forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Elfcrusher wrote: "Fleet" (Fishing Boats, Trading Caravan)

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

Do you mean something like "Transports"?
This could range from a donkey to carry packages from Esgaroth to Dale, to a boat that brings wine from Dorwinion, to a horse for a courier.
Also, with improvements, the holding may turn into managing a Post Office or a fleet in the River Running.

So some discussion backstage indicates that there's at least two primary ways to model Holdings, bearing in mind both the current rules and the rules as a whole. Since the approaches are fundamentally incompatible, I would really appreciate folks' opinions:

A. Holdings are a possession of a single character. They have a couple of numbers associated with them (much like weapons do) and can be improved by the characters actions, rewards and virtues (again sort of like weapons). Any description of the Holding past the basic numbers is fluff only (much like two swords can be very different in appearance but have the same stats).

Or

B. Holdings are characters in their own right. They have multiple dimensions of improvement and focus available to them, and different cultures produce holdings with different strengths. Most things that a Holding owns or could do is represented mechanically and even the "fluff" has mechanical weight. Due to their complexity, one standard suggestion is for a Fellowship to have a Holding in common; this can also provide a source of new player characters in long running games.

So which way do people prefer?

zedturtle wrote:So which way do people prefer?

Personally, go with what you want in your game - other people using these House Rules is a bonus for you but surely not the primary motivation? Better to produce what you want and some people will love it, for other it won't be a good fit, and yet more will like and use it and previously they wouldn't have necessarily been able to give you a preferred opinion like you've asked for above - because they either have no preference or haven't thought about it enough.

I've certainly worked on my own version and have nearly finished it and it will be different to yours, obviously, but it's what I want in my game. If people don't like my version they can look at yours, go with what's in DoM, or make their own hybrid.

I'll share here what I told Zedturtle, and invite reactions.

1) I believe Holdings should be an opportunity to explore the character concept and make the character more multi-dimensional and interesting. I'm far less interested in Holdings as a mini-game within the game, with no bearing on the character other than a source of (or black hole for) Treasure points. There are myriad ways to accomplish the former, from connecting Standing to the Holding, to using the Holding as a catalyst to introduce NPCs and work on relationships, to creating adventure hooks.

2) To the extent possible, Holding mechanics should reflect the flavor and design of character mechanics. If Holdings have "traits" they should be, essentially, adjectives that help one describe a holding, with loose ties to mechanics. If Holdings have ratings comparable to skills they should be used to address challenges to the holding, with the possibility of great and extraordinary successes.

3) If choices are circumscribed (like choosing a Culture), there should be a direct impact on mechanics. If choices have no bearing on mechanics, the choices should be suggestions (like picking a name for a character.) In other words, be clear about what is Fluff and what is Crunch.

Rich H wrote:Personally, go with what you want in your game - other people using these House Rules is a bonus for you but surely not the primary motivation? Better to produce what you want and some people with love it, for other it won't be a good fit, and yet more will like and use it and previously they wouldn't have necessarily been able to give you a preferred opinion like you've asked for above.

I've certainly worked on my own version and have nearly finished it and it will be different to yours, obviously, but it's what I want in my game. If people don't like my version they can look at yours, go with what's in DoM, or make their own hybrid.

Ok, thanks for this. I guess my trouble is that I like both avenues: I like the simplicity of the A approach and feel that's the "default" state of the TOR rules. But, I also like the possibilities inherent in the B approach; the idea of shared Holdings and tying that into adventure prospects excites me. But it's a lot of work, if a lot of people said "yeah! thats the way to do it! I'd be more jazzed to sit down and slog through that process.

Well, I definitely agree with Rich that you should do whatever feels fun to you, without worrying about a market.

I don't think there's a better way of doing it. In some games, where I have two (or more) mechanics to solve a PC action, I might even change the mechanic I use depending on the situation.

To give you an example: I've played HARP for a while, and there are different ways of solving combat. Some are faster and some are slower, but more accurate. Well, with the same group and in the same campaign, we used choosed two of the mechanics, the fastest one and the deadliest one. For combats against small foes (goblins, wolfs,etc.), we used the fast combat system. When facing challenging foes (bosses, trolls, etc.), we used the deadlier one to motivate more tactical thinking and to feel the risk.

No system was better than the other, but each one had it's own purpouse for us. And then again, another group playing HARP might choose one of the other combat systems and never use the ones we did.

That said, and following the idea of Rich, I'd suggest you only work on a detailed Holding HR if you're motivated to and feel the need for your campaign. Even if it's a superb house rule, some people will say "Yeah, it's amazing! But I want to keep it easy and won't use it." or "I only get to play with my group once every two months. I'd like to use your rules, but we can't spend time on Holdings, we want to go adventure!".

Don't ask others what they want, ask yourself what is it that you want to do.
And if you do it, be sure to post it so I can take a look at it!!

zedturtle wrote:Ok, thanks for this. I guess my trouble is that I like both avenues: I like the simplicity of the A approach and feel that's the "default" state of the TOR rules. But, I also like the possibilities inherent in the B approach; the idea of shared Holdings and tying that into adventure prospects excites me. But it's a lot of work, if a lot of people said "yeah! thats the way to do it! I'd be more jazzed to sit down and slog through that process.

I can understand that, zed. Personally, when I produce stuff for TOR (and any other RPG for that matter) I produce something I want to use in my game primarily and not for others. You can get people to playtest the numbers etc and you can collaborate, sure, but ultimately it's a set of house rules that you're going to use. TOR can be quite complex in areas (eg, journey rules) and it is has numerous subsystems so it does have plenty of complexity built into it.

Here's the current draft of my version of the rules: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/795 ... 0Rules.pdf *

... They may help with ideas or give you motivation to create something different so that others can have more of a distinct choice.

* Bear in mind that the numbers in that document are specific to my own game - eg, I don't hand out a lot of treasure in my campaign and I've reduced the cost to increase Standing to 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 for instance.

Elfcrusher wrote:Well, I definitely agree with Rich that you should do whatever feels fun to you, without worrying about a market.

Thanks, I was worried that it may read more like I was being dismissive but I'm a great believer that the idea auteured is the purest and often the best.

Rich H wrote:

zedturtle wrote:Ok, thanks for this. I guess my trouble is that I like both avenues: I like the simplicity of the A approach and feel that's the "default" state of the TOR rules. But, I also like the possibilities inherent in the B approach; the idea of shared Holdings and tying that into adventure prospects excites me. But it's a lot of work, if a lot of people said "yeah! thats the way to do it! I'd be more jazzed to sit down and slog through that process.

I can understand that, zed. Personally, when I produce stuff for TOR (and any other RPG for that matter) I produce something I want to use in my game primarily and not for others. You can get people to playtest the numbers etc and you can collaborate, sure, but ultimately it's a set of house rules that you're going to use. TOR can be quite complex in areas (eg, journey rules) and it is bit with numerous subsystems so it does have plenty of complexity built into it.

Here's the current draft of my version of the rules: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/795 ... 0Rules.pdf *

... They may help with ideas or give you motivation to create something different so that others can have more of a distinct choice.

* Bear in mind that the numbers in that document are specific to my own game - eg, I don't hand out a lot of treasure in my campaign and I've reduced the cost to increase Standing to 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 for instance.

Yeah, that looks very close to where I was going originally, with more stuff fleshed out in the cultures, slightly different good/bad events and lower costs for the improvements (which were already reduced from the Standing cost, but you don't allow using the rating of the Holding as standing so I can understand the frugality there as well).

If I keep going down my original path, yours and my rules will look very similar, mine being more orientated towards Standing, having more good events, and somewhat higher costs.

If I go the more complex route, then I (we really, since Elfcrusher is helping tremendously and I'm building on your skeleton still) will have ambient "traits", improvements with mechanical weight, benefits from special employees and a more complex years' end process.

I really like your Holdings as Sanctuary rules, consider them yoinked.

Neither my face-to-face group nor my PbP group are anywhere nearly ready for Holdings, so that's why I'm asking for so much feedback, it's still mostly an intellectual exercise for me.