Randax on Regency, the return o

[Jim Cooper]

Randall W. Porter@6550 wrote:
> I agree with the call for an attempt on concensus. I made this call previously and was riddled by "free thinkers".<

Heh. Tell me about it! Well, together, along with the rest of the
non-lurkers, we will make this list more responsive!!! :)

> I just think it would be a good discussion to see if we could make a "majority rules" type decision on some topics. If you then dislike this suggestion, you are of course free to ignore it. We're pretty evenly divided on some issues- at least as far as actual posters go (ie lurkers not included), but I think we could get somewhere on Regency. I took the liberty of re-editing a post with different emphasis:

Drat. Just when I had it all figured out, Randax gets me going the
other way ... :)

> I think it's both. After his conversion to the Way of Tim, I'm sure that isn't what Mr. Cooper wants to hear. Think of Arthur as protrayed in Excalibur. This is what the designers (and myself) had (have) in mind. The Regent has a mystical
connection to the land sure- he needs it to be the true king- er,
Regent. But he doesn't sit on the throne mentally willing things to get
done to spend RPs, nor does he perform some type of vulcan mind-meld
with another regent to transfer RPs. Does this make sense? A Regent needs a bloodine to instill the confidence (no more caps- please!) and trust, or perhaps
traditional oaths of fealty, needed to rule. This connection to the
land and its people is mystical, invisible and, in
story terms, somewhat immeasurable. In game mechanic terms it's the RP
score and collection/expenditure process.

[DKEvermore@aol.co]

In a message dated 11-05-1998 2:29:12 AM Central Standard Time,
Jim_Cooper@bc.sympatico.ca writes:

> Now taking both arguements, I can see the answer will come down to
> defining where RPs come from - is it the Land or is from those you rule
>
I think it is both, depending on the type of regent you are. I also think
that the BR rules attempt to take both of these types of regency and blends
them together (whether that was a good idea or not is another topic...) to
allow all regents to do the same kinds of things. It's a simplification, and
like all simplifications, there are some strengths and weaknesses to doing it
this way.

Why do I think it is both?

1) Regency from those you rule. In temple, law, and guild holdings, I see
regency power derived from your "followers", in a way similar to how gods gain
power from their followers. For law holdings, its the respect/fear. For
temple its the power of belief. From guild its fear/desire to make money.
Perhaps the game designers thought that since in this fantasy frame, where
gods derive power from followers and regents had god-derived abilities, they
should be able to use this power to allow them to rule in a "god-like"
fashion. And you have to admit spending extra RPs here and there really helps
the success rate.

2) Regency from the land. Province & Source holdings seem to also provide
this same type of power. This appears to be alternately provided by the
nature state of the land (sources) or the total combine sentient life residing
there (provincial). The curious thing is that Province power is provided
whether the people there respect/fear/follow the ruler or not (i.e. even if
the ruler has no other holdings there). This may or may not be anything more
than a game mechanic to give more power to landed regents. Either way it all
suggests that there is _also_ an inherent mystical power of regency in the
land itself.

Thus, I feel I can say that regency is a fairly undefinable (amorphous) thing
that is primarily mystical in nature, and provided by and governed by the
Land, its People and the regents interaction with them.

"Lord Randax on Regency" might be considered "Lord Randax on the Steroids of
the Gods".

Another bone to gnaw on,
Dustin Evermore