income increase mostly linearly, while population increases on an exponential scale gets ridiculous eventually as well (how much more productive are those hunters up in Kvigmar supposed to be per capita than the industrious people of Endier anyway?) - in the end, it was settled that we'd stick to the basic population formula. Somewhere in all of this, the idea of province level as effective buying power must've been created - it's a simple concept of "goblin and Vos provinces can have larger populations than their level would indicate for other realms," I guess.

Personally, I was also toying with another thought in the back of my mind - what province level would ancient Rome have been, given the different methods for determining population; this to provide an opening for those that wish to use the domain rules in non-BR settings. That's anecdotal, though - the bottom line ended up being that this rules set is primarily intended for BR; the main question here is really one of backwards compatibility vs d20 compatibility - it's pretty much impossible to have both.

The reasoning behind the terrain change, as I recall, is to provide a settlement benefit for provinces being close to water or in appropriate climates; i.e. people tend to settle near major rivers or close to the sea, for various reasons.

[irdeggman]

Daniel, can you continue to post your comments in the section set up for discussion of the BRCS d20? It makes them easier to find. Thanks.

[Mark_Aurel]

Duane, remember that as Daniel posts from the message list, he has no control over where his threads end up - it's the moderator team here at birthright.net that's primarily responsible for moving threads to the proper fora here; I just moved this one - there's an administrative options dropdown at the bottom of your screen, I think, which will enable you to do that as well, and I think that goes for the rest of the d20 team as well.

[Birthright-L]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, irdeggman wrote:
> Daniel, can you continue to post your comments in the section set up
> for discussion of the BRCS d20? It makes them easier to find. Thanks.

Sorry, section? I gathered there was something set up on the br.net
board, but I don`t have a lot of control over where the listserve emails
end up. If I reply to a thread in that section, it ends up in the correct
place, right?

I may have to give up and get a br.net login after all.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Mark_Aurel wrote:
> There`s a couple of considerations about income versus population as
> well - making income increase mostly linearly, while population
> increases on an exponential scale gets ridiculous eventually as well
> (how much more productive are those hunters up in Kvigmar supposed to
> be per capita than the industrious people of Endier anyway?)

Well, since you`ve folded domain maintenance back into income, the linear
income growth vs population geometric makes even more sense, as larger
populations require even more spending by the government body. For a
thousand people, you`re going to need some contables. For 10x that many,
you`ll need 10x as many constables, but also several layers of
buraeucracy to manage all your law officers, and accountants to pay them
all, and a network of offices for them in major towns, and some way of
communicating between offices....

> Personally, I was also toying with another thought in the back of my
> mind - what province level would ancient Rome have been, given the
> different methods for determining population; this to provide an
> opening for those that wish to use the domain rules in non-BR
> settings.

I think we figured it out once that a city of a million was a level 32ish
province under the square-root system. The method in the table seems to
be something like square-root rounded down to the nearest 10,000, so a
province 32 would correpond to roughly 1,020,000, extrapolating that
table. It looks like there`s not a lot of difference between the square
table and what you ended up with, and the square table extrapolates
easier. Maybe I`m not extrapolating the table right, since its pattern is
kind of obscure.

> The reasoning behind the terrain change, as I recall, is to provide a
> settlement benefit for provinces being close to water or in
> appropriate climates; i.e. people tend to settle near major rivers or
> close to the sea, for various reasons.

Seems reasonable.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

Page 90-92. Domain assets.

Asset maintenance: why have assets picked up maintenance costs? And why
the odd fractions? Are players really expected to track their treasure to
the nearest twelfth of a GB? If you must go fractional, use tenths, at
least it allows tracking by decimal points instead of "Gee, my treasury is
18 1/3 GB, I have to pay 2 & 5/12 maintenance, that leaves, um..."
Maintenance for assets would be 1/10 of the build cost instead of 1/12.
It`s quicker and easier.

Not that I think tracking such small amounts is worthwhile, by the way.
Several of these assets could generate their own maintenance costs simply
by existing and charging tolls or providing services. The difference
could be made up by having a domain maintenance cost, but you seem to have
done away with that. But I`m getting ahead of myself. Larger assets like
ships, palaces, fortifications, and `woundrous structures` would just have
GB maintenance like they used to.

Wondrous structures aren`t that great, by the way. They`re essentially
extremely expensive ways to turn GB into RP. You spend 25 GB/level to
build one, and then for 2 GB/level, you get 1 RP/level. This is a
mechanic which will never be used, especially since RP are less useful to
most domains than GB.

P 91, Court levels, table 5-5 is screwed up, listing a 4 GB court twice.
It should probably be 0, 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8, 9-10, 11+, since palaces can
increase effective court levels.

The court example is confusing; a holding 4 and a palace 2 in a province
five needs a minimum court 4 but can have a court 7? Better to say that
"A regent whose seat of power is a holding 4 in a province 5 is expected
to have a minimum court of 4; the most he can have is 5. If he has a
palace 2, he can have a court 2 (effectively 4) up to 5 (effectively 7)."
Or something like that.

It seems table 5-4 should be renamed `structure maintenance cost`, since
that`s all it lists. Courts, military units, etc. aren`t on there. If
you just note in the construction paragraph that structures cost 1/10 or
1/12 their build cost to maintain, you can do away with that table
entirely, or make it just a "Structure Building Costs".

Ley lines should be noted to have no maintenance cost (why take out the RP
cost? I`ll bring that up when I do chapter 7). So should Lieutenants,
come to think of it, since all the assets before listed maintenance costs.

I like the trade route rules (take a moment, Dan liked something, actually
I like quite a bit but I`ve been concentrating on the stuff I think needs
discussion for revision). It removes the ambiguity of the far end of
trade routes, and I like the way the GB income is structured, based on
guild level rather than province level. Also, they no longer give RP.
This clarifies the original rules in quite a good way.

Guilds can have 1 trade route if level 1-3, 2 if 4-6, and 3 if 7+ (I`d
expect 7-9, and 4 for 10). Whatever progression you end up using for
holdings by province level, it might be good to have it and the trade
route progression be the same for simplicity. So if a province 4-6 can
have 2 guilds, a guild 4-6 could have 2 trade routes.

Looking at the charts, it seems there will be no highways in Cerilia.
They`re expensive to maintain, the cheapest is 1/6 GB per province it
passes through (.2 GB if you go 1/10), it`s probably not going to be
profitable for a regent to build highways, especially if he`s only getting
.5 GB for each trade route through his lands. If he takes more, the trade
routes are probably unprofitable, so there won`t be any of those. All
trade in Anuire must happen by sea, except maybe around a bottleneck like
Cariele, which could possibly eke out highway maintenance from trade
routes passing through. Though maybe this analysis is wrong.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark_Aurel" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 4:35 PM

> while population increases on an exponential scale gets ridiculous
> eventually as well (how much more productive are those hunters
> up in Kvigmar supposed to be per capita than the industrious people
> of Endier anyway?)

Its not a question of income per capita (you don`t get your hands on
aggregate income, nor are we calculating GDP), its a question of net income.
As population density grows, the role of government grows. People in small
groups need less official regulation and therefore have fewer full time
(read paid) officials. As population density increases, people need more
mediated interaction (because more interaction takes place with strangers)
and that requires an ever greater number of officials. The overlapping of
cultural boundaries (a result of trade, and far more common in cities than
in the country) intensifies this problem.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

pp 92-93, Domain attitude.

I like how it was synched up with NPC to PC attitudes. I like that a
province can now have separate attitudes toward the landed lord, the local
temples, and any guilders.

I`m not sure why there are two tracks for bonuses and penalties. If a
regent is in an area with a helpful attitude, he gets +1 to domain
actions, a 2x his court reputation bonus to Bluff, Diplomacy, Perform,
Gather Info, and Intimidate. One, if Lead is going to be kept (and I`m
not convinced it should be), it should be on that list. Two, these should
track together so there aren`t two separate things to remember based on
attitude. Maybe use the +1,0,-1,-2,-4 domain action modifiers as the
multipliers for reputation bonus too. Someone with a huge reputation (+3)
in a hostile province (-4) would have a total -12 penality to his skills,
which is ok, and may even be desireable. Oh, but the regent has twice
that modifier, that`s not so good. Hrm. If you say instead that the
regent has reputation*modifier, and members of his court have half that,
it works out about the same. Bah. Too much math is bad design. Give the
regent and the courtiers the same modifiers.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

Personally, I don`t think trade routes should be based on guild level; but
province level instead. Say in a Province 10 there are three guilds. Two
are level 4, and one is level 2. What if there were ten guilds? That would
give TEN trade routes.

It would be better to base trade routes on province level; and allow them to
be contested...as in who controlled the most teamsters or some such (so they
could corner the market I guess). Don`t know much about true mechanics; but
I did see this flaw (or I feel like it is a flaw anyway). So I agree with
the fella below.

Tony


----Original Message Follows----
From: daniel mcsorley <mcsorley@CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

Guilds can have 1 trade route if level 1-3, 2 if 4-6, and 3 if 7+ (I`d
expect 7-9, and 4 for 10). Whatever progression you end up using for
holdings by province level, it might be good to have it and the trade
route progression be the same for simplicity. So if a province 4-6 can
have 2 guilds, a guild 4-6 could have 2 trade routes.

__________________________________________________ _______________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Anthony Edwards wrote:
> Personally, I don`t think trade routes should be based on guild level; but
> province level instead. Say in a Province 10 there are three guilds. Two
> are level 4, and one is level 2. What if there were ten guilds? That would
> give TEN trade routes.

There can`t be 10 guilds. You need a guild 1 to have a trade route, and
there can only be 4 guilds > level 0 in a province (10). The most trade
routes you could have in a province 10 would be 6, I think- two each for
two guilds (4) and 1 each for two guilds (1). The total income would be,
um, 9 GB.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

Regardless, the math is off. A guild that controlled all guild holdings in
a province could only have four trade routes; if there were four guilds that
would be six by your count...doesn`t make much sense to become a monopolist.

Tony


----Original Message Follows----
From: daniel mcsorley <mcsorley@CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

There can`t be 10 guilds. You need a guild 1 to have a trade route, and
there can only be 4 guilds > level 0 in a province (10). The most trade
routes you could have in a province 10 would be 6, I think- two each for
two guilds (4) and 1 each for two guilds (1). The total income would be,
um, 9 GB.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

__________________________________________________ _______________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Anthony Edwards wrote:
> Regardless, the math is off. A guild that controlled all guild
> holdings in a province could only have four trade routes; if there
> were four guilds that would be six by your count...doesn`t make much
> sense to become a monopolist.

Sure it does. If there are four guilds, the biggest might be a level 4
guild, who gets two trade routes at 2GB apiece. If you have a level 10
guild, that`s 3 or four trade routes at 5 GB apiece.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[doom]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 08:12:31PM -0500, daniel mcsorley wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Anthony Edwards wrote:
> > Regardless, the math is off. A guild that controlled all guild
> > holdings in a province could only have four trade routes; if there
> > were four guilds that would be six by your count...doesn`t make much
> > sense to become a monopolist.
>
> Sure it does. If there are four guilds, the biggest might be a level 4
> guild, who gets two trade routes at 2GB apiece. If you have a level 10
> guild, that`s 3 or four trade routes at 5 GB apiece.

Yep. There is more "total" profit available in a highly competative
and interactive split marketplace. A single monopoly makes more money
for _themselves_, but does not necessarily provide as much total
benifit/cash flow through the region. I`m not an economisist.. but
that makes a certain kind of sense to me.

- Doom

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

Really? Well see, this is where actually having the document to read would
be nice. I guess nobody is willing to help me get a copy eh? I just can`t
access it in any way with the links for some reason.

Tony


----Original Message Follows----
From: daniel mcsorley <mcsorley@CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Anthony Edwards wrote:
> Regardless, the math is off. A guild that controlled all guild
> holdings in a province could only have four trade routes; if there
> were four guilds that would be six by your count...doesn`t make much
> sense to become a monopolist.

Sure it does. If there are four guilds, the biggest might be a level 4
guild, who gets two trade routes at 2GB apiece. If you have a level 10
guild, that`s 3 or four trade routes at 5 GB apiece.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

__________________________________________________ _______________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campa...gn.asp?cid=3963 (http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

p 93, regents: Not much to say about this. The rule by council variant is
interesting.

****

p 94- the domain turn.

I like the way the adjusting domain attitude step works. Is there any
reason it was moved to be the first step? I liked the way it sat at the
end of the domain turn, so that attitude adjustments from actions just
passed were handled in the same turn.

****

p 95, Collection.

I see the rationale behind the `key regent skills`. Handle multiclassing.
It`s an interesting way of doing it.

One, provinces gave full RP to everyone in 2e. Presumably because the
direct rulership of people is easy to draw power from- anyone blooded can
do it. I`d like that to still be the default. It also fits with the D&D
theory of godhood, where gods draw power from worshippers.

Hmm. D&D gods also have power related to their portfolios. That`s
holdings in BR. Fighters have the portfolio of law, Clerics have temples,
etc. I like that parallel. Sorry, rambling out loud.

Two, the skill lists in table 5-9.

Do feats count for this? Skill focus is +2/+2, so you can have +6 and +6
in the two relevant skills for, say, Law holding collection, at first
level. Actually, you could do it even with the old skill focus, which is
+2 for one skill. So I assume feats don`t count.

As the 3e system currently stands, it looks like it`s designed so that a
character who intends to be a regent from the beginning can collect full
RP from his primary holding by second level. At first level, he`ll have 4
and 4 in the two skills, so he`ll collect 60% RP from those holdings. At
second level, 2 more skill points, and he`s got 100% collection.

Except for guilds, but those are designed heavily towards rogues (no one
else gets 8 skill points by default), only they can pull it off.

Looks like only aristocrats can get both province RP and law RP by second
level, by this design. I`m kind of ok with that.

What you get essentially is full RP by second level, for all four main
classes, and several of the other classes, in at least one holding type.

(There`s a typo in the example on the bottom of p95, it says 80%, but
means 60%.)

The problem arises with multiclassing. If you go into another one of the
basic classes after first level, it will take 5 levels or so (less if you
have a high INT) to get full RP from your new holdings. Is this a
problem? It seems ok.

I like the concept. An int skill and a charisma skill give you RP from
people; the exception is wizards, who were always different anyway. So
it`s ok.

The reason guild requirements were made so high is so that rogues, skill
masters that they are, can`t collect RP from everything else so fast yet
stay single classed, and to focus guild ownership on people with lots of
skills. Experts, rogues, and aristocrats are really the only ones who can
run guilds at full RP. Heck, so many of the Guild skills are rogue & bard
class skills that /only/ they will ever really run them.

The skill list should be cut down, to an int skill and a charisma per
holding. This is actually the only thing that`s really selling me on
Lead. Sources might be an exception- two knowledges work there.

So narrow it to:
Law: Warcraft (=Knowledge-tactics) and Lead (as long as those both are
made fighter class skills). It could just as easily be Intimidate though,
with the same caveat.
Temple: Knowledge-religion and Diplomacy.
Guild: Appraise (=Knowledge-business in 3.5e) and Bluff, + divine spells.
Source: Knowledge-arcana and Knowledge-nature (and spellcasting), +
arcane spells.

That creates about the right class:holding spread, without overlapping
skills. Doing away with 8 skills for guild holders makes guilds
attainable for cross-classers, too; it also simplifies the math and makes
table 5-10 better conceptually.

If provinces are left on the skill chart, and not free for everyone by
default, why is Warcraft used there, and not Administrate, or
Knowledge-nobility?

I don`t like the extra rows on the second collection table. Too much work
for too little payoff, plus you shouldn`t have to crossreference skill
levels and two tables to get this step done. Say instead that if they
have 8 ranks between the appropriate two skills, they get half RP, and if
they have 10 ranks, they get full regency.

****

The third obvious way to do this (the first two being by class and by
skills) is with feats. Is there any particular downside to that?

A feat could be made which allows half law RP collection. A second one
allows full, and has the first as a prereq. Similarly for other
categories. What would be a good prereq for the first feat? The Master X
(ie Merchant) feat might work for that. Or skill focus. So maybe a three
feat chain for each holding- skill focus for the two appropriate skills,
then one which gives half RP, then one which gives full RP.

For example, the Law feat chain.
Lawman: gives +2/+2 to warcraft and lead.
Law regent: prereq lawman; allows half law RP collection.
Master Law Regent: prereq Law Regent; allows full law RP collection.

And then the fourth way to do RP collection is by prestige class, but
that`s really complicated and a whole other topic.

p 96. The second paragraph says "there is a maximum to the amount of
regency that a character can collect per domain turn." Is that just for
domain collection, or does it include vassalage RPs? If it doesn`t
include vassalage, the collection limit should be introduced the paragraph
before vassalage, and vassalage should be clearly stated to avoid the
limit.

Saying that the RP collection limit is twice the bloodline score is dumb,
and it`s an artifact of the needless change of bloodline to be an ability
score. Bloodlines worked great as a number, there`s no benefit to
changing them, and they introduce kludges like this into the system when
made 3d6 attributes. If it is made an attribute, domain collection should
be based on the straight score, which would make RPs somewhat more rare,
and get rid of the perceived need for the `maximum RP reserve` rule.

****

Speaking of which, the `maximum RP reserve` is a house rule which somehow
made it into the conversion. All these pet house rules of the BRCS team
which got tossed in here are starting to bug me, especially when they
don`t fix an obvious, pressing problem, like the trade route changes.

(Trade routes used to make guilders far and away the strongest regents,
providing both RP and GB for minimal entry cost. No other asset did
this, so that is a good change.)

Maximum RP reserve should be a variation, not the default rule.

--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[DanMcSorley]

Bah. Had to get a login so the board would stop throwing my replies in random directions.

p 96- Domain Income.

The first paragraph of this says "Trade routes generated [sic] a base income per season equal to their level." It should be 'generate'. More importantly, the rule a couple pages earlier just says that trade routes generate GB = to 1/2 the guild holding they're attached to, and makes no mention of 'level'. To do so now is confusing.

Excellent explanation of province income, especially the seasonal bits, income tax in winter, rent in the spring, crop shares in summer and fall. The whole province paragraph there is first class writing.

I don't like that the default income model is constant, but I can live with it if the random tables are included somewhere as a variant.

p96-97 The taxation modifiers section is a good variant. It claims that modifiers to province taxation have impact on domain attitude, but this isn't reflected in the adjusting domain attitude section on p 94. There should be a line item, +1 or -1 for every GB below or above standard collection that the regent takes.

Likewise, seizures (which should probably be an action, or at least have a DC) don't have a line on the attitude chart either. They should be at least -1 to attitude check per GB seized, maybe -2.

[Cobos]

Anthony Edwards wrote:

> Really? Well see, this is where actually having the document to read
> would
> be nice. I guess nobody is willing to help me get a copy eh? I just
> can`t
> access it in any way with the links for some reason.
>
> Tony
>
Try simply using this link:

http://www.birthright.net/download/brcs-playtest.pdf

cut and paste this link into the field were you normally type in web
addresses.
that should do it, though please do not spread this link as that does not
count like Arjan want it to.

Sindre
Hostmaster birthright.net

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Arjan]

i also put the pdf in a zip file:
http://www.birthright.net/download/brcs-playtest.zip
A.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sindre Cools Berg" <cobos@SAERS.COM>
To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] BRCS Chapter 5


> Anthony Edwards wrote:
>
> > Really? Well see, this is where actually having the document to read
> > would
> > be nice. I guess nobody is willing to help me get a copy eh? I just
> > can`t
> > access it in any way with the links for some reason.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> Try simply using this link:
>
> http://www.birthright.net/download/brcs-playtest.pdf
>
> cut and paste this link into the field were you normally type in web
> addresses.
> that should do it, though please do not spread this link as that does not
> count like Arjan want it to.
>
> Sindre
> Hostmaster birthright.net
>
>
************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> Birthright-l Archives:
http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[DanMcSorley]

p 97, Domain expenses.

The paragraph listing expenses, the end should read:

"Each domain turn, a regent must cover the expenses of his government, in
GB and RP. The most common seasonal expenses are domain maintenance
costs, court costs, military payroll, tribute, and vassalage agreements.
These expenses are paid from the domain`s treasury and the regent`s
regency reserve."

The sections should then be in order with the descriptive sentence, and
consistently named (domain asset maintenance costs vs domain maintenance
costs, for instance). A section should be added for tribute, to the
effect that tribute is seasonal payment of GB based on prior agreements.
Vassalage is the only RP expenditure listed, so it should be last, and not
bracketed by GB expenditures.

Maintenance costs, again with the 1/12 and 1/24, in the military payroll.
Bad. Go with 1/10 and 1/20. The farthest people should have to go is two
decimal places. And in Domain Maintenance, go with 1/10 of the build cost
for assets.

In the Court Costs section, shortfall should be one word.

The rule that if you can`t pay for your whole court, you lose ranks in it
and can`t raise it up for a year, is a bad rule. Adds extra bookkeeping,
and the idea that `maintaining courtiers must be reestablished with time`
is already covered by the rule that court can only increase 1 GB/ turn.
Do away with this rule.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Lord Grave]

> Try simply using this link:
>
>http://www.birthright.net/download/brcs-playtest.pdf

>cut and paste this link into the field were you normally type in web
addresses. that should do it, though please do not
>spread this link as that does not count like Arjan want it to.


Man, this goes to the list and to the forum. Where else could it spread?
;-)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[blitzmacher]

My Rp thoughts.

In trying to make rp collection more accurate (a good thing), you might as well have made a rosetta stone to decipher it (a bad thing). Provence collection should be equall for all regents, while holding collections should be left for the appropriate character class, limiting the collection down to the skill ranks of the appriate skill used in maintaining the particular holding i.e. diplomacy-law, Knowrelige-cleric, and so on.

[DanMcSorley]

p97-98, Domain Action Rounds intro section

A short section, well written, not much to say.

p98-101, Events and News

Da, um, ok. No major issues. In Natural Event, it says a natural
catastrophe reduces collection for 1d6 months, but collection doesn`t
occur every month, so that`s somewhat unclear.

Table 5-14, maybe call `fair` `partial success` instead, since it amounts
to that.

Gains and losses of regency are well explained. The wierd multipliers are
here again, another artifact of the bloodline as ability score thing.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[DanMcSorley]

p101-102, Domain Actions

Domain actions are divided into Character actions (each regent gets 1),
Court actions (the number you get is based on your court level), Standard
actions (regular domain actions), and Full actions (which are standard
actions, which the regent also spends his character action on). OK, fair
enough, and I rather like the breakdown.

The only difference I`m seeing between a Standard domain action and a Full
domain action is that if a character does a standard action as a full
action, he gets bonuses due to skills. Problem: There are no actions in
the descriptions listed as `full actions`.

Of the standard actions, Agitate, Contest Holding, and Rule Holding are
listed as being available as Realm actions.

A realm action is done as a standard action, but each additional target
requires a Court action to be expended. I like that.

If a standard action is done as a realm action, must it also be full? Or
is that not required? I don`t think it is, nor do I think it should be,
but the writing seems ambiguous.

p 102, Order of Play

Domain initiative, it says is d20 + Bloodline Modifier, but then gives an
exception to say that if your bloodline modifier is less than +0, there is
none. I can see how this intended to prevent unblooded characters from
outdoing blooded characters with low bloodlines; wouldn`t a better
solution be to treat unblooded lords as having a bloodline of 0 (which
would be a -5 modifier)?
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[DanMcSorley]

p 103 Resolving actions

Skill modifier- don`t like it. The regent should get to make an aid check
vs DC 15 or whatever, which provides a +2 to the action check. This
brings appropriate ability modifiers and feats into play too.

Extraordinary success- this should use the rules for extra success in
skill checks from p61 of the PHB.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[DanMcSorley]

p97-98, Domain Action Rounds intro section

A short section, well written, not much to say.

p98-101, Events and News

Da, um, ok. No major issues. In Natural Event, it says a natural
catastrophe reduces collection for 1d6 months, but collection doesn`t
occur every month, so that`s somewhat unclear.

Table 5-14, maybe call `fair` `partial success` instead, since it amounts
to that.

Gains and losses of regency are well explained. The wierd multipliers are
here again, another artifact of the bloodline as ability score thing.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Cobos]

Milos Rasic wrote:

>>Try simply using this link:
>>
>>http://www.birthright.net/download/brcs-playtest.pdf
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>cut and paste this link into the field were you normally type in web
>>
>>
>addresses. that should do it, though please do not
>
>
>>spread this link as that does not count like Arjan want it to.
>>
>>
>
>
>Man, this goes to the list and to the forum. Where else could it spread?
>;-)
>
>
>
That was a problem on my end, I thought I sent it privately directly to
him NOT to the list :(

Sindre

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[DanMcSorley]

Domain Action Descriptions

p 104-105, character actions. Seems fine, the travel rules are good.

p 105-106, court actions.

Build: Fortify has been subsumed into this, which is fine. The GB/action should be 1d6, to make things a little faster.

Disband/Muster: Disband says you have to take this action for each unit you disband. One Disband should affect any number of units. Muster doesn't say how many units you can muster per action. It shouldn't just refer to another chapter, it should have the general rule (ie "Any number of units can be mustered with one action, the muster cost must be payed at that time, they become available after one month.") here for reference.

Occupy should inculed the effects on the adjusting domain attitude roll.

[geeman]

At 11:56 PM 2/23/2003 -0500, Daniel Mcsorley wrote:

>Agitate, forces an attitude adjustment check.

Just as an aside, I personally would prefer if the text went ahead and kept
the terminology of the original domain rules as much as possible. In this
case, I think we could continue to use "Loyalty" and different terms to
express the domain`s attitude towards the regent. I understand that intent
of conversion is to parallel 3e`s NPC attitude rules and vocabulary, but
there are more than one examples in 3e of system features using basically
the same mechanic but applying different descriptors in order to convey
flavor. "Loyalty" is, I think, a better term for the purpose of a system
of domain rules, and if different terms were used along with what amounts
to the 3e system I don`t think anyone would find that too confusing.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[DanMcSorley]

p 106-110, standard actions

Agitate, forces an attitude adjustment check. The old version, most
things being equal, would succeed about 50% of the time, the new one
rather less, and has pretty much no chance of success if it is opposed.
For example, agitating a province which is friendly towards its owner,
down to indifferent, will never succeed. Say it`s a province 4, you`re
agitating with a guild 2. Unless you spend a lot more RP than the target,
your roll will be d20 + 4 (his holding) -2 (your holding), and you have to
roll less than 1 to succeed. It seems the success chance of this action
has been greatly reduced.

Also, in point (4), it says `the target regent`s largest holding`; it
means the largest holding in the province, right, or are all Darien Avan`s
holdings protected by his law(7) in the province of Anuire?

Cast Realm Spell: shouldn`t this be a full action, taking both domain
resources and the regent`s personal attention?

Ceremony: Good to have an action for what kings do while the priest casts
`investiture`. This also contains the old Lieutenant action, and concrete
rules for Vassalage. Great.

Hmm, that reminds me, what happened to the old Grant action?

Contest Holding:
I like the way this reads now, 1d3 reduction if successful, if reduced
below 0 it`s destroyed. Simple, good.

Contest trade route: A temple can contest it? Why?
The DC is ambiguous. It says `10 + the level of the guild`, which guild
does that refer to? If the route runs between a guild 4 and a guild 2,
which one affects the DC? It should probably be the higher one.

Create Holding: fine.

Create Ley Line: OK. Why do ley lines have no maintenance any more? 1
RP per was fine before.

Create Trade Route: fine.

Diplomacy: fine.

Espionage: I like the spy network rule, it neatly replaces the `thieves
get free espionages` rule.

Move Troops: should note somehow that the standard action of this replaces
`declare war`.

Rule holding: the DC should be 10+ the target level, not the current
level. I like the way the DC goes up instead of the RP cost, so the
system works as-written for unblooded rulers, but blooded guys can spend
RP like the old system to keep the DC 10.

Rule province: The cost should be GB equal to the target level (otherwise
it would be free to rule a province from 0 to 1), and the DC should be 10+
the target level.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Athos69]

Error report, p. 102, Order of Play / Delaying

"...For example, a regent with a Bloodline score of 12 cannot delay her initiative below -12. ..."

'-12' should be -11. a Bloodline score of 12 will have a modifier of 1, not 2.

[Athos69]

I would like to make a case for modifiying RP collection as is presented on p.95

I agree that RP collection should be tied to skills to preserve the flavour of 3E (i.e. every class has the chance to learn and use non-exclusive skills, but some classes are better at specific skills than others), but I am of the belief that if you have a Regent who is exceptional in abilities, that they should have a better grasp of RP collection. I would tie the RP collection to the skill bonus, and not the number of ranks in the skill. This would open up the way to more utility in the use of any feat that gives bonuses to applicable skills.

What would need to be done is increase the threshholds of the RP collection percentages to reflect and average ability modifier of +1 or +2, and for higher percentages factor in character use of feats to gain full RP collection.

I too also would like to see the skill list change subtly

Province should be tied to Administrate instead of Warcraft, and Law should be tied to Lead and Diplomacy. Temples should derive their collection from Knowledge (Religion) and Administrate.

Just my 2 cents, YMMV.

-Mike

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by DanMcSorley
Contest Holding:
I like the way this reads now, 1d3 reduction if successful, if reduced below 0 it`s destroyed. Simple, good.
Does this mean, you cant restore your holding with a successful "rule" action? MUST you rebuild it completely? This would be really awfull for the victim...

[DanMcSorley]

On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Ariadne wrote:
> Does this mean, you cant restore your holding with a successful
> "rule" action? MUST you rebuild it completely? This would be really
> awfull for the victim...

Isn`t that the point? You`re trying to wipe them out. You can only wipe
them out in one shot if the holding is level 2 or lower anyway.

This was possible by the old rules, too, but it took two contest actions
to wipe out any holding of any level. This seems better, since you can`t
wipe out a level 10 holding in the same two actions you could take out a
level 1 holding.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

daniel mcsorley wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Ariadne wrote:
>
>>Does this mean, you cant restore your holding with a successful
>>"rule" action? MUST you rebuild it completely? This would be really
>>awfull for the victim...
>>
>Isn`t that the point? You`re trying to wipe them out. You can only wipe
>them out in one shot if the holding is level 2 or lower anyway.
>
>This was possible by the old rules, too, but it took two contest actions
>to wipe out any holding of any level. This seems better, since you can`t
>wipe out a level 10 holding in the same two actions you could take out a
>level 1 holding.
>
I guess what Ariadne tried to say was a game-balance issue:
Old 2E Birthright 1 Contest successfully made a holding contested (no
RP, no GB) but 1 rule ended the contested state back to the original
value of the holding.

It did matter who was faster - the 2nd contest to totally destroy the
holding or the rule to restore it.

Now a Contest, even the first destroys 1D3 levels of the holding, which
means that with 1 action you force the owner of the holding to spend 1D3
action to re-build it to it´s former level.

This makes Contest much more costly in time and actions to spend for the
owner of the holding.

Too strong perhaps, so that the Rule action could have a special
"Restore" function to repair the full contest damage in one action?
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[dekrass]

On the subject of regency and skills, I don't have a problem with most of the skill choices; although guilds are a bit too math intensive. One problem I've run into is that the amount of regency collected gets amazingly low. A fighter recreated from an old campaign had was only gaining 6 RP from ruling all the lands in Taeghas and a law(3). The idea I am currently trying is to give 10% regency for each rank in an appropriate skill instead of using chart 5-10. This gives you credit for any useful training and makes for simple math, except for guilds, they still require excess math.