|
Post by SouthWestern Traders on Aug 5, 2018 3:43:52 GMT
My take on it is that for trade at least, high prosperity is always beneficial for trade. But the same might not be true for other holdings. Prosperity would arguably positively affect trade more broadly than say law, but even then I don't see how that would work with hidden holdings and even with non hidden holding I don't think it would be unconditional. A Loyal and happy populace would be less likely to frequent the shop that was explicitly devoted to bringing down the governement. The regent guide explicitly say that prosperoty is not always applied with the regular modifier but sometimes only to allies and sometimes oppposed for enemies. Maybe some of them, but since prosperity would generally mean everyone is wealthier, you'll always have that subset of crazies that won't care who they buy from, just that they can. And that should be enough to benefit from prosperity (also depends on the source of prosperity).
|
|
|
Post by ET (Kerberos) on Aug 5, 2018 3:53:18 GMT
Prosperity would arguably positively affect trade more broadly than say law, but even then I don't see how that would work with hidden holdings and even with non hidden holding I don't think it would be unconditional. A Loyal and happy populace would be less likely to frequent the shop that was explicitly devoted to bringing down the governement. The regent guide explicitly say that prosperoty is not always applied with the regular modifier but sometimes only to allies and sometimes oppposed for enemies. Maybe some of them, but since prosperity would generally mean everyone is wealthier, you'll always have that subset of crazies that won't care who they buy from, just that they can. And that should be enough to benefit from prosperity (also depends on the source of prosperity). Yes, but there's be an even larger subset of citizens in a low prosperity province who'd be willing to make that choice. The hostile guild would simply get less money from a succesfully established trade network becuase everyone was poorer. ETA: Mind you we're in the specific example fo Dal Riada talking about hidden holdings whose primary purpose is to serve as bases for assassination attempts against the province ruler and people friendly to her, it's not really a borderline case.
|
|
|
Post by Alined on Aug 5, 2018 22:27:53 GMT
It's a combination of the two. A province can have high prosperity while being ruled by a realm with -3 stability--for example it could literally be Thriving+Corrupt, with the ruler 'popular', in a sense, but neither respected nor heeded. Or it could be Turbulent+Efficient, suggesting that everything is going right except for the province's economic activity--which is kind of important, so it's likely to become a problem eventually.
High prosperity does not necessarily mean everything is happy and healthy, except in a purely economic sense.
|
|
|
Post by Turn Processing Assistant on Aug 6, 2018 0:12:11 GMT
I will be explicit in that I believe that prosperity does not equal loyalty. Prosperity in my mind represents equal parts how well off people are and how well off people believe they are. It tangentially impacts loyalty in that people who feel things are going right tend to associate prosperity with the current ruler. Loyalty is more properly the combination of stability and prosperity (RG pg. 69).
In the case Umbria has raised, re the actions of TOB, I haven't applied prosperity (either + or -) on create holding actions. I would apply high prosperity as a -ve on rule holding actions, agitate or similar.
|
|
|
Post by ET (Kerberos) on Aug 6, 2018 5:27:14 GMT
I will be explicit in that I believe that prosperity does not equal loyalty. Prosperity in my mind represents equal parts how well off people are and how well off people believe they are. It tangentially impacts loyalty in that people who feel things are going right tend to associate prosperity with the current ruler. Loyalty is more properly the combination of stability and prosperity (RG pg. 69). In the case Umbria has raised, re the actions of TOB, I haven't applied prosperity (either + or -) on create holding actions. I would apply high prosperity as a -ve on rule holding actions, agitate or similar. For clarification, when you say you'd apply high prosperity to enegative agitation by TOB (and presumably their gang of shadowking/guild) is that just the regular rules where all prosperity modifiers are applied negatively or does it apply twice in this case?
|
|
|
Post by Alined on Aug 6, 2018 6:24:58 GMT
Prosperity is never a modifier to Agitate actions, but it's applied as a DDC increase to Agitate actions, whether negative or positive. So positive or negative agitation, by anyone, are somewhat more difficult if the province is Defiant or Utopian, and almost impossible if it's Rebellious (swords, not words!)
According to the Regent Guide, Create Holding is subject to Prosperity modifiers exactly the same way Rule Holding and Rule Province are. There's no reason for it to be exempt; high-prosperity provinces are not magically warded against foreign influence--it's the opposite. If you want your realm to be isolationist, you're best-off keeping its prosperity at Average and running a tight ship; not giving tax breaks, throwing parties, and doing as much as you can to foster growth and universal goodwill.
Maybe house rules have already been established for this, I haven't seen them.
Here's the quote from the Regent Guide about how prosperity modifiers are applied: 'The Prosperity modifier is usually applied to any domain taking action, but in certain cases it only applies to the province ruler (and possibly his allies – the State Faith, Royal Guild, and Court Mage for example). The Prosperity modifier can also be inverted in cases where the an enemy of the province ruler is trying to take action.'
It's never clarified what 'certain cases' are. I wouldn't think this would ever mean 'all cases where the province ruler wants the province to resist', but maybe that's how we're playing it.
It definitely doesn't say anything about high prosperity penalizing enemies of the province ruler, that'd be like the province ruler being immune to low prosperity.
|
|
|
Post by ET (Kerberos) on Aug 6, 2018 6:45:25 GMT
Prosperity is never a modifier to Agitate actions, but it's applied as a DDC increase to Agitate actions, whether negative or positive. So positive or negative agitation, by anyone, are somewhat more difficult if the province is Defiant or Utopian, and almost impossible if it's Rebellious (swords, not words!) According to the Regent Guide, Create Holding is subject to Prosperity modifiers exactly the same way Rule Holding and Rule Province are, there's no reason for it to be exempt, high-prosperity provinces are not magically warded against foreign influence--it's the opposite, if you want your realm to be isolationist you're best-off keeping its prosperity at Average and running a tight ship, not giving tax breaks, throwing parties, and doing as much as you can to foster growth and universal goodwill. Maybe house rules have already been established for this, I haven't seen them. Here's the quote from the Regent Guide about how prosperity modifiers are applied: 'The Prosperity modifier is usually applied to any domain taking action, but in certain cases it only applies to the province ruler (and possibly his allies – the State Faith, Royal Guild, and Court Mage for example). The Prosperity modifier can also be inverted in cases where the an enemy of the province ruler is trying to take action.' It's never clarified what 'certain cases' are. I wouldn't think this would ever mean 'all cases where the province ruler wants the province to resist', but maybe that's how we're playing it. It definitely doesn't say anything about high prosperity penalizing enemies of the province ruler, that'd be like the province ruler being immune to low prosperity.Uhm, the quote your supllying literally says excactly that, high prosperity modifer inverted for enemies=high prosperity penalizing enemies, and that is the exact opposite of the province ruler being immune to low prosperity, low prosperity hits the province ruler extra hard because his enemies might get bonuses. You are correct that the cases aren't spelled out but I think hodling used for assassiante actions while undeads are invading is just about the least borderline case imaginable I'd also say there's a significant difference between "would prefer not to have them build holdings" (say ET) and "is actively fighting a war against them" (TOB/Shadowking/his guild).
|
|
|
Post by Turn Processing Assistant on Aug 6, 2018 7:58:08 GMT
Those are the two relevant sections of the Regents Guide.
There are a lot of waffle word (i.e. usually, sometimes, may, etc), but my thinking is high/low prosperity normally applies to everyone, but this can be impacted by events (like wars, etc), by decrees (i.e. Alden's "no outsiders" decrees), or treaties (i.e. the allies part) or avoided (say by espionage).
I'm not going to comment on specific cases as I can't reveal why a modifier is/is not being applied without revealing information.
|
|
|
Post by Nav (GM) on May 31, 2019 15:02:38 GMT
Prosperity is calculated like this: 1: All temporary modifiers are removed. 2: Prosperity modifier is subtracted based on the prosperity without any previous temporary modifiers 3: all permanent positive and negative modifiers from any source are applied 4: The underlying prosperity is raised to 1 or lowered to E if it would have been higher or lower than the scale. 5: If prosperity at this point is turbulent or lower then all actions taken against the ruler and state sponsored institutions within the province will receive negative prosperity modifier as a bonus DAC. 6: temporary modifiers are added This is not a change of rules, this an explanation of how prosperity has always been run. Despite the exact words mentioned here, negative prosperity modifiers aren't always a bonus for hostile actions, the hostile regent somehow needs to create the opinion, in the province, that the change they're bringing will make things better. This is easier if the action is taken against the province regent, but it's not automatic. This is not a change of rules, this an explanation of how prosperity has been run in the past, so far as I know. In any case, the particular crisis we just had was not over a province which had prosperity of Turbulent or lower.
|
|
|
Post by Elyssia Whiterose (SWT) on May 31, 2019 15:55:12 GMT
Prosperity is calculated like this: 1: All temporary modifiers are removed. 2: Prosperity modifier is subtracted based on the prosperity without any previous temporary modifiers 3: all permanent positive and negative modifiers from any source are applied 4: The underlying prosperity is raised to 1 or lowered to E if it would have been higher or lower than the scale. 5: If prosperity at this point is turbulent or lower then all actions taken against the ruler and state sponsored institutions within the province will receive negative prosperity modifier as a bonus DAC. 6: temporary modifiers are added This is not a change of rules, this an explanation of how prosperity has always been run. Despite the exact words mentioned here, negative prosperity modifiers aren't always a bonus for hostile actions, the hostile regent somehow needs to create the opinion, in the province, that the change they're bringing will make things better. This is easier if the action is taken against the province regent, but it's not automatic. This is not a change of rules, this an explanation of how prosperity has been run in the past, so far as I know. In any case, the particular crisis we just had was not over a province which had prosperity of Turbulent or lower. To diverge from mechanics: Thematically, negative prosperity could very well make any action more difficult. People are poorer, struggling and unhappy, and so anyone who tries to build something has a hard time finding motivated workers who aren't tending their fields, and a hard time finding local resources (because the area just isn't prosperous), and similarly has a hard time organizing holdings when all the people they want to organize are too busy trying to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps (an impossible feat, I might add). And, to draw a parallel to current times, a poor economy is always bad news for a sitting ruler, but it's not always good news for someone who wants to replace them. So it's entirely reasonable that prosperity isn't a net zero-sum value.
|
|