forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Ok, those are good ideas. Let's have an in-thread brainstorming session on basic Holding types:
Mine
Farm
Mill
Trading House
Inn
Smithy
Workshop

Any others?


And, yeah, if C7 wanted to release a "Book of the Holdings"', I know some guys that have made good progress on a draft rule set

zedturtle wrote:Any other?

Problem I have with this is that I can see any of the listed holding types/improvements constituting a basis for a Holding.

Apiary
Artists or Performers
Boatwright
Carpenters or Stonemasons
Crafters
Charcoal-making
Coneygarth
Farm or Farmstead
Fishing
Foragers
Gardens or Allotments
Horse Herd
Hunting Lodge
Inn or Public House
Kennels
Livestock
Logging
Mews
Mill
Mine
Orchards
Pipeweed
Smithy
Trading House
Vineyard or Winery

... All these are perfectly valid Holdings in their own right so is the way you're now going with the rules suggesting that without a choice from your basic list you can't, for example, pick Apiary as one of your improvements? If so, really think this is too limiting.

EDIT: I think it'd be better to place a cap on how many times a trait could be selected. For instance, some can only be picked once whereas others can be selected three or four times.

Elfcrusher wrote:Of course, like I've expressed in threads about armor and virtues and other topics, I like everything to come with a trade-off. Maybe an Apiary makes your holding particularly vulnerable to bad weather years.

Where character related points (like XP) are being spent this is something that I don't agree with and there is no real precedent set within the RAW for it either.

Rich H wrote:

Elfcrusher wrote:Of course, like I've expressed in threads about armor and virtues and other topics, I like everything to come with a trade-off. Maybe an Apiary makes your holding particularly vulnerable to bad weather years.

Where character related points (like XP) are being spent this is something that I don't agree with and there is no real precedent set within the RAW for it either.

Actually, there is some precedent. For example, in the goblin tunnels in TfW it suggests that a player with the Tall trait be the victim of the "Stuck" hazard.

More broadly, armor choice is absolutely a trade-off. So is stance.

But in general, in other places where you spend XP you get a specific benefit. E.g., if you spend XP on Spear skill you only get that benefit with Spears. So the "downside" is that you don't get any increase in other weapons.

If you are spending resources to increase your holding, and no matter which benefit you choose the mechanical effect is the same, then the name of the specific benefit is fluff, and all these holding types and traits can be like character names: lists of suggestions from which the players are free to choose, or ignore.

But if you want to implement a rule where you both get the benefit of a higher Holding Level AND some other benefit (even if it's just an invokable holding trait) then my personal opinion, by no means the only valid one, is that some downside risk makes the choice more interesting. In the rule I suggest above, it also makes Holding Failures more interesting.

As for the various types of holdings, again I think it comes down to a choice between lists of suggestions (like names) or specific, defined choices (like Backgrounds). If the former, then sure just throw everything into the hopper but make it clear that these are just suggestions. If the latter, then it should be thought through how much variety is really needed. Is raising sheep so different from raising cattle or pigs that each type needs an entry? I think it is in the spirit of TOR to keep choices restricted to some general types. (e.g. Backgrounds, weapon/armor choices, etc.)

One example I've been thinking about is Brewery vs. Distillery vs. Winery. Each one has distinct characteristics in the real world, and they all seem to have different "cultural appropriateness" in TOR, but do mechanics need to support each one separately?

By the way, I don't have answers to any of these questions, largely because I don't think the answers are obvious.

Rich H wrote:EDIT: I think it'd be better to place a cap on how many times a trait could be selected. For instance, some can only be picked once whereas others can be selected three or four times.

So, just to illustrate that in case I'm not making sense, the listed improvements could be, for the sake of argument, selected one (small), two (medium), or three (large) times but each has a cap on this number...

Apiary (small)
Artists or Performers (small)
Boatwright (small, medium, or large)
Carpenters or Stonemasons (small or medium)
Crafters (small or medium)
Charcoal-making (small)
Coneygarth (small)
Dovecote (small)
Farmstead (small) or Farm (medium or large)
Fishing (small or medium)
Foragers (small)
Gardens (small) or Allotments (small)
Horse Herd (small, medium, or large)
Hunting Lodge (small or medium)
Inn or Public House (small, medium, or large)
Kennels (small or medium)
Livestock (small, medium, or large)
Logging (small or medium)
Mews (small)
Mill (small or medium)
Mine (small, medium, or large)
Orchards (small or medium)
Pipeweed (small or medium)
Smithy (small, medium, or large)
Trading House (small, medium, or large)
Vineyard or Winery (small, medium, or large)

The above give us:

9 improvements that can only be small
9 improvements that can only be small and then medium if developed to their full potential
9 improvements that can be small, then medium, then developed into large to their final potential

... so, if a player so inclines they could have a rating 1 Apiary and never improve it beyond that, but if they wanted to increase the rating of the holding they'd need to look at adding new improvements to it - eg, a farm/farmstead, an orchard, an allotment, etc.

Does that make sense?

zedturtle wrote:Ok, those are good ideas. Let's have an in-thread brainstorming session on basic Holding types:
Mine
Farm
Mill
Trading House
Inn
Smithy
Workshop

Any others?


And, yeah, if C7 wanted to release a "Book of the Holdings"', I know some guys that have made good progress on a draft rule set

I would put "Smithy" in the general category of "Workshop", along with Boatwright, Luthier, Tailor, and a bunch of others.

The hard part in this is going to be generalizing a plethora of choices (some of which Rich lists) into general categories that work in all/most cases.

Another category might just be "Forest" or "Tract of Wilderness" or something like that. It could be used for hunting, for timber, for gathering herbs and mushrooms, or for hosting parties.

Another one might be "Boat" or "Fleet" or something like that. Used for fishing or transport.

Rich H wrote: The above give us:

9 improvements that can only be small
9 improvements that can only be small and then medium if developed to their full potential
9 improvements that can be small, then medium, then developed into large to their final potential

... so, if a player so inclines they could have a rating 1 Apiary and never improve it beyond that, but if they wanted to increase the rating of the holding they'd need to look at adding new improvements to it - eg, a farm/farmstead, an orchard, an allotment, etc.

Does that make sense?

I think so...but what is the mechanical effect of choosing, say, Apiary 1 and Mill 1 vs. Orchards 2?

Elfcrusher wrote:...but what is the mechanical effect of choosing, say, Apiary 1 and Mill 1 vs. Orchards 2?

Beyond diversification and therefore being able to invoke two different traits I don't think there needs to be. Certainly my driver for these rules is not to provide loads of different mechanical options that the players fret over, it's to provide a little more detail and flavour to the game and the potential to trigger ideas (plots, character motivations, etc) with the more fleshed out descriptions of Holdings that these rules will evidently provide.

EDIT: there's also the additional AP rule in DoM related to Holdings which I think along with the above provide all the rules related elements I need.

Hmmm, possibly yeah.

Originally, I was thinking of traits as being fluff. Then of being fluffy rules that granted a one time benefit. Then I was thinking of having an undertaking to activate a trait and gain a temporary benefit from it (like several of the undertakings in Darkening).

I agree that permanent setbacks for earned/paid for benefits is not in keeping with the rules; maybe a temporary setback (e.g. Until next years end) when bad things affect a trait?

zedturtle wrote:maybe a temporary setback (e.g. Until next years end) when bad things affect a trait?

Oh, yeah, that's totally what I was thinking of. In some rare situations (your holding fails, AND you then roll a specific type of failure) there's a minor, temporary cost.

It's not at all a necessary feature; just something that I think would be fun and add some color/meaning to failures.

If improvements are like character traits in that they can be invoked (like my example above, invoking Apiary to get a bouquet of flowers) but otherwise are fluff/color, then I'd point out that character traits are restricted by culture/background/calling. You don't get to just pick any two traits you want.

And, for the record, I'm still a fan of some of the traits I mentioned that aren't physical facilities improvement, but are rather about excellence & reputation. (E.g., an artisan employee...like the Gaffer...or an endorsement from somebody influential. Or it could be winning a prize at a fair, the lingering effects of visiting elves, etc.)

EDIT:

Maybe in keeping with TOR's preference for groups of six in initial rules releases (six cultures, six callings, six backgrounds per culture, six skills per attribute...) we should try to define six holding types that cover all or most of the bases.

My first crack (with Sub-examples):

Farm (Garden, Ranch, Vineyard, Plantation)
Establishment (Inn, Shop, Trading Post)
Mine (Quarry, Gravel Pit)
Workshop (Smithy, Luthier, Mill, Brewery, Kiln)
Resource or Land (Hunting Grounds, Timber Forest, Natural Springs)
"Fleet" (Fishing Boats, Trading Caravan)

Not crazy about Fleet...having trouble with #6.