Houserule for Holdings

[Ser Jon Hornwood]

I would like feedback from you guys about this idea too.

I was thinking and it occurred to me that Population should buy the Communities not the Land Score. Hear me out on this one. Using this system you could have a high Land Holding, representing a vast stretch of land yet have a small Population Holding which could buy you at most a Hamlet or maybe a small town, i.e. House Stark. Yet you can have the opposite, a high Population Holding yet a small Land Holding, i.e. most Houses that have cities as their domains (Hightower, Manderly, Lannister). So far this seems to put the Holdings in line with the charts of benchmarks provided in the RAW. That happens because it frees up the Land to be just that, the extent of their geographical boundaries and the Population ends up falling right in line with it the charts because now a score of 10 DOES allow you to keep a Hamlet.

My logical reasoning outside of the mechanical clockwork of it is this: Population represents the density of the people within your borders. OK, that makes sense. However, what does not make sense is that the LAND score determines your communities. Sure, you can build new buildings and ultimately whether that community stays in that location, BUT, the "you build it, they will come" idea does not work during the Medieval Era. Before the Rennaisance, communities stayed where people gathered, whether the Lord of the land liked it or not!

Thus I logically reason that the communities should be paid through the use of the Population score not the Land Score.

I would like to hear what you guys think about this. (especially you, O Lord Producer of the Game)

-Ser Jon

[DaimosofRedstone]

Old, old problem.
Dozen of houserules exist in the vein of yours.
So no real opposition there.

[Tedric]

It seems logical indeed. At first it doesn't make sense to have a high population score andonly a hamlet, except if you consider that your population is largely spread out in numerous little communities at the size of half a hamlet for instance (between 1 and 10 houses/families).
it could be explained if you have many woods in your lands. lumberjacks are known to live alone and outside of classical communities.

By the way, how many inhabitants could have a little city? between 1,000 and 10,000? and a hamlet? less than 1,000?

[Canarr]

The idea makes sense to me; I like that. The main question for me is: how would that affect balancing? Your lands could be a bit bigger or have more features, and you could buy quite a few settlements for the average population resource.

Would it make sense to then only use the expendable Population score to calculate the modifier on House Fortunes?

[Pytorb]

My take on using population to buy Communities (as well as a great many other things) is at the start of my list of additional wealth holdings in this thread.

http://www.greenronin.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=7812&start=25

[Canarr]

Damn, that's an incredibly detailed list; kudos for that.

[Pytorb]

Cheers! I need to add Bog Iron to it at some point. If you look around the forum I've posted houserules for most of the Holding types if you want a more detailed full set (amongst other things). This forum is a really good place for houserules from lots of different people which I think shows the strength of the rules as they can be easily expanded in a way that feels very much in keeping with the setting but without adding layers of complexity.

[Daerys]

Communities Holding how they are written in corebook are not suitable for house's character.
Gulltown is the exemple for a large town, almost 100 000 inhabitant... This is really absurd.... And so, if your players can afford the cost of a large town, there is a city of 100 000 inhabitant that juste pop in westeros.
So I have changed the values for each.

Hamlet +10 500 inhabitant or less
Small Town +20 5000 inhabitant or less
Large Town +30 10000 inhabitant or less
Small City +40 25000 inhabitant or less
Large City +50 50000 inhabitant or less

[Tedric]

I agree with your estimation on a historical point of vue. But it doesn't match with the power statistic. For example, my House Moore has a single hamlet (500 inhabitants) but three units soldiers (2 infantry + 1 cavalry) = 220 men. Half the population of the hamlet which is not logical.

Anyway, I applied your rule and made my hamlet with 5 lands and 5 pop. population statistic dropping from 19 to 14...which gives it a -5 on House Fortunes roll. Fortunately Lady Jelene is a good steward

[Legate]

"For example, my House Moore has a single hamlet (500 inhabitants) but three units soldiers (2 infantry + 1 cavalry) = 220 men. Half the population of the hamlet which is not logical."

The Hamlet would not be your only recruiting grounds. Your House Troops would be a mix of those from the Hamlet, and surrounding areas, not too mention peasants that have been displaced from other realms into yours looking for work. And even though they aren't listed as such there would also be a fair number of mercs as well...just not enough to be classed as a merc unit.

Also, those 3 units would not be standing units, during peace times you would actually have maybe a 1/3 of those forces available, the rest would be on "call-up", because if you had all 220 troops on duty at one time your farms would not be producing very much. In an old Pendragon campaign my character (Sir Marcus De Burton) had 100 men-at-arms under his banner, but never more then 20 were ever on duty rotation in his motte-and-bailey in peace times; the rest were working their farms.

[Tedric]

That's what i figured too finally.

In an old Pendragon campaign my character (Sir Marcus De Burton) had 100 men-at-arms under his banner, but never more then 20 were ever on duty rotation in his motte-and-bailey in peace times; the rest were working their farms.

Funny Pendragon was my first game ever...25 years ago. I ran a campaign during 15 years.