Phooey on the rules

[Jim Cooper]

DKEvermore@aol.com wrote:
> Whatever existed in the minds of medieval earth people is not the issue in a fantasy roleplay game mail list.<

If it helps us to understand this great game, I think it does, because
it helps us to make these:

> Colorful and interesting stories around which to build exciting adventures in a fantastical world ...<

< I disagree. Kings of earth claimed divine right to rule, yes,
but regency to RL cultures is NOT the same as regency in Birthright.
This is comparing apples and rocks.<

Yes, BUT HOW ARE THEY DIFFERENT?!? PLEASE EXPLAIN! If you don't
explain yourself, then you're statements are about as useful as a
toothache. You see, we get one definition, like Carrie's, that says one
thing (that's its all political influence and stuff), and then we get
another, saying its all mystical and crap like that! What the hell is
it?!? Which one? How can it be both?!? I say this because most
definitions so far have been quite contradictory IMO, and so I get more
and more confused as time passes! This is such a fundamental part of
the BR game system that it requires a CLEAR AND CONCISE definition,
otherwise, the rest of the system falls apart - we can argue all we
want, but like you say later in your post, if we aren't even arguing
about the same rules, on the *same wavelength*, how can we ever reach an
understanding?!?

And this is where the problems begin, IMNSHO. The regency rules in BR
are poorly worded, and they confuse the issue more then they help. Heck
- - there are a lot of confusing rules in the rulebook. Check out the
Trade Route domain action for starters - first its says one thing, then
it says another, and we are left deciding whether a regent needs only
one guild holding, or another in the terminal province. Some nights, I
get this gut-wrenching desire to go out hunting for Baker and McComb,
Stark and Bebris, and kidnap them, tie them to a chair, and 'squeeze'
them until they talk and explain themselves. :) And I should think to
break poor Anne Brown's arms for such editing (not that she isn't a bad
person, but that I think even editors and proofreaders should be held
accountable).

[DKEvermore@aol.co]

In response to Jim_Cooper:

Okay, I don't have much time. So I'll make it short and sweet.

1) I did offer an explanation about divine right to rule.

2) I did show how the real life Divine Right and BR Divine Right are
different. You might take another look and re-read that.

3) Brecht culture point. A good point. But, if you look carefully, I think
you find a couple places in Muden where things are run republic-like. But not
really. It _might_ be what the fore part was referring to.

4) Dwarves were present at Deismaar, that's how they got bloodlines and
therefore the ability to store regency points.

5) Mystical source of regency. Blood lines come from the dead gods. Sorry,
it _is_ a mystical source.

6) You have some understandable confusion about investiture and heirs. I'm
hoping someone else will chime in: I'm almost out of time.

7) You mention the 21st century was just like what I pointed out the 14th
century to be. That's exactly what I wanted you to see. People in general
have not changed. Ever. This is just an observation, not a personal hope,
and maybe not a personal belief. You'll never know. ]:->

8) Huh? CON stat for regency?

Finally, I think you misinterpreted a bunch of the things I was attempting to
say. But then again, I don't really think it's worth yours or anybody else's
time to rehash it.

But let's all do try for a concensus on the regency point thing. Right now
I'm leaning towards Gary's suggestion. You are leaning towards Kenneth's.
Other opinions?

- -DKE