Domain rules

[mhelles]

Hello.

The Atlas Team will real soon begin to work on the realm statistics, including the realm economics.

The problem is that the realm economics rules (i.e. regency collection and maintenance costs) requires a lot of work. While this is fine for a player, I think it'll force the DM to do a lot of administration (if he wants to be accurate and not cheat, that is)

What I am asking for is simplicity, even at the expense of realism.

I think the domain income collection rules are really simple AND good. In contrast, the regency collection system is based on skills. While highly realistic, it does require the DM to figure out the skill-levels of a regent, something that would probably be part of a full-character write-up. Unfortunately such full-character write-ups are not scheduled to be part of the d20 Atlas. (Instead, they will probably be part of an upcoming Book of Scions.)

So, is there a simple (but standardized and agreed-upon) DM-way of calculating regency income collection that we could use in the d20 Atlas?

The same goes for the domain and army maintenance cost system. The realm descriptions simply won't contain all the information necessary for an ACCURATE calculation of realm economic figures.

What to do?

(Oh, besides these issues I think chapter five on ruling a domain is very well done ;-)

[Trevyr]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion
> [mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM]On Behalf Of mhelles


> So, is there a simple (but standardized and agreed-upon) DM-way
> of calculating regency income collection that we could use in the
> d20 Atlas?

Well sure there is: that from the 2e book. Regents collect RP from a set of
holdings they qualify for based on class up to the level of their bloodline
score.

The rub comes in "that they qualify for based on class." There is a
standarization (give in the tables in the original Rulebook, but the nature
of classes has largely changed between 2e and 3e. This has let to much
debate on what holdings multi-classed character should draw RP from. I
suspect that I can anticipate much of the range of opinion with the
following classification:

1.) One character/One Class. This school holds that at the domain level, you
can really only do one thing well, and that multiclassed Regents must select
one of their classes as a Primary class. Once that is done, proceed to
Tables from the Rulebook, and collect RP from those holdings. Opponents of
this school complain that it tosses or diminishes a key aspect of the 3e
upgrade. Strengths is that it remains as close as possible to the original
rules, and is therefore as close to universally understood and easily used
as possible.

2.) All Classes Evenly. This school holds that since a key feature of 3e is
ease of multiclassing, this feature should apply on the domain level as
well. Regents proceed to the Rulebook, find the holdings that apply to all
character classes, and collect RP from all those holdings. Opponents of this
school complain that it is too generous; restrictions on multiclassing in 2e
were an important part of domain-scale game mechanics/balance which is lost
by this school. The school counters that Bloodline score is still a hard
limit on RP collection, and that this should be sufficient. Strengths are
that it follows as close as possible with the 3e rules and thus is easiest
for new players to understand.

3.) All Classes, with Limitations. This school tries balance between the two
extremes above, but usually to the statisfaction of none. The school holds
that RP should come from all classes as in the All Classes Evenly school,
but that balance/separation valued by the One Character/One Class school can
be provided through a separate mechanic. This seems to be the school adopted
by the writers of the BRSC, for obvious reasons. The complaint, however, is
that in doing so the rules for RP collection have become needlessly baroque.

I think the real question is/should be: can we come up with a different
"separate mechanic" for school #3 which can be agreed upon. This can then be
listed in the BRCS as an Optional Rule and still leave proponents of School
2 happy. If we can come up with such a mechanic, then we streamline RP
collection rules for both the BRCS and the Atlas, which can then be written
up according to School 2.

I personally think that a good way to refocus on the importance of classes
at the domain level is to use class-specific skills as the appropriate skill
check (rather than Administrate) on the Create Province/Holding Action, the
Rule Province/Holding Action, and the Contest Province/Holding Action (which
I call the CRC actions). Thus, the skill check to use a CRC action on Guilds
would require a check based on skills that rogues are most likely to
possess. Skill checks for CRC actions involving Temples are based on skills
that priests are more likely to possess. Etc.

I still think that the Domain Skills concept that I proposed earlier would
be the best concept for this. Note also that as I laid it out, it actually
DOESN`T have to increase the total number of skills over which characters
spend their skill points. It does change somewhat the choices that
characters who are functioning at the domain level make when they level up.
For example a rogue who had a domain might be more inclined to spend some
skill points in Knowledge(Geography) rather than Pick Pocket if it improved
his Guildcraft score. A rogue without a domain would wiegh these skills
differently. The concept is reasonably simple mathematically (requirely only
the ability to average a few numbers) and would change only when a charater
levels up.

Mark V.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[mhelles]

So what you're suggesting is this:

The default system to calculate regency income is to use the character class like in the 2e with the full benefit of multi-classing. (I believe this is school 2 above.) I don't see the multi-class benefit as too much of a problem as not many regents in Birthright are actually multi-classed in different domains, e.g. cleric/wizard, rogue/figther, etc.

An optional rule (or rule variant) can then suggest the use of skills (or some other mechanism) for regency income. (School 3, I think.)

To me, that sound's perfect. The d20 Atlas would then probably settle for school 2. But DMs and players that favor realism over simplicity can then choose school 3.

Brilliant.

[irdeggman]

mhelles,
Don't look only towards the NPCs when you figure out how to come up with a way to make RP collection easier (and balanced). I guarantee that there will be more players choosing to be multi-classed when switching to 3rd edition rules, the overall benefits are just too great and it is relatively easy to accomplish vice the way it was in 2nd edition. Another factor to be considered is the use of prestige classes and haow they would factor into RP collection. Face it, whether you (or I) like it or not prestige classes are here to stay. They didn't exist in 2nd edition but they are abundant in 3rd edition and hence we need to be able to address them also.

Overall I think that a skill based collection system, usng skills that favor certain classes for certain holding types, would be the easiest way to address all of the permutations that occured as a result of the game-mechanics changes in 3rd edition and also will handle any future changes seemlessly.

The problem (or question) as Trevyr pointed out is determining what skills to use. The system he put up for discussion is not a bad one, essentially it puts the calculations up front instead of during the collection period. Averaging various skills into a single aggregate one. The "extra" work still exists though.

As we pointed out when the playtest document was put out that the whole domain section was rather rough and we definitely knew that the skills selection/combination issue needed work. I thought that was pointed out by Doom very early on, but I could be mistaken.:)

[Birthright-L]

> irdeggman wrote:
> The problem (or question) as Trevyr pointed out is determining what skills
to use. The system he put up for discussion is not a bad one, essentially it
puts the calculations up front instead of during the collection period.
Averaging various skills into a single aggregate one. The "extra" work
still exists though.
>

This is only half the problem. A bigger issue IMO, is that the current
system is over-complex. The various percentages of the full RP income from a
province that characters at various skill levels can use is bewildering and
unworkable without a spreadsheet.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
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.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Birthright-L


> irdeggman wrote:
> The problem (or question) as Trevyr pointed out is determining what skills
to use. The system he put up for discussion is not a bad one, essentially it
puts the calculations up front instead of during the collection period.
Averaging various skills into a single aggregate one. The "extra" work
still exists though.
>

This is only half the problem. A bigger issue IMO, is that the current
system is over-complex. The various percentages of the full RP income from a
province that characters at various skill levels can use is bewildering and
unworkable without a spreadsheet.

/Carl



Agreed without a doubt, but back to the comment that it was put out for discussin in a very rough form without a lot of playtesting done to check it out.

The percentages were inserted to reflect a progression of getting better at ruling the more you put into it (i.e., ranks in skills). I'm not certain that people have a problem with this concept as much as with the claculations involded due to attempting to capture this learning curve. Maybe the discussion should focus on one or the other of these issues instead of "it sucks".:)

[mhelles]

I understand that the rulesbook is a draft. Which is exactly why I am commenting on it ;-)

I just want a simple, working domain system, with more easy-to-use components like the domain income system. I definitely don't want a system that requires an entire spreadsheet for each domain.

My suggestion above is simple and workable. I love prestige classes and multi-classing, and, of course, the rules should be able to handle them. One simple way to do this could be to grant full RP income for any classes (like in 2e); prestige classes can then be ignored or be beneficial at the DMs option (the rulebook can provide some guidelines for evaluating prestige classes). Players that multi-class into a fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue are more than welcome; although they can collect regency from four different holding types, they'll have four times as many enemies as well. In Birthright, I actually think that specialization is an advantage (but then, that probably depends on how the DM runs the game). I agree that a skill-based system is probably more realistic, but it does require more work.

As stated earlier, I also think the domain maintenance costs system requires too much administration. Most realms will have a myriad of bridges (diferent types), roads (different terrains), taxed trade routes (different agreements), armies (in both home and away provinces), etc. all of which has a different maintenance cost.

One enourmous simplification could be that the maintenance costs for all non-living things (like bridges, roads, etc.) is included in the province net income. But they do cost GBs to build, of course. If the DM thinks PCs begin to exploit this (e.g. by building roads everywhere), s/he can add an extra cost (again, we can provide some guidelines) and/or think of an adventure/event that somehow discourages players from doing this.

I think armies should have a fixed payroll whether they are in their home province or not, like in the 2e.

Etc.

I think these simplifications are not too unrealistic. Most importantly, they do make domain administration a lot easier.

Again, please read these comments as constructive suggestions for improving the rulebook. After all, I think we all want the best rulebook possible! ;-)

[DanMcSorley]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Stephen Starfox wrote:
> This is only half the problem. A bigger issue IMO, is that the current
> system is over-complex. The various percentages of the full RP income from a
> province that characters at various skill levels can use is bewildering and
> unworkable without a spreadsheet.

It should be simplified. You should be able to collect half regency from
a holding by first level, which means the threshold for that should be 8
or less, I`d go with 6, on that little table 5-10. Then full collection
should happen at a total of 10. So a character could be collecting full
RP at 2nd level, like now, but wouldn`t have to max out the applicable
skills at 1st level to collect half, so he could save some skill points
for something adventure-useful if he wanted.

You should note whether skill focus counts for this, by the way. It
should, which means the threholds should be adjusted up a little unless
you`re fine with full collection at 1st level for someone willing to
expend the feat.
--
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.

[Trevyr]

Let`s try this.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion
> [mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM]On Behalf Of mhelles

> My suggestion above is simple and workable. I love prestige
> classes and multi-classing, and, of course, the rules should be
> able to handle them. One simple way to do this could be to grant
> full RP income for any classes (like in 2e); prestige classes can
> then be ignored or be beneficial at the DMs option (the rulebook
> can provide some guidelines for evaluating prestige classes).
> Players that multi-class into a fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue are
> more than welcome; although they can collect regency from four
> different holding types, they`ll have four times as many enemies
> as well. In Birthright, I actually think that specialization is
> an advantage (but then, that probably depends on how the DM runs
> the game). I agree that a skill-based system is probably more
> realistic, but it does require more work.


I hope that worked for you board-readers. I can never remember whether I
need to use the forward slash or the backward slash...

Anyway, I agree that it makes most sense to step back and return to RP
collection rules on the basis of class. The simplest approach to dealing
with prestige classes is just to say that they do not increase the scope of
RP collection unless explicitly stated (by the PrC description or the DM).
You don`t really NEED PrCs to draw RP, since all characters must start out
with regular classes. And it doesn`t eliminate the choice to take a PrC,
just reweights the option of taking another basic class rather than PrC for
PC`s operating at the Domain Scale.

It`s relatively easy to rewrite or add notations to any PrC`s that you think
should increase RP collection scope, but I don`t think it`s usually going to
be necessary (since if collection is based on class rather than skill then a
single level of a class is sufficient to earn full collection). Further, it
adds the interesting possibility of PrC`s designed especially for PC`s
operating at the Domain Scale. For example, a Guilder prestige class (I
don`t remember if one is included in the BRCS) might gain RP collection from
Trade Routes as one of its benefits. This would restore a feature of the
origial rules while (appropriately) increasing its cost. Simiilarly, a
Chevalier prestige class might gain RP from the number of units of Knights
commanded.

Mark V.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by DanMcSorley


You should note whether skill focus counts for this, by the way. It
should, which means the threholds should be adjusted up a little unless
you`re fine with full collection at 1st level for someone willing to
expend the feat.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu


Skill focus doesn't increase your ranks in a skill. It gives a bonus to checks just like the character's applicable ability modifier does. While I understand what you are getting at, it just doesn't seem to fit in with the 3rd ed game mechanics. I mean counting skill focus as an increase in ranks - this would also mean that a character couldn't exceed his max ranks due to class if it counted as such. If the system was specifying a max adjusted modifier, it would also seem to be a little out of whack since it would be rewarding those with high ability scores instead of those who have spent time "studying" and "appying themselves" at getting better at a certain skill. It could work, it just needs some more thought as to the ramifications it could have other game mechanics.:)

[DanMcSorley]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, irdeggman wrote:
> Skill focus doesn`t increase your ranks in a skill. It gives a bonus
> to checks just like the character`s applicable ability modifier does.
> While I understand what you are getting at, it just doesn`t seem to
> fit in with the 3rd ed game mechanics. I mean counting skill focus as
> an increase in ranks - this would also mean that a character couldn`t
> exceed his max ranks due to class if it counted as such.

Forget the ranks, they don`t matter. I don`t want skill focus to improve
ranks. The number on the chart /shouldn`t/ monitor ranks, it should
monitor how good you are at the relevant skills. That includes a skill
focus feat (`extra training`) and relevant attribute modifiers (`natural
aptitude`).

> If the system was specifying a max adjusted modifier, it would also
> seem to be a little out of whack since it would be rewarding those
> with high ability scores instead of those who have spent time
> "studying" and "appying themselves" at getting better at a certain
> skill.

Shouldn`t they be rewarded? To pick a random example, a person with a 18
charisma and no diplomacy ranks is going to be a better regent than
someone with a 10 charisma and 2 skill ranks.
--
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.

[ryancaveney]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, daniel mcsorley wrote:

> Shouldn`t they be rewarded? To pick a random example, a person with a 18
> charisma and no diplomacy ranks is going to be a better regent than
> someone with a 10 charisma and 2 skill ranks.

Agreed. I`m still not too comfortable with the whole "skills determine RP
collection" idea -- but if you are going to use it, then the number you
use in the calculation should definitely be the final total modifier from
all sources (including magic items and racial bonuses or penalties, in
addition to those things already mentioned), not just raw ranks.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
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: "Stephen Starfox" <stephen_starfox@YAHOO.SE>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 6:40 AM


> A bigger issue IMO, is that the current system is over-complex.
> The various percentages of the full RP income from a
> province that characters at various skill levels can use is
> bewildering and unworkable without a spreadsheet.

That`s why no matter what becomes official, semi-official, or
pseudo-official, I prefer to just eyeball which holdings a character can
collect full, half, or no regency for. A simple paragraph describing the
exemplar principle would be sufficient to explain it. It would not be hard
and fast, but apparently Spot checks aren`t hard and fast either.

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]

I would prefer it if a single skill could be used to determine a character`s
ability to rule each type of holding. Here is a proposal. It is very similar
to having a class prerequisite, but does allow characters to cross-train to
gain this ability at high level. If a minimum skill bonus is set (say skill
bonus +5), it also makes it somewhat more problematic for multi-classed
charcters.

Guild: Appraise
A class skill for bards and rogues, this is the ability to know what is
worth how much where - the very most basic skill for comerce. Sure, most
rogues/bards will have many other skills as well, depending on their exact
commercial activity. A thief will have theif skills, a craftsman craft
skills, a merchant merchantile skills. But they all need to know the rules
of comerce - governed by appraise.

Temple: Diplomacy andthe ability to cast divine spells
Class skill for bards, clerics, druids, monks, paladins, and rogues. But
only clerics, druids and paladins ever cast divine spells.

Source: Knowledge (Arcana) and ability to cast arcane spells
Class skill for bards, clerics, monks, sorcerers, and wizards, but only
bards sorcerers, and wizards can cast arcane spells.

Law: Ride
While ride skill might seem spurious, the most important distinction between
commoner and noble is the ability to ride, and ride well. Riding ability
confers prestige. Ride is also the only skill that a suitable set of classes
have as a class skill: barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[geeman]

At 04:59 PM 3/26/2003 -0500, Ryan Caveney wrote:

>I`m still not too comfortable with the whole "skills determine RP
>collection" idea -- but if you are going to use it, then the number you
>use in the calculation should definitely be the final total modifier from
>all sources (including magic items and racial bonuses or penalties, in
>addition to those things already mentioned), not just raw ranks.

To me this should really be one or the other. Characters should collect RP
based on their character classes, based their ranks in particular
skills. Combining the two concepts leads to a rather muddled system that
makes the restrictions rather anemic. It seems more sensible to just open
up RP collection to any character regardless of skill, class, etc. if one
is going to allow for both methods at once.

Having said that, the problem with the skill based approach, IMO, is that
it is arguable on many levels what skills should apply to which domain
feature, and what ranks would be required to order to collect regency. I
could see an argument for several different skills for each of the
holdings. An argument could be made that Sense Motive is the paramount
skill in collecting regency, and that it should allow regency collection
from all types of holdings. At what point should ranks be an
issue? 5? 10? 15? Should different ranks allow for different
percentages of RP collection? Should feats that improve skills influence
how much RP one can collect? There are too many permutations possible, one
could write a whole chapter on the possibilities, and none in particular
strikes me as standing out amongst the rest as being demonstrably superior
to any other. Combining a skill based approach with a character class
based approach adds a level or three of more options to how one could view
RP collection. Character class alone as the basis for RP collection has
the benefit of simplicity if nothing else.

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.

[ConjurerDragon]

Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, daniel mcsorley wrote:
>
>>Shouldn`t they be rewarded? To pick a random example, a person with a 18
>>charisma and no diplomacy ranks is going to be a better regent than
>>someone with a 10 charisma and 2 skill ranks.
>>
>Agreed. I`m still not too comfortable with the whole "skills determine RP
>collection" idea -- but if you are going to use it, then the number you
>use in the calculation should definitely be the final total modifier from
>all sources (including magic items and racial bonuses or penalties, in
>addition to those things already mentioned), not just raw ranks.
>
And if we limit collection of RP by skill of regent, then we should also
limit the collection of GB by the same logic ;-)
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.

[Eosin the Red]

On the collection of RP:

Why can`t each character be assigned 150% collection potential? If he was a law regent, he might collect 100% from Law holdings and 50% Guild holdings. A Paladin might choose 100% Law and 50% Guild. A cleric might take 100% temple and 50% law.

Wizards as always bite the regency bullet - and just collect 100% source. I suppose you could give them 150% and they could do 100% Source, 25% Law & 25% Guild?

The base percentages should be fluid during construction. FREX: Haelyn`s Clerics might take 75% Law and 75% Temple? Harold Khorien might take 100% Magic and 50% Law, while a wizard/priest regent of Medoere might (unwisely) take 50% Law, 50% Temple, and 50% Source.

This allows the player some control but divorces the process from all of the problems associated with basing it on endlessly variable classes, PrCs, and multiclassing?


Eosin

************************************************** **************************
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.

[ryancaveney]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Eosin the Red wrote:

> The base percentages should be fluid during construction. FREX:
> Haelyn`s Clerics might take 75% Law and 75% Temple? Harold Khorien
> might take 100% Magic and 50% Law, while a wizard/priest regent of
> Medoere might (unwisely) take 50% Law, 50% Temple, and 50% Source.

I really, really like this approach!

It is *vastly* superior to nearly anything else I`ve ever heard suggested
on the topic. If RP collection is to be limited based on holding type,
this is definitely the way to do it. Personally, I am still partial to
"everyone gets 100% of everything", but if I were to change from that I`d
change to this.

One question: can you change your mind later? If so, what penalties, if
any, would the changer face? One way I can see to do it is to spend one
domain turn collecting regency using the lower of the new numbers and the
old numbers.

Thanks, Eosin! This is immensely better than multiclassing.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
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.

[ryancaveney]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Gary wrote:

> To me this should really be one or the other. Characters should
> collect RP based on their character classes, based their ranks in
> particular skills. Combining the two concepts leads to a rather
> muddled system

I agree. (You`re missing an "OR" after the comma, yes? Well, an
"XOR", really, but I don`t know how widely known that operator is.
And an "on" after the second "based", but that`s less critical.)

> that makes the restrictions rather anemic. It seems more sensible to
> just open up RP collection to any character regardless of skill,
> class, etc. if one is going to allow for both methods at once.

Again, agreed.

> An argument could be made that Sense Motive is the paramount skill in
> collecting regency, and that it should allow regency collection from
> all types of holdings.

The same could be said for Diplomacy.

> There are too many permutations possible, one could write a whole
> chapter on the possibilities, and none in particular strikes me as
> standing out amongst the rest as being demonstrably superior

Agreed! There`s just too much to tune.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
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]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
> And if we limit collection of RP by skill of regent, then we should also
> limit the collection of GB by the same logic ;-)

No, that`s blatently stupid. In the original rules, GB collection was
limited by nothing, RP collection by class. The skill RP limit is an
attempt to replace the latter in 3e, and the former doesn`t need replacing
at 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.

[Trevyr]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion
> [mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM]On Behalf Of Ryan B. Caveney

> > There are too many permutations possible, one could write a whole
> > chapter on the possibilities, and none in particular strikes me as
> > standing out amongst the rest as being demonstrably superior
>
> Agreed! There`s just too much to tune.


Exactly, which is why I think we should stay with the default, and base RP
collection on classes as in the original rules.

Mark V.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[geeman]

At 06:35 PM 3/26/2003 -0500, Ryan Caveney wrote:

> > To me this should really be one or the other. Characters should
> > collect RP based on their character classes, based their ranks in
> > particular skills. Combining the two concepts leads to a rather
> > muddled system
>
>I agree. (You`re missing an "OR" after the comma, yes? Well, an
>"XOR", really, but I don`t know how widely known that operator is.
>And an "on" after the second "based", but that`s less critical.)

Right, there should be an "or" in there. The grammar checker in my new
Brain Transcription Device is still a little buggy... plus the socket leaks
a bit. Last time I buy wetware by mail order....

> > An argument could be made that Sense Motive is the paramount skill in
> > collecting regency, and that it should allow regency collection from
> > all types of holdings.
>
>The same could be said for Diplomacy.

Yeah, I could make an argument for several skills being the basis of
regency collection; concentration, profession (politics), innuendo....

> > There are too many permutations possible, one could write a whole
> > chapter on the possibilities, and none in particular strikes me as
> > standing out amongst the rest as being demonstrably superior
>
>Agreed! There`s just too much to tune.

I should note that I wouldn`t mind seeing such a chapter, though.... I
don`t think I`d use it for BR, unless someone really hit the ball out of
the park with it, but as part of a while Regency Rules text that handled
rulership the way Manual of the Planes handles cosmology it might be good.

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.

[Peter Lubke]

On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 09:54, Eosin the Red wrote:
On the collection of RP:

Wizards as always bite the regency bullet - and just collect 100% source.

This allows the player some control but divorces the process from all of
the problems associated with basing it on endlessly variable classes,
PrCs, and multiclassing?


Eosin

I use system where the regent collects RP equal to the highest of their
domain power of all holding types (province, temple, guild, source, and
law), or their bloodline score if that is higher.

This means that a regent of any class can build a domain of any
composition.
It also favors building domains that are principally of one type of
holding from the point of view of optimal RP collection.
It`s also simple and uncluttered with exceptions.


For example: Medoere, RCS
Suris Enlien:
collects 10 DP for temples - with a one point bonus for every realm in
which the faith maintains a temple, or 2 points if it is the state
religion, or 3 points if it is a theocracy -- so in this case 14 DP

collects 4 DP for law -- with a one point bonus for every unit,
allowing that such leader who use a great deal of law and units are
highly militant leaders (e.g. Avan has a law total of 84 or more) -- but
the Medoere in my Cerilia maintains just 4 units -- law total 8 DP


collect 9 DP for provinces -- no modifiers, but note that province size
is always >= the individual sum of the enclosed holding types.

I have considered allowing up to four bonus points per realm, based upon
the appointment of lieutenants to the roles (but not necessarily the
title) of spymaster, head diplomat, army commander, and court wizard -
such person must be a regent themselves controlling a domain that is
principally guild-based, temple-based, law-based, or source-based
respectively; or they may be characters with a class of rogue, priest,
warrior, or wizard respectively. Using such a rule, Enlien would gain +1
for having Kotrin Skirvin as the army commander for 10 DP total.

Enlien has a 32 bloodline score, a value greater than her prestige and
power from any individual holding type. That is, her personal power and
aura, her presence, personal influence, the respect she gains from her
bloodline, is greater than that befitting her position as regent of such
small domains.

Because here greatest holding type score is 14 for temple, Enlien is
seen principally as a faith regent. She gains the free agitate action.
Her greater bloodline gives her a greater influence than would normally
be associated with a regent of a small faith -- she gains full advantage
to have 32 RP per turn. (RP cannot accumulate)

This is a bit of a boost compared to standard 2e BR rules, where she
would have gained: 9 for provinces, plus 10 for temples, plus, half of 4
for law, for a total DP of 21.

I do maintain however that the rulebook entry describing the effect of
bloodline score on RP collection is a typo. That what was meant was
maximum of DP and bloodline score, rather than minimum -- for which
there is a huge amount of supporting data in the source-books and which
is logically and mathematically more correct.

e.g. Roesone is stated as collecting 30 RP per turn, her bloodline score
is 24. Her domain size is 21 points from provinces and 9 points from law
for a total of 30.
e.g. el-Hadid is stated as collecting 25 RP per turn, his bloodline
score is 10. His domain is 25 points of guild. Anyone else here
following the pattern?
e.g. Boeruine is stated as collecting 91 RP per turn, his bloodline
score is 60. His domain size is (anyone want to make a wild stab?)


e.g. Donalls is stated as collecting 41 RP per turn, her bloodline score
is 30. Her domain is 18 for provinces, and half of 10 for 5 for law, and
33 for temples. Now this doesn`t work for any theory.
She could be 30, 56, 41, or 33 depending on how you interpret the data.

Using maximum does help explain how small domains led by powerful
regents can still exist and compete. e.g. Rhuobhe, the Spider, Imperial
City.

************************************************** **************************
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]

From: "Mark VanderMeulen" <vander@BIOLOGY2.WUSTL.EDU>

>...which is why I think we should stay with the default, and base RP
> collection on classes as in the original rules.
>

This IS the easiest way, and could actually work. Multiclassing in DnD is
not as generous as it looks at first.

When I picked up 3e, I thought everyone would multiclass. But IMC they have
not - not have I done so in campaigns held by others. Fighers often pick up
another class, but few other characters do, unless they find an appropriate
prestige class. And if we let a single level in a core class open up regency
collection from a certain type of holding, there is no need to let the
prestige classes have any effect at all on regency - since to qualify for a
cleric-oriented prestige class, you`d presumably already have levels of
cleric, so it would be redundant.

Different classes have different reasons not to multiclass. Note that I`m
not talking about prestige classes here - but if we exclude PrCs from
regency collection, that is not a problem.

For spellcasters, it is damn expensive. Nothing justifies the lessening of
you effective caster level. The possible exceptions are taking a level of
fighter as a cleric or a level of paladin as a sorcerer - but this is still
not cheap.

A paladin or rogue gains so many class abilities that improve over levels
(mainly smite, mount and sneak attack), that multiclassing is almost as bad
as it is for a spellcaster.

For barbarians, fighters and rangers, it is relatively cheap to multiclass -
a level or two of barbarian, rogue, paladin or ranger is mostly a good idea.
I figure this is a part of the balance of the fighting classes - they are
somewhat lacklustre, and can use this boost.

And the 20% XP penalty for multiclassing outside your favored class IS a
real limitation. It is mitigated for humans, but it is still there.

************************************************** **************************
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 Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
>
>>And if we limit collection of RP by skill of regent, then we should also
>>limit the collection of GB by the same logic ;-)
>>
>No, that`s blatently stupid. In the original rules, GB collection was
>limited by nothing, RP collection by class. The skill RP limit is an
>attempt to replace the latter in 3e, and the former doesn`t need replacing
>at all.
>
The reason I brought it up is that as someone else stated earlier, that
roleplaying restrictions can´t replace rules.
Anuirean Knights, Paladins or fighters or even Wizards are not supposed
to run guilds - but in any game I have participated or looked at, some
rulers tend to take over the local NPC guild as the first thing they do
to raise funds (e.g. Dhoesone in COG II). That despite the fact that
even the most powerful countries do not run the guild themselves, but
through a vassal or ally, e.g. Boeruine, Avanil, Ghoere - and certainly
those powers could have taken over the guilds long ago.

A RP collection restriction does not stop this, as most regents are
already limited by their bloodline in collecting RP.
The desire to take over guilds is gold from the guilds and gold from
traderoutes. To prevent such a takeover, or at least to make it more
difficult could be achieved by making income dependant on skill.

Would not a guilder with appraise and administration be better at
running a guild than someone else who lacks those skills?
At least in a skill-based system as 3E it would make sense to make
income dependant not only on the size of the holding ruled, but also on
the skill to administer it skillfully.

And it would create a situation where to place trust in a vassal or ally
is the better option than simply ignoring traditions and taking over the
guild and doing the filthy money-lending while being the highly-noble
lord of the land ;-)
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.

[irdeggman]

Michael Romes,
Wouldn't the skill checks put us back into a more cumbersome method of collection? As I recall this thread started with the complexity of the RP collection system. Not to say that what you are saying doesn't make sense.

[ConjurerDragon]

irdeggman wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1492
>
> irdeggman wrote:
> Michael Romes,
> Wouldn`t the skill checks put us back into a more cumbersome method of collection? As I recall this thread started with the complexity of the RP collection system. Not to say that what you are saying doesn`t make sense.
>
Not more cumbersome than RP collection in the draft 0.0.
Instead of income rolls for every holding, you could make a skill check
to see how much you earn in a range between the minimal and maximal
income. Only characters with the approbiate skills (Administration?
Appraise?) could take the full benefits, all others get only minimum income.

And to make things easier: Why not change Blight and Bless from the
current +1 to holding level to the same the computer game used: Blight:
Minimum collection, Bless Maximum collection?
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.

[esmdev]

I vote to loose the fractions. :)

Also, I think that if you're going to reduce the overall income of the domains, you should consider losing the payments on bridges, seaports, etc... Take Ilien for example... it should be a sea power, but it can't afford to because the income under Rogr Aglondar is only 7 gold bars. After paying for court and military costs, you can't afford to have a port or shipyard. I suppose you could generate 3 more gold bars by performing an alchemy realm spell every round, but that gets kind of repetitive. You could adventure every round, but can you honestly make enough gold adventuring in 3rd edition to come close to domain level monetary requirements?

I'm sure the design team has done some internal testing, but has anyone on the team done any testing with Ilien? Its pretty sad, in the 2nd edition rules the regent of Ilien could come out of the gate expecting to do okay, under the draft rules you're pretty well bankrupt after a few turns.

We're going to try Roesone today, maybe will do better...

[Fardo]

I disagree with your out off money theorem

Well in my opion Illien was capable to manage itself due too its ley lines ... generate money with that ... and rhoere and diemed where in need of magic due to spiderfell..


Illien is also one off the centres of trade .. so I didn't have problems

[esmdev]

Originally posted by Fardo

Well in my opion Illien was capable to manage itself due too its ley lines ... generate money with that ... and rhoere and diemed where in need of magic due to spiderfell..

Illien is also one off the centres of trade .. so I didn't have problems

Unfortunately, ley lines only get you so far when you're consistantly contested for the sources.

Also, the regent of Ilien cannot establish trade routes as he doesn't start with a guild. All the guild holdings are held by El-Hadid.

[Mark_Aurel]

A highly valid concern.

This problem doesn't just apply to the new system, though - it was also pretty common in the original. I remember reading through some of the Rjurik material especially, and wondering pretty much the exactly same thing; for some realms, their first action would generally have to be disbanding a substantial portion of their army, as far as I could tell.

Looking at Ilien as it stands, there's a base income of 9 GB; 7 for the province (7) and 2 for the law (7). I'm going to look a bit at this particular issue, though.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "esmdev" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 1:22 PM


> I think that if you`re going to reduce the overall income of the
> domains, you should consider losing the payments on bridges,
> seaports, etc... Take Ilien for example... it should be a sea power,
> but it can`t afford to because the income under Rogr Aglondar is
> only 7 gold bars. After paying for court and military costs, you
> can`t afford to have a port or shipyard.

This all depends on what you mean by Ilien. I rather think that Ilien could
only be a sea power by way of trade. Since his lordship the count Rogr has
no trade income, why should we imagine him a sea power? What resources does
he command to achieve this? Perhaps El-Hadid strikes a deal familiar to
medievals. El-Hadid builds a shipyard in Ilien. The ships built there fly
the flag of Ilien, and can be called upon by the count, who then also pays
their maintenance.

As an aside, where does El-Hadid get the Khinasi goods he is so famous for?
He has no trade links with any Khinasi realms?

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.

[Peter Lubke]

On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 07:07, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

[/I]
----- Original Message -----
From: "esmdev" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 1:22 PM


> I think that if you`re going to reduce the overall income of the
> domains, you should consider losing the payments on bridges,
> seaports, etc... Take Ilien for example... it should be a sea power,
> but it can`t afford to because the income under Rogr Aglondar is
> only 7 gold bars. After paying for court and military costs, you
> can`t afford to have a port or shipyard.

This all depends on what you mean by Ilien. I rather think that Ilien could
only be a sea power by way of trade. Since his lordship the count Rogr has
no trade income, why should we imagine him a sea power? What resources does
he command to achieve this? Perhaps El-Hadid strikes a deal familiar to
medievals. El-Hadid builds a shipyard in Ilien. The ships built there fly
the flag of Ilien, and can be called upon by the count, who then also pays
their maintenance.
[/I]

Officially, from Cerlian Navies p15
"Ilien: A sea trade route exists from Ilien to Ruorven in Coeranys
generates 6 GB/domain turn for one guild.
Navy: 2 galleons, 4 caravels, 2 coasters.

Officially, from PS Ilien p 24
"Given the enormous population of the Free City, it is possible for
Ilien to raise a respectable army despite the domain size."

This was written before the introduction of sea power (navies) to
Cerilia (rule writers). However Ilien is almost an island being surround
on at least 90% of its border by water. It is reasonable to assume that
what was true for an army is also true for a navy. i.e. that: "..it is
possible for Ilien to raise a respectable navy despite the domain size."

In fact, given the geographical features of Ilien, and the castle(7)
importance in defense, and its strong reliance on trade income (see
below), the navy would be the preferred branch of the military. The
marine component of the Ilien navy would be more than equal to the task
of defending the castle walls, and the navy more than capable of
supplying the city against siege.

IMC, Ilien has a navy of seven(7) caravels - which turns out to be lots,
as it is more than any other single realm in Anuire. (and there are no
galleons built anywhere) Boeruine has 6 caravels. [all my realms assume
the original RoE source-book sizes of populations and military unit
sizes, and a time-scale that is late-roman empire/early medieval/dark
age equiv to c 500 AD.

I base the naval capability of a realm on its ability to support naval
operations - Ilien has a value of 7x3 = 21, the Imperial City is 10x2 =
20 (but this is split between two regents), Boeruine has 15 pts,
Brosengae 8 pts, Taeghas has 12 pts, Diemed has 15 pts, Avanil 10 pts
(yes I know sounds low for Avanil but its not their main military arm -
and it has Taeghas and Brosengae as vassals/allies hasn`t it?)



As an aside, where does El-Hadid get the Khinasi goods he is so famous for?
He has no trade links with any Khinasi realms?

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com



Officially, from RoE p 19
"El-Hadid has a fleet of several ships that continuously make the run
between Ilien and Ariya."

(Note: This earlier document is in conflict with the "Ships of Cerilia"
document. Personally, I find that RoE is in this case more consistent
with other information given in source materials.)

Personally, IMC, el-Hadid has three trade routes from Ilien (the maximum
I allow for a guild of size 7), two of which are sea trade routes to
Khinasi lands generating 12 GB to the economy of Ilien province, bumping
to a grand total of 28 GB in a single province. Taxes (to the Count) are
usually 13 GB, with the temples sharing 5 GB between them and el-Hadid
taking the rest (10 GB).

From a demographics point of view (IMC), this makes Ilien the richest
single province in Anuire with a distributed wealth value per population
point of 4.0 GB, and with a gross income (28 GB) the equal of the
Imperial City.

Officially, from RoE p 14
"Its capital is the Free City of Ilien, located at the mouth of the
Adele river. ... None of the several other towns that dot the province
approach the size of the Free City."

Yet on the map, there is a second town/city (Aenier) within the bounds
of the province of Ilien - the only province to have two marked cities!
Think on what that might mean to the level of urbanization in the
province.

Officially, from PS Ilien p 7
"Aenier is a port catering to the wealthy travelers passing through the
straits - a place that offers pleasures like no others found in southern
Anuire."

(There`s a quote somewhere which I haven`t tracked down which talks
about Endier, in that it states that because of Endier being situated at
the junction of two major river it can almost match Ilien and the
Imperial City for trade income.)

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Eosin the Red]

> Also, the regent of Ilien cannot establish trade routes as he doesn`t start with a guild. All the guild holdings are held by El-Hadid.


Do you mind posting the data from Ilien? I would like to see it without having to redo it all. I think I see what problem you have.

Castle 7 = big GB
Seaport = Big GB
Ship building = Really Big GB
Road = tiny GB
1, maybe 2 units = 1 GB
Court = 7 GB a season

Total income = 10 GB (?), the castle and court have a higher maintenence than the total revenue generated.


hmmmmm.

Eosin

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Eosin the Red]

>>> From: Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>
As an aside, where does El-Hadid get the Khinasi goods he is so famous for? He has no trade links with any Khinasi realms?


From his master, the Serpent, of course :)

************************************************** **************************
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.

[mhelles]

I think the "economic balance problem" of Ilien is that the domain income rules favors distributed populations, i.e. populations spread out over several provines instead of many people in the same province. For example, according to the domain rules a province (level 7) yields only 7 times the income of a province (level 1) even though the the province (level 7) has 40 times the population.

[kgauck]

My references to city states include the surrounding countryside, not just
the metrapolitan. So, the province of Attica would countain the city of
Athens. Greek city states were perfectly able to control a number of
provinces, they proved incapable of exceeding a small number of provinces as
we would know them in the BR system. Sparta was throughouly tied down by
its occupation of Messenia.

A city state system of realm management would be like the multiclassing
penalty. Each province after some small number would generate less and less
income until provinces began to actually produce negative wealth and RP. A
city like Endier would be powerful, because it gets 100% of a large income.

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.

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Shade wrote:

> After reading a subsequent mail (the only other one I have received)
> I have a better understanding of how your system works. But even in
> that email, you don`t explain how you are supposed to divide province
> income between the province ruler and the holdings.

I`ve been reading Bjorn`s rules on the web, and think I now have the
answers to some of our questions. However, he hasn`t actually posted the
war rules, so I can`t be sure of the army maintenance costs; based on what
I`ve been able to infer from other sections, though, his costs are quite a
bit higher than those from the original rules.

Note: I am now presenting *Bjorn`s* rules, not my own, so I may make
mistakes. I hope he will correct me, and not mind too much that I am
posting just snippets from his overall system.

> I read this:

> > - Holdings (except law and source of course) generate 1 GB/holding
> > level, as do trade routes (I also have an additional holding type,

It looks to me like Bjorn treats TRs as holdings as well; there doesn`t
seem to be a specific destination province, and they get created at zero
and ruled up like everything else.

> > In addition, the province level itself generates wealth equal
> > to a holding of its level. So a province 5 might have an ideal
> > "production" of GBs of say 25 which is the redistributed by law
> > claims).

"Ideal" production means all moneymaking holding types are equal to the
province level. If you have a similarly maximum size law holding, then
you get your choice of between 10% and 100% of this money in taxes; if you
have less than the maximum possible law holding level for that province
level, your collection is reduced proportionately.

The easiest way to discuss it is to give a formula: a holding of level H
in a province of level P taxed at a rate of T by a law holding of level L
gives the tax collector LHT/5 GB. T is the tax rate as a fraction (0.2
= 20%, etc.); it can be set at 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 80% or 100%.
Tax less than 30% gives what is effectively a positive loyalty shift
(Bjorn calls it prosperity, and there are 14 gradations of it which affect
income and action resolution target numbers, but for now think of it as
loyalty), and tax above 30% gives a negative loyalty shift; for tax above
50%, even a full law holding cannot prevent a negative net shift.

Where did P go in that formula, you may ask? Well, the number of GB a
holding of level H generates in a province of level P for its owner if
taxation were zero is HP/5; and the effective resultant tax rate of
setting a rate of T for loyalty purposes, given that you hold only L out
of P total law holding levels possible, is actually T times L/P; so the P
cancels out. This is a nice touch.

Oh, and the 5 is a consequence of Bjorn`s "manor" and "trade" holding
types; in a generalized system, this number would be one more than the
number of moneymaking holding types. One alteration I might consider
would be making the province count as several holdings; for example, in
the standard BR system with two cash-cow holdings (temple and guild), you
could keep 5 as the divisor and treat the province income as coming from
three holdings of its level (set H=3P instead of H=P in HP/5 and LHT/5).

> But I did not think this was very clearly written, since it doesn`t
> say what the function of taxation is. My guess, after rereading
> several times, is that it redistributes income from an even spread
> to the favor of the law holder.

It sure looks that way. That observation leads to this thought: since
province level appears to be treated as just another holding type in the
income system, it seems to me that a province ruler gets one-fifth P
squared GB without having to set a non-zero tax rate, or even have law
holdings at all; the reason to have law holdings is to take income away
from other holdings, and prevent other regents taking your province
taxation away from you. Is this correct, Bjorn? If that is the case,
then a ruler who manages to set himself up so that he alone owns all the
holding levels in a province really does collect P^2 GB per DT, and gets a
+2 prosperity per DT adjustment as well because he can just set taxes to
zero! I suppose you will say that is a fair reward for becoming so
successfuly absolute a ruler, and I might agree, but I want to be sure.

> You use the word "generate" which implies that the holdings produce
> income in addition to what the province makes. My guess, again, is
> that this is not the case and that the province income (the square)
> is the cap, and then the holding levels determine how much of that
> "cap" everyone gets.

More or less, yeah. Except the full level-squared "cap" is only
realized if all holdings are equal in level to the province itself;
or, rather, if all holding slots in the province are filled, because
the holding income formula (HP/5) is linear in holding level.

Is that a fair summary, Bjorn?


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Green Knight]

>
> On Wed 2 Apr 2003, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Shade wrote:
>
> > After reading a subsequent mail (the only other one I have received)
> > I have a better understanding of how your system works. But even in
> > that email, you don`t explain how you are supposed to divide province
> > income between the province ruler and the holdings.
>
> I`ve been reading Bjorn`s rules on the web, and think I now have the
> answers to some of our questions. However, he hasn`t actually posted the
> war rules, so I can`t be sure of the army maintenance costs; based on what
> I`ve been able to infer from other sections, though, his costs are quite a
> bit higher than those from the original rules.
>

- I can always post the war rules, the costs haven`t changed from the old to the new version, so for comparison purposes it is still valid. Costs are not necessarily up, but domains are supposed to have slightly large armies.

> Note: I am now presenting *Bjorn`s* rules, not my own, so I may make
> mistakes. I hope he will correct me, and not mind too much that I am
> posting just snippets from his overall system.
>

- Nice of someone to read the rules :-)

- First of all, the income generated by the province itself doesn`t go into anyones coffers. It is merely a number generated to allow a law holder to collect taxes in a province which has no other income-generating holdings.

> > I read this:
>
> > > - Holdings (except law and source of course) generate 1 GB/holding
> > > level, as do trade routes (I also have an additional holding type,
>
> It looks to me like Bjorn treats TRs as holdings as well; there doesn`t
> seem to be a specific destination province, and they get created at zero
> and ruled up like everything else.
>

- Not the ideal solution to be sure. It was implemented at the start of the RoE game because it was very easy to track on a spreadsheet, and also firmly placed a roof on how much a guilder regent can make from guilds and trade. There are plenty of cons though.

> > > In addition, the province level itself generates wealth equal
> > > to a holding of its level. So a province 5 might have an ideal
> > > "production" of GBs of say 25 which is the redistributed by law
> > > claims).
>
> "Ideal" production means all moneymaking holding types are equal to the
> province level. If you have a similarly maximum size law holding, then
> you get your choice of between 10% and 100% of this money in taxes; if you
> have less than the maximum possible law holding level for that province
> level, your collection is reduced proportionately.
>

- Correct. The usual taxation percentage being 40-60%

> The easiest way to discuss it is to give a formula: a holding of level H
> in a province of level P taxed at a rate of T by a law holding of level L
> gives the tax collector LHT/5 GB. T is the tax rate as a fraction (0.2
> = 20%, etc.); it can be set at 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 80% or 100%.
> Tax less than 30% gives what is effectively a positive loyalty shift
> (Bjorn calls it prosperity, and there are 14 gradations of it which affect
> income and action resolution target numbers, but for now think of it as
> loyalty), and tax above 30% gives a negative loyalty shift; for tax above
> 50%, even a full law holding cannot prevent a negative net shift.
>

- Again correct. Again, the solution was partly dictated by the need for a sytem easily trackable by spreadsheet

> Where did P go in that formula, you may ask? Well, the number of GB a
> holding of level H generates in a province of level P for its owner if
> taxation were zero is HP/5; and the effective resultant tax rate of
> setting a rate of T for loyalty purposes, given that you hold only L out
> of P total law holding levels possible, is actually T times L/P; so the P
> cancels out. This is a nice touch.
>

- Again correct. The total wealth generated by a province isn`t affected by the number or owners of law holdings, its merely a question of redistribution.

> Oh, and the 5 is a consequence of Bjorn`s "manor" and "trade" holding
> types; in a generalized system, this number would be one more than the
> number of moneymaking holding types. One alteration I might consider
> would be making the province count as several holdings; for example, in
> the standard BR system with two cash-cow holdings (temple and guild), you
> could keep 5 as the divisor and treat the province income as coming from
> three holdings of its level (set H=3P instead of H=P in HP/5 and LHT/5).
>

- Yes, you are right. if you get rid of the manor holding, consider the province as generating twice the amount of a regular holding.

> > But I did not think this was very clearly written, since it doesn`t
> > say what the function of taxation is. My guess, after rereading
> > several times, is that it redistributes income from an even spread
> > to the favor of the law holder.
>
> It sure looks that way. That observation leads to this thought: since
> province level appears to be treated as just another holding type in the
> income system, it seems to me that a province ruler gets one-fifth P
> squared GB without having to set a non-zero tax rate, or even have law
> holdings at all; the reason to have law holdings is to take income away
> from other holdings, and prevent other regents taking your province
> taxation away from you. Is this correct, Bjorn?

- As stated at the top, no one get the province generated income unless collected by a law holding. Indeed, a ruler with no manors and no law gets nothing from the province; he is ruler in name only.

- Think of the new manor holding as representing the income generating part of a province under the old rules.

- If you like a province ruler to actually get some income from his province regardless of law holdings, just enable collection from provinces.

If that is the case,
> then a ruler who manages to set himself up so that he alone owns all the
> holding levels in a province really does collect P^2 GB per DT, and gets a
> +2 prosperity per DT adjustment as well because he can just set taxes to
> zero! I suppose you will say that is a fair reward for becoming so
> successfuly absolute a ruler, and I might agree, but I want to be sure.
>

- It is not the case as discussed above. However, the absolute ruler could still set "no tax" and enjoy a positive loyalty adjustment and get 80% of ideal collection. This is, in a way, a flaw in the system. I think, however, that this happening is so unlikely (at least in any campaign of mine) that it really is a moot point. But hey, if there is an easy fix, that would be the best.

> > You use the word "generate" which implies that the holdings produce
> > income in addition to what the province makes. My guess, again, is
> > that this is not the case and that the province income (the square)
> > is the cap, and then the holding levels determine how much of that
> > "cap" everyone gets.
>
> More or less, yeah. Except the full level-squared "cap" is only
> realized if all holdings are equal in level to the province itself;
> or, rather, if all holding slots in the province are filled, because
> the holding income formula (HP/5) is linear in holding level.
>

- Yes.

> Is that a fair summary, Bjorn?
>

- Absolutely

>
> Ryan Caveney
>

Cheers
Bjørn


Cheers
Bjørn

-------------------------------------------------
WebMail fra Tele2 http://www.tele2.no
-------------------------------------------------

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Shade]

Sure, I will take a look at it and see what I think.

Sorry if I came off as rude, I didn`t mean to be. I really was kind of
shocked how things could be balanced with the IC making 100gb for the
Chamberlain. I stand corrected :)

At 11:02 AM 4/1/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>OK, sorry. I imagined you had read the follow-up mail as well. In which
case your reply sounded very sarcastic and ingorant...but that not being
the case, I would appreciate it if you had a look at the follow-up and made
some sort of comment. Always good to get some feedback.
>>
>> Fra: Shade <lordshade@SOFTHOME.NET>
>> Dato: 2003/04/01 Tue AM 09:31:24 CEST
>> Til: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
>> Emne: Re: Domain rules [36#1492]
>>
>> Bjorn:
>>
>> I responded to this email, which says nothing about holding levels or Ruins
>> of Empire rules.
>>
>> --------------------
>>
>> Try using province level squared for income calculation purposes,
>> instead of the rather linear scale now in use.
>>
>> Numbers in "brackets" are just for comparison purposes...
>>
>> In the way Ilien, a province (7) generates "a number of GBs = 7x7 = 49"
>>
>> Edlin, on the other hand, which is a lowly province (3), generates "a
>> number of GBs equal to 3x3 = 9 GBs"
>>
>> This means that you need a small kingdom to generate the same amount of
>> wealth that Ilien does.
>>
>> It is a departure form the original, but it does work very well, having
>> been play-tested extensively.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Bjørn
>>
>> -----------------------------------
>>
>> After reading a subsequent mail (the only other one I have received) I have
>> a better understanding of how your system works. But even in that email,
>> you don`t explain how you are supposed to divide province income between
>> the province ruler and the holdings.
>>
>> I read this:
>>
>> - Holdings (except law and source of course) generate 1 GB/holding
>> level, as do trade routes (I also have an additional holding type, but
>> that is beside the point). In addition, the province level itself
>> generates wealth equal to a holding of its level. So a province 5 might
>> have an ideal "production" of GBs of say 25 which is the redistributed
>> by law claims).
>>
>> - With heavy taxation, the "king" might end up with approximately 10
>> GBs, which each holding type (and trade route) retains about 50% for its
>> owner (2,5 GB).
>>
>> But I did not think this was very clearly written, since it doesn`t say
>> what the function of taxation is. My guess, after rereading several times,
>> is that it redistributes income from an even spread to the favor of the law
>> holder.
>>
>> You use the word "generate" which implies that the holdings produce income
>> in addition to what the province makes. My guess, again, is that this is
>> not the case and that the province income (the square) is the cap, and then
>> the holding levels determine how much of that "cap" everyone gets.
>>
>> In any case I apologize if I offended you Bjorn, but before you suggest
>> that I`m complaining or ignoring messages, please consider that perhaps
>> your emails might be difficult to comprehend.
>>
>> At 08:24 AM 4/1/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >If you read my mail extra-careful, you might notice I referred to the
>> written Ruins of Empire Rules for the full story.
>> >
>> >If you read my mail at all, you might notice that the IC could potentially
>> generate 100GB total, distributed among ALL who have holdings there. So,
>> even if the Chamberlain had EVERY law holding in the IC (which he doesn`t),
>> he`d only actually collect 50 Gbs.
>> >
>> >The same goes for Avanil. I should also point out that there are many
>> lesser Houses with holdings in my campaign, so wealth is not the sole
>> province of Prince Avan or other realm rulers...
>> >
>> >...but I could go on endlessly. You need either to read the whole, or just
>> stop making complaints. Since it`s been playtested extensively, there are
>> just too many checks and balances to list in a single mail.
>> >
>> >
>> >Cheers
>> >Bjørn
>> >>
>> >> Fra: Shade <lordshade@SOFTHOME.NET>
>> >> Dato: 2003/04/01 Tue AM 05:23:51 CEST
>> >> Til: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
>> >> Emne: Re: Domain rules [36#1492]
>> >>
>> >> >It is a departure form the original, but it does work very well, having
>> >> >been play-tested extensively.
>> >>
>> >> Playtested extensively?
>> >>
>> >> So the IC generates 100gb a turn.. that will support at least, what, 40
>> >> military units? How about Avanil...
>> >>
>> >> 4 x (3x3) = 36
>> >> 2 x (4x4) = 32
>> >> 2 x (5x5) = 50
>> >> 1 x (7x7) = 49
>> >>
>> >> So that comes out to 167 gb/turn for Avanil`s income. Let`s say we
take out
>> >> 37gb for court, maintenance, and miscellaneous expenses... that leaves
>> >> 130gb for armies, or 65 units of knights. Or 130 units of infantry,
which
>> >> is about (200 HD/unit) 26,000 people. Does that make sense?
>> >>
>> >> How did you justify this during your playtest?
>> >>
>> >>
>>
************************************************** **************************
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Cheers
>> >Bjørn
>> >
>> >-------------------------------------------------
>> >WebMail fra Tele2 http://www.tele2.no
>> >-------------------------------------------------
>> >
>>
>************************************************** **************************
>> >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.
>>
>
>Cheers
>Bjørn
>
>-------------------------------------------------
>WebMail fra Tele2 http://www.tele2.no
>-------------------------------------------------
>
>************************************************** **************************
>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.

[ryancaveney]

Cleaning out my old mail, I`ve come across something it seems I never
sent -- but I can`t be completely certain, since the last page of this
thread won`t display at all in my browser, though the others are fine.
(Arjan?)

On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Green Knight wrote:

> - I can always post the war rules,

I`d like to see them, when you get a chance to upload them.

> the costs haven`t changed from the old to the new version,

Oh! I was basing my guess on this from your FAQ:

> Q: What about knights then. Are they cost-effective?
> A: No, not really, especially since most knights also tend to have a
> lot of experience, placing them at 5-6GB in upkeep. You get 5-6 units
> of infantry for that price, and there is no way a unit of knights is
> going to win that fight.

Clearly I need to see the army unit experience rules in detail. =)

> Costs are not necessarily up,

And they might even be down, given the maintenance multiplier of status
levels of garrison (0.5) and reserve (0.25) as opposed to active (1.0).
Do you perhaps use a seasonal multiplier to increase things in winter?

> but domains are supposed to have slightly large armies.

Just how large are they getting in play? Armies don`t seem to be on the
provinces & holdings spreadsheet.

> - Correct. The usual taxation percentage being 40-60%

Which you need full law holdings and possibly extra bonuses to maintain
without suffering prosperity loss.

> - As stated at the top, no one get the province generated income
> unless collected by a law holding. Indeed, a ruler with no manors and
> no law gets nothing from the province; he is ruler in name only.

OK. I didn`t see this in the rules, but maybe I was just looking
in the wrong place. I think I`ve found it now.

> - If you like a province ruler to actually get some income from his
> province regardless of law holdings, just enable collection from
> provinces.

No, I think it`s probably fine the way it is. In the standard rules, a
ruler with no law holdings at all basically can`t tax at all without
driving his provinces into rebellion quite suddently.

> - It is not the case as discussed above. However, the absolute ruler
> could still set "no tax" and enjoy a positive loyalty adjustment and
> get 80% of ideal collection. This is, in a way, a flaw in the system.
> I think, however, that this happening is so unlikely (at least in any
> campaign of mine) that it really is a moot point. But hey, if there is
> an easy fix, that would be the best.

Well, in standard rules, a king who owns all the temples and all the
guilds and all the trade routes has lots of nontax income and thus can set
light taxes and get the positive loyalty shift without sacrificing too
much money overall, so it`s not really a new problem, and may not need a
solution either.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Green Knight]

Reply:
>
> Fra: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
> Dato: 2003/05/08 Thu AM 01:01:37 CEST
> Til: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> Emne: Re: Domain rules [36#1492]
>
> Cleaning out my old mail, I`ve come across something it seems I never
> sent -- but I can`t be completely certain, since the last page of this
> thread won`t display at all in my browser, though the others are fine.
> (Arjan?)
>
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Green Knight wrote:
>
> > - I can always post the war rules,
>
> I`d like to see them, when you get a chance to upload them.

- I`ll try to do it soon, but "soon" always turns out to be "not this month"...

>
> > the costs haven`t changed from the old to the new version,
>
> Oh! I was basing my guess on this from your FAQ:
>
> > Q: What about knights then. Are they cost-effective?
> > A: No, not really, especially since most knights also tend to have a
> > lot of experience, placing them at 5-6GB in upkeep. You get 5-6 units
> > of infantry for that price, and there is no way a unit of knights is
> > going to win that fight.
>
> Clearly I need to see the army unit experience rules in detail. =)

- Yes you do, what I meant was that the core unit of infantry and cavalry cost the same (1GB/2GB). Other units have altered upkeeeps though.

>
> > Costs are not necessarily up,
>
> And they might even be down, given the maintenance multiplier of status
> levels of garrison (0.5) and reserve (0.25) as opposed to active (1.0).
> Do you perhaps use a seasonal multiplier to increase things in winter?
>
> > but domains are supposed to have slightly large armies.
>
> Just how large are they getting in play? Armies don`t seem to be on the
> provinces & holdings spreadsheet.

- Armies are secret so they don appear in the spreadsheet. Most realms maintain 10-25 units in peacetime. This number doubles, trebles or more duing times of war due to additional musterings, auxillaries, mercenaries, levies and militia. But then there are always garrisons to be maintained, strategic reserves etc. The biggest battle so far involved 60 against 45 units, but that was atypical. About 20 or so a side is the most common. Small engagements between no more then 5 units are also pretty common.

>
> > - Correct. The usual taxation percentage being 40-60%
>
> Which you need full law holdings and possibly extra bonuses to maintain
> without suffering prosperity loss.
>
> > - As stated at the top, no one get the province generated income
> > unless collected by a law holding. Indeed, a ruler with no manors and
> > no law gets nothing from the province; he is ruler in name only.
>
> OK. I didn`t see this in the rules, but maybe I was just looking
> in the wrong place. I think I`ve found it now.
>
> > - If you like a province ruler to actually get some income from his
> > province regardless of law holdings, just enable collection from
> > provinces.
>
> No, I think it`s probably fine the way it is. In the standard rules, a
> ruler with no law holdings at all basically can`t tax at all without
> driving his provinces into rebellion quite suddently.
>
> > - It is not the case as discussed above. However, the absolute ruler
> > could still set "no tax" and enjoy a positive loyalty adjustment and
> > get 80% of ideal collection. This is, in a way, a flaw in the system.
> > I think, however, that this happening is so unlikely (at least in any
> > campaign of mine) that it really is a moot point. But hey, if there is
> > an easy fix, that would be the best.
>
> Well, in standard rules, a king who owns all the temples and all the
> guilds and all the trade routes has lots of nontax income and thus can set
> light taxes and get the positive loyalty shift without sacrificing too
> much money overall, so it`s not really a new problem, and may not need a
> solution either.
>
>
> Ryan Caveney
>
> ************************************************** **************************
> 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.
>

Cheers
Bjørn

-------------------------------------------------
WebMail fra Tele2 http://www.tele2.no
-------------------------------------------------

************************************************** **************************
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.