Wondrous structures in the BRCS.

[Question]

I can only find palace?The rest in the list are stuff like bridges,etc......so BRCS has no info on specific wondrous structures which can be built?

[Mantyluoto]

look at page 90 of the Brcs under constructions.

Manty

[irdeggman]

This was a specific decision made when writing it (the BRCS).

This is not supposed to another Civ or Age of type of computer game. The info is only general because what is created is totally up to the players/DM and should be game specific and fit into the style done.

People will post what they have come up for suggestions as time goes on. Osprey had at one time updated the the downloads to include those that were done waay back when by various players over the years. I'm not sure if this made the transition to the new software or not. Regardless I am confident that players will again post what they have come up so you should have aready listing to draw from.

[Question]

Okay i just re-read the rules for wondrous structures and something struck me.

It costs 25 GB per level,and 2 gb maintenance per level.

However it only gives 1 rp per level?

I dont get it,is there something im missing?

For most actions 1 GB = 1 RP for purposes of calculating DC.....GB is better for a domain ruler though, because it pays troops and can be used for rule province.

So basically,it will take 25 turns to get back the initial investment.

Now heres the funny part.

2 GB is definately worth more than 1 RP.

So every turn you are losing twice as much as you get,and thats if you think RP is equavelent to GB,which it isnt,as GB is more valuable........unless you are a wizard regent i suppose,where GB cant be used for source-related thingys.

I just dont see how beneficial it could possibly be to build a wondrous structure here.

Lets take 2 regents.Both collect equal amounts of RP/GB.

Regent builds a level 4 structure.It costs him 100 GBs and 8 GB in maintenance per turn.

It will take him infinity to obtain his investment back as he will be losing 4 GBs more than he is obtaining RPs.

In 25 turns he will get 100 RPs,which is sorta his initial investment back.But in 25 turns it will cost him 200 GBs as well,which means in 25 turns he has spent 300 GBs for a return of 100 RPs.

Regent B does not build anything and has 300 more GBs than Regent A in 25 turns.

I think its clear who comes out ahead here.

There has to be something else to make them worthwhile to build.....

[Osprey]

People will post what they have come up for suggestions as time goes on. Osprey had at one time updated the the downloads to include those that were done waay back when by various players over the years. I'm not sure if this made the transition to the new software or not. Regardless I am confident that players will again post what they have come up so you should have aready listing to draw from.

Actually, what i posted in the Downloads section of the previous incarnation were all of my own writeups for various sorts of Wonders (just about everything I could think of) - Military Academies, Academy of Magic, Rogues' Guild, Bardic College, and so on.

Check out the Articles section of this site (Wonders), Arjan transferred them all tho the formatting didn't quite transfer it seems...oh well. Here's a link to my own website that has 10 of them in Word format for download:
Southern Alliance Website (http://home.earthlink.net/~birthright/id11.html)

As for the BRCS proper, no, they never included anything more for Wonders than the basic 1 RP per level, costs 25 GB per level to build, 2 GB per level to maintain. I took this basis and ran with it, but keep in mind that all of my Wonders are "unofficial" - just available to share, inspire, or scoff at as you please. :D

Osprey

[irdeggman]

This is the only way to use GB to gain RP.

All of the other mechanics work in the opposite direction. That is they convert RP to GB. Wonders are best for a regent with a high blood score (and lots of GB) but yet insufficient number of holdings to gain the RP he could. Say for instance a place like the Imperial City where the chamberlain can only have so many holdings to give him RP and yet there are some pretty significant trade routes passing through so he can earn some GB.

I believe you are still comparing this game to the computer games far too much.



Alchemy

Transmutation

Level: Sor/Wiz 1

Target: Personal

Duration: Instantaneous

Saving Throw: No

Spell Resistance: No

Special Requirements: Source (3)

You can invoke a small-scale, permanent transmutation effect to turn lead into gold. Casting this spell transforms enough lead to create 1 GB worth of gold. For every additional 4 RP spent during the casting of this spell, an additional 1 GB worth of gold is transformed. Special: The number of GBs worth of gold produced by this spell cannot exceed the level of the source used to empower the ritual. Thus, a wizard casting this spell with a source 3 and spending 12 RP can produce no more than 3 GB worth of gold per casting (for a net profit of 2 GBs as the spell costs 1 GB in components).

Regency Cost: 4 RP / 1 GB created.

Material Components: 1 GB worth of expendable ritual components and base materials.







Court costs

A regent must maintain the domain court and pay for retainers, regular gifts, and diplomatic affairs of state. The seasonal maintenance cost for a court is 1 GB per level. If this expense is not paid the regent loses 5 RP for every GB of expense of short fall and the court automatically decreases in value by one level as if the regent had Decreed its downsizing. Furthermore, the regent cannot increase the size of her court for a full year, as her ability to maintain her courtiers appropriately must be reestablished with time. The regent's court costs provide a reasonable wage and standard of living, but do not cover highly prized specialists (such as most PCs). Most such characters serve the court out of duty, pride, personal power, or because they want to. Some lieutenants and specialists may require additional payment. Such payments constitute an additional expense to the regent's treasury.



Failing to maintain units

Military expenses are paid at the end of each season (when taxes are collected). Any normal army unit that is not maintained takes two subdual hits (half damage on a successful morale save against DC 15). The commanding regent may spend regency points to modify this morale save. This damage cannot be healed until the unit maintenance debt is paid in full.

In 2nd ed failing to pay maintenance costs resulted in a loss of RP, 5 RP for each GB needed.

The BRCS changed this mechanic to have a morale save to avoid subdualdamage but RP can be used to modify the save so a semblance of this relation was maintainted.

[Question]

How am i comapring it to the computer game?All i did was state some simple maths involved.

[geeman]

At 06:07 PM 10/31/2005 +0100, Question wrote:

>How am i comapring it to the computer game?All i did was state some simple
>maths involved.

I`m told the 4th edition of D&D has been announced. At least, one of my
fellow gamers mentioned that to me the other day. (I don`t particularly
pay attention to such things myself.) I bring it up because one of the
things the designers are specifically going for is, apparently, to make the
rules as compatible as possible for computer RPG games, that being where
they see a significant amount of their revenue coming from in the future.

Some people seem to think that`s a negative, but I don`t. There are a lot
of very good ideas used in computer games that can be expressed in a pen &
paper RPG--particularly things used in Civilization type games that can be
incorporated into a domain level of play--so I expect the process will
really be more collaborative than exclusive. I`ve used quite ideas from
computer games in the past and they often work out very well. The trick is
to keep the math relatively simple. It`s very easy to write a computer
simulation that does complex (or just extensive) math, and that`s not
something that `ports well directly into a pen & paper game because, even
if the math is simple, it`s more time consuming than we organics care to
deal with.

Gary

[Mantyluoto]

4th edition!!!

i hope your joking?

and you have players? whats it like? :D

[geeman]

At 08:35 PM 10/31/2005 +0100, Mantyluoto wrote:

>4th edition!!!
>
>i hope your joking?
>
>and you have players? whats it like? :D

I`m afraid I`ve pretty much exhausted my information on the subject of 4th
edition. IIRC the anticipated release date was not for a year or so. I do
remember a post by Monte Cooke to the effect that when he working with WotC
designing 3e they were already in the planning stages for 3.5, and that it
was part of a long term, consistent strategy of updates every few
years. Some people seem to find that to be some sort of Machiavellian
corporate strategy to maintain a revenue stream (and it might very well be
to a certain extent) but I don`t find it particularly noxious myself. In
comparison to the release schedules of computer games, movie sequels, books
in a series, etc. it is pretty much in line with much of the rest of the
entertainment industry.

As for what it`s like having players (if that`s what you were asking)
lately it`s like trying to schedule day care appointments for impoverished
kids with a more adult vocabulary. Everybody`s schedule is a bit hectic,
none of them have enough cash to order out, and nobody seems able to clean
up after themselves.... I`m going to try to keep anyone from using dishes,
cups and silverware that require washing in the future. I can barely clean
up after myself--and maybe not really even that to be honest--so cleaning
up after others isn`t really working.

Gary

[RaspK_FOG]

Actually, Monte Cook's contract with WotC was canceled (or so it seems) a little after these announcements of his, and the whole 4e thingy was a hoax.

In any case, a wondrous structure has to effects: it plays some role in the development and general attitude of the people whom it concerns, and it grants a payoff of RP for what the regent does (which he might be able to convert back to GB, if that's what matters to him).

[irdeggman]

Now I do think that the wonders issue could definitely use some work in the revision. IMO something akin to what was done in Chap 2 regarding creating new blood abilities. Basically give some guidelines to follow and maybe an example or two of potential ones. I do not think we should have a list of wonders - they really are designed to be individually created for a set game and should remain that way.

Personnally I never really liked the wonders aspect - it just seemed to muck things up and led very much towards a game that tried to emulate the various computer games. But that is only a personal opinion and won't reflect what ends up in the BRCS.

IIRC the entire reference to wonders came from the Book of Regency and this one tiny section:


Creative regents can build all manner of interesting structures. A regent might choose to build an edifice or “work of wonder” to attract trade or support for his holding. For example, a regent who controls a trade port might choose to build a giant lighthouse. He could have to spend upwards of 3d6 GB to construct the “work of wonder,” but he could gain a modifier to the number of Gold Bars he receives in taxes or trade, and the DM might increase the amount of Regency Points he gains per turn because people flock to see the edifice—and support him for building it.

[Benjamin]

IIRC the entire reference to wonders came from the Book of Regency and this one tiny section:

Ah, yes. I believe you are right.

The one thing of notice in this is that the 2E 'wonders' definitely had a payback period. Obviously things in 2E were screwed up - a 'wonder' costing only 3d6 GB could be built each turn by a guilder while various landed regents would never build one. But regardless of who could build them, the initial cost would be repaid in time by the benefits gained. In most 2E PBEMs I played in, everyone and their cousin were building 'wonders'. I didn't like this, but I think the current rules are a bit hard handed (no attacks intended, I haven't offered up any solutions myself).

Thus I tend to agree with the comment that the next version ought to review this. Perhaps the cost could be reduced a bit - 15 GB per level is still a lot of money. Then you could say the maintenance is zero because the costs of maintaining are off-set by the increased income of people coming to see it. Just pick up .5 RP per wonder level and be done with it.

[geeman]

At 09:12 AM 11/1/2005 +0100, RaspK_FOG wrote:

>Actually, Monte Cook`s contract with WotC was canceled (or so it seems) a
>little after these announcements of his, and the whole 4e thingy was a hoax.

IIRC, the comments from Monte Cooke came well after he had left WotC and,
though it did read as being a little disgruntled in terms of tone, I don`t
think that really changes the truth value of what he had to say. It is,
after all, a pretty good business strategy; one that has been adopted by a
large percentage of people in the entertainment industry. Heck, just about
everything is released in a similar fashion nowadays. The newest, latest
thing is the "fashion" of the moment. WotC/D&D seems to get guff for doing
what every other major gaming system does on a regular basis. Relatively
few people get upset about the release of a potential new edition of
GURPS. (Of course, that might have something to do with the way WotC is
trying to infringe on the market share of other systems, and a few
questionable issues having to do with quality and content, but still it
strikes me as being a double standard.)

As for the 4e thing being a hoax, I haven`t found anything to confirm
it--but I haven`t been looking too hard. The comments I heard do differ
from those more obviously "hoax" stuff in that seems to be common for such
things such as "the 4th edition will mark the return of the boxed set" and
that there will be starter and master sets. Developing rules geared
towards computer games seems like a good idea strategically speaking. I`ll
get back to the person who told me about it to see what his source
was. Until then take it with a big crusty grain of salt (like the kind on
the lip of a margarita glass.)

Gary

[irdeggman]

IIRC (there was a lot of discussion about 4th ed on Enworld - especially around 1 April) - the "plan" of WotC was to have revisions (i.e, different editions) about every 10 years - which was for the most part the historical pattern.


They discovered that a 3.5 was "needed" and instead of merely doing a few tweaks in became a pretty major redo - although as Monte had described it is mas more than an update and less than a real revision (hence the 3.5).

The reason, IMO, that 3.5 came out so quickly was the fact that WotC hadn't really factored in the "internet" factor and the fact that they would be getting feedback and suggestions so quickly because of it.

Regardless we will just have to wait and see since there is no "official" announcement by WotC yet.

[RaspK_FOG]

See some of the posts on the matter to understand how this has gone on: no 4e will come up unless more than just a couple years pass by...


My FLGS owner, who is a close friend of mine, was told by a source at WotC that 4th edition will be integrated with Magic: the Gathering. He was vague on *how* this would be done, as 4th edition is still very much in the preliminary stages. But the terms "feat cards", "spell cards" and "power boost cards" (?) were used.

Please note: this is NOT just another "4e rumor". I've known this FLGS owner for years now, and his WotC insider friend is a man of honesty and integrity, who was with TSR long before WotC took over.

At any rate, I thought I'd share it here. Personally, I'm looking forward to it already!

and this... http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/dx20010401a

I had to fend off some guy who presented himself as part of the WotC personnel; you can't begin to imagine the number of trolls out there!!

[Mantyluoto]

how to kill a good game

morons!

[Birthright-L]

If anyone`s still interested, a few people on this list wrote up some
solutions to the wonders-issue that I still really like. This information is
a little old and hasn`t been updated in awhile, but if you`d like I can
update it a little with some of the latest ideas from this list/board.
The system involved creating "specialty holdings" by using a Rule action to
assign a specialization to one of your holdings, giving it new abilities
instead of an additional level. There`s been a lot of work done with these
by various authors here; I mostly just did editing and made some overarching
system decisions. It includes rules for making things like gold mines, varsk
ranches, grand bazaars, watch towers, and other such specializations that
people might be tempted to write up as "wonders".

http://www.geocities.com/lordrahvin/holdings.htm
Please check it out and feel free to comment or add to the system, as you`d
like.
-Lord Rahvin

[Mantyluoto]

colour me stupid but i'm confused.........(time lapses)

its amazing what can happen if you actually read something properly. :D

My question was going to be can you still raise a holding that has been specialised. simple answer is yes. yay but i have another question and this one i cant sort out.

With the upkeep cost say 1 lvl of Law how does it work?

is it this: Border Guards require a Law 3 and have an upkeep of Law 1. after successful creating of the specialty holding, does the law lvl drop to Law (Border Guards) 2 or does it stay at Law 3 (border Guards) nut have the effect of a lvl 2 law?

Manty

[irdeggman]

As I read what Lord R posted (via link) it works like this:





“Upkeep” refers to the amount of levels that need to be sacrificed for acquiring the specialty. Most Specialty Holdings have an upkeep cost of one level, effectively negating the benefits of the Rule action used to establish the Specialty Holding. Remember that a holding is still considered it’s true level for purposes of determining level limits and so forth, but is effectively a lower level for purposes of using that holding for RP collection, revenue collection, domain actions, etc.


Basically the upkeep is the difference between the max holding level allowed of the base type and the specialty holding type (basically it is a subholding that gives difference benefits than the "base" holding does hence it doesn't count towards the benefits of having a base holding of a higher level in exchange for granting "other" things.

Note that these variations were written based on the 2nd ed rulesets and not the BRCS ones.

[geeman]

At 11:29 AM 11/4/2005 +0100, Manty wrote:

>With the upkeep cost say 1 lvl of Law how does it work?
>
>is it this: Border Guards require a Law 3 and have an upkeep of Law 1.
>after successful creating of the specialty holding, does the law lvl drop
>to Law (Border Guards) 2 or does it stay at Law 3 (border Guards) nut have
>the effect of a lvl 2 law?

Funny, I was just looking through the archives at some of that specialty
holding stuff yesterday....

Irdeggman is correct about how that works. The Rule action that creates
the specialty replaces the level of the holding that it would have gained
normally. So if you rule a Law(3) to add the Border Guards specialty to
the holding it becomes a Law(3,Border Guards) and that holding otherwise
remains a Law(3) for all the standard uses of a Law holding.

IIRC, the idea was originally presented as a "prestige class for holdings"
and thinking about it in those terms really helps understand how it
works. "Specialty holding" kind of trips off the tongue a bit more easily
than does "prestige holding" and helps differentiate the concept from other
aspects of a game that can sometimes a vocabulationistinarative muddle. :)

I think the best objection to the idea of specialty holdings was that it
increases the amount of record keeping and does make play a little slower
in that one must keep in mind all of the specialty effects during play. It
does add more text to a reference work. From what I can tell, however,
those things are pretty much true of monuments too, and the method for
accounting for the existence of a monument doesn`t fit right into the
record keeping system for the domain itself as neatly. When it boils right
down to it if one can handle one then the other isn`t any more difficult to
manage, and it adds a nice parallel construction to the domain level of
play complementing the D20 character class system. On the whole, I think
there`s room for both ideas in the domain level, and some effects should be
portrayed by a specialty holding game mechanic while a monument game
mechanic handles others in the same way that at the character level one
might want to differentiate between prestige classes and templates.

There was a very strenuous objection that the concept would interfere with
role-playing and/or was the result of little more than a passion for rules,
but the nature of the argument never really seemed to coalesce into
anything concrete that I could discern. Be forewarned, however, that some
folks have seen nothing but doom and despair in the concept. Muahaha!

I think I may have to revisit those rules for a bit. I really liked the
idea and (to be honest) I think it could use a rewrite, some graphics and a
PDF document....

Gary

[Birthright-L]

Don`t worry, Gary, I`m on it. Actually, the next version will be a little
more streamlined and will do away with some of the "upkeep" questions.
Yes, Irdegman was correct in his interpretation. I`m sorry I didn`t reply
sooner. An upkeep 1 effectively means you have to use a Rule action once to
get the specialization. An upkeep of 2 means you have to use a rule action
twice. Specialization is the benefit of these rule actions; it does not go
up in level but gains new abilities (and sometimes loses old ones). Upkeep
was perhaps the wrong word; it will be corrected in the re-write.
And Gary, yes, I have given some thoughts as to incorporating some kind of
point-based "monumont" construction rules into the game to be played in the
game along with specialty holdings. I think there`s a definite need for both
these systems. The specialty holdings are a useful way of providing
customization to players, while the monumont rules are better equipped to
handle player innovations. The specialty holdings expand the domain level of
play, while monumont rules take the game to the next level...

[Birthright-L]

If you intend to use specialty holdings in your campaign at all, feel free
to drop the extra GOLD and RP costs for these specializations, as they will
not be in the next version. Only one or more RULE actions are needed to
specialize.
-Lord Rahvin

[geeman]

At 12:13 PM 11/7/2005 -0800, you wrote:

>Don`t worry, Gary, I`m on it. Actually, the next version will be a little
>more streamlined and will do away with some of the "upkeep" questions.
>Yes, Irdegman was correct in his interpretation. I`m sorry I didn`t reply
>sooner. An upkeep 1 effectively means you have to use a Rule action once to
>get the specialization. An upkeep of 2 means you have to use a rule action
>twice. Specialization is the benefit of these rule actions; it does not go
>up in level but gains new abilities (and sometimes loses old ones). Upkeep
>was perhaps the wrong word; it will be corrected in the re-write.

One of the things that I think should change is the two levels of "upkeep"
(or whatever term winds up getting used) should probably be done away with
unless the specialty is actually the second of two progressive
specializations. That is, if one dedicated a level to "Secret Police" and
that cost 1 level of "upkeep" and then specialized that holding again to
turn it into something with an additional effect that had "Secret Police"
as a prerequisite called, for instance, "Intelligence Agency" then that
second level of specialization should account for two levels of a
holding. Rather than requiring two Rule actions that wind up in creating a
"two level" specialty the system should have steps.

>The specialty holdings expand the domain level of play, while monumont
>rules take the game to the next level...

I have to remember they`re called "wondrous structures" now....

Gary

[Birthright-L]

> One of the things that I think should change is the two levels of "upkeep"
> (or whatever term winds up getting used) should probably be done away with
> unless the specialty is actually the second of two progressive
> specializations. That is, if one dedicated a level to "Secret Police" and
> that cost 1 level of "upkeep" and then specialized that holding again to
> turn it into something with an additional effect that had "Secret Police"
> as a prerequisite called, for instance, "Intelligence Agency" then that
> second level of specialization should account for two levels of a
> holding. Rather than requiring two Rule actions that wind up in creating a
> "two level" specialty the system should have steps.

Yep. Right there with you.
Getting rid of the whole upkeep thing. Ditto with extra costs. All the
numbers will be adjusted appropriately. Just use an action, bam, it`s
specialized now. You don`t need to pay extra, but you need a certain minimum
amount of domain power to specialize some holdings.
A "monumont," under my system, is a grand structure built over time that
should usually represent a unique enterprise of some kind. It takes many
turns to build, a variable cost, and introduces some new random events that
come into play once built. It also adds to domain power and collects regency
(in propertion to the increased domain power). It can also be occupied and
fortified like a holding and has a level, though it has no maximum level.
Its principle function will vary depending on the monumont type, but it will
usually add a modifier to a certain domain actions. There will be several
monumont archetypes as well as a point-based monumont construction system to
determine cost and build times for player-inspired monumonts.

>The specialty holdings expand the domain level of play, while monumont
> >rules take the game to the next level...
>
> I have to remember they`re called "wondrous structures" now....
>