test driving GURPS Realm Management

[Kallatari]

6. The Flood disruption says it maxes at at Realm Size Value of +6 (or 50 square miles). It costs RP to counter it and restore the area's Infrastructure Rating. However, the "value" of an RP is related to the realm's size, which is why when realms of different sizes trade with each other, there's an "exchange rate." Shouldn't the RP require to counter a flood therefore also have an "exchange rate" if the realm is larger than +6?


7. The recent dive into how Flood and Trade work has made me wonder about the value of an RP, as while it seems to be based on "size" because of the Trade exchange rate being based on Size, the $ cost of an RP is based on the population of the realm (which establishes Realm value), not the size. That actually makes more sense than size, as a Realm Size Value of +21 realm with only 10 people in it (yeah, I purposely chosen an extremely unlikely - but still technically possible - example) can't possibly take advantage of all of the resources of the realm and still exchange it at a huge advantage against a Realm Size Value +9 realm with 1 million people. Shouldn't the exchange rate favor the 1 million people vs 10 as opposed to favoring size +21 vs size +9?

This does make addressing my question #6 just above more complicated...

[Kallatari]

8. Why does the Government Type of Colonialism have a -1 IR as its drawback? I can understand that a new nation, settlement, conquering more primitive peoples means you're in an area with a lower IR, but does that not simply represent the effects of starting a new nation as opposed to an actual drawback of having worse infrastructure just because another realm is calling the shots?

Can I change it to something else, like must transfer 1 RP to ruling realm? Or penalty to Reaction Time Modifier to represent checking in with the ruling nation before making a decision?

[Kallatari]

9. Reliable Management modifiers (under Management Skill).

First, I think there's an errata that needs addressing. You have Completely Reliable (the best possible level) as providing a decrease to the Reaction-Time Modifier by 1d-1, while Usually Reliable (the second best level) decreases Reaction Time Modifier by 2d. Since the lower the Reaction Time Modifier the better, shouldn't it be the other way around with Completely Reliable giving you a better decrease in RTM?

As to my question, well, it's hard to phrase other than by pretty much deconstructing all of this... and its almost a comment as much as a question. So this will be a long post. Sorry.

Starting with the context, RTM doesn't seem to have any effect in Realm Management other than determining the initiative order of the realms each turn. That's easily understood.

GURPS Realms Management hints that RTM should modify the speed of other things the realm does, such as providing assistance, etc. So this means it is basically the same RTM as in GURPS Boardroom and Curia. That an interpretation, but I think it's a reasonable one.

In GURPS Boardroom and Curia, RTM is then used to determine the actual time it takes to react.. Roll 3d+RTM, look up the table for the time it takes to get your assistance. In the table, every -1 of RTM reduces the time require by a x2/3 factor (or cumulative x0.66 to time per -1 RTM)

So, now on to my comments.

The die roll modifiers seem huge. 1d-1 for Usually Reliable gives on average an additional -2 RTM per use, while 2d for Completely Reliable gives on average an additional -7. So when it comes to the actual effects on the scale of time, the first one reduces the time by about -60% (e.g., 12 hours to 5.5 hours), and the later about -95% (e.g., 12 hours to 40 minutes). And that's on average. With Completely Reliable, if you roll a 12 on the 2d, you'd reduce the time required by about -99.3% (e.g., 12 hours to 6 minutes). Those seem rather extreme for the mere value of a +25% and +50% enhancement.

Granted, enhancement-cost-wise, it seems to balance out. Purchasing Reflexive Realm for a direct modifier to RTM would be a +10% enhancement for the average -2 RTM result while the -7 RTM would be +35%. That means the "reroll" aspect of it is worth +15%. While you get a better reroll for the Completely Reliable, the actual average for the Usually Reliable is really -2.5, not -2, so the reroll would technically be worth a bit less there. So it's close enough for the enhancements to be balanced cost wise.

But I guess is my question is why that high a bonus? and why a random roll allowing for such a huge variation (from 2 to 12 with Completely Reliable). I'm therefore wondering if it might be better to change these so that the Usually Reliable and Completely Reliable are worth +10% and +15% respectively, and not give a bonus to RTM... if you want that, buy it separately. Maybe a built in -1 and -2 RTM, bringing the costs to +15% and +25% and further distinguishing the two.

As a curiosity question, using the random modifier to RTM, would you therefore roll it each turn and thus add a random element to the realm initiative in the turn sequence?


For the limitations, I note that the text says activities take 50% longer for Unreliable, and twice as long for Very Unreliable. That, conveniently enough, works out to exactly +1 and +2 to the RTM respectively when porting back over to the GURPS Boardroom and Curia time table. I think it would be better to just use those values instead of +1d-2 (minimum 1) for both (and is that an error/errata as shouldn't the latter be worse than the former?)

The limitation costs seem rather excessive and unbalanced. The RTM modifiers for a flat +1 or +2 would be -5% and -10% respectively as an Inactive Realm limitation. So that means the rest of the limitation's effects are worth -20% and -40% respectively to reach their -25% and -50% value.

For the Unreliable, it doesn't do anything else other than say a -2 to skill if time can't be increased... so -2 Management Skill is also -10%... but it's an "or", so both don't apply at once. You get either the effective -5% for time loss, or -10% for skill penalty. But the package is worth -25%.

Very Unreliable is alternative of -4 to skill, so -20%. So either -10% for time or -20% for skill. However, you also have failure by 5 resulting in a critical failure. That's pretty bad... it might be worth the full -50%. But that's certainly arguable.

I'm not really sure what I'd do here. If I do go with my other changes, I'd maybe bring these to -15% and -25% just for symmetry purposes. But then it's certainly arguable that -25% might not be enough to account for any failure by 5 counting as a critical failure.


Sorry if this post seems more of a deconstruction than an actual using a realm in play issue, but I figured I'd add it to my growing list of comments/questions anyway as I continue in my implementation of Realms Management in my campaign.



PS: My growing list of questions aside, I really do like Realms Management. I'm just gearing up to actually run a bunch of kingdoms in a war in my campaign, and want to make sure I fully grasp it all before we start. I'm also merging it with Boardrooms and Curia because I have some guilds (not nations) that will be involved, thus the comparisons of traits. Realms Management has been great and getting me to think about what I need to describe/define in the various kingdoms and guilds.

[Kallatari]

10. Effects of Conformity Rating on CR. This one actually popped up in play. Trying to understand exactly what the game effects of ConR0 with respect to "Reduce effective CR by 1 where it applies to citizens of the realm."

I note that ConR4, ConR5, and ConR6 have similar effects, but increase the effective CR instead.

How exactly is is that implemented? How does it work in game? What would it look like in real life.

So, in the in-game example, we have a recently conquered land so the conquered people are not in conformity with the rulers (ConR0) that has imposed CR4 in order to restrict weapon access (assuming weapons have a LC3), which means permits are required to get the weapons.

But ConR0 says effective CR is one less... so CR3. So that means people can get the weapons without permits. Ok, how? why? Is this meant to imply that since they aren't aligned with the rulers that they're intentionally breaking the rules? But if so, isn't that better represented by Loyalty instead of Conformity? So what else could it be.

(I winged my way through role-play in this one, but I do want to know what the stats are really supposed to represent.)

Trying to figure it out even more, I played around with variations. If the nation had ConR5 instead, that would give an effective +2 to CR... so effective CR6. So, does that mean it becomes impossible to own LC3 weapons even if the "laws as written (CR4)" allow it with a permit because... the people really don't want you to and you should just be like everyone else? And why weapons. What if their culture appreciates weapons? then do you ignore it the +2 CR? The laws aren't restricting them so long as you show you are capable of using them correctly (i.e. a licence, which is easy for a warrior to get).

And the rules also so "toward citizens", so not toward foreigners. So why would citizens not be able to get a weapon, but a foreigner can?

All in all, I'm not sure how to implement - whether rule-wise or in-game-wise - the effective modifier to CR caused by ConR.

[Kallatari]

Originally Posted by Kallatari

10. Effects of Conformity Rating on CR. This one actually popped up in play. Trying to understand exactly what the game effects of ConR0 with respect to "Reduce effective CR by 1 where it applies to citizens of the realm."

I note that ConR4, ConR5, and ConR6 have similar effects, but increase the effective CR instead.

How exactly is is that implemented? How does it work in game? What would it look like in real life.

I've played around with this a bit more, and I think I've found/understood how to explain this better or otherwise implement it in my game. Just sharing what I came up with.

First, I wanted to establish the link between Conformity and Loyalty, as having Conformity lower CR sounded more like a Loyalty issue than a Conformity issue. For that, I'm interpreting Loyalty's definition slightly differently, having its definition vary according to the ConR. For example, the Disastrous Loyalty has this in the definition:

Disastrous (0 or less): People will happily side against their fellows and actively sabotage those around them. Citizens and government argue frequently, obstruct one another out of malice, and sometimes come to blows – and if it’s possible for rank-and-file citizens to seize control, revolution is imminent! Alternatively, the realm’s citizens are mostly in agreement with each other: Down with the government!

My tweak in interpretation is as follows:

Disastrous (0 or less): In a realm with a lower Conformity, people will happily side against their fellows and actively sabotage those around them, obstruct one another out of malice, and sometimes come to blows. In a realm with a higher Conformity, the realm’s citizens are mostly in agreement with each other: Down with the government! They will frequently obstruct and argue with the government, and if it’s possible for rank-and-file citizens to seize control, revolution is imminent!

The other levels of Loyalty are similarly changed. It doesn't really change the definition, just how to interpret it based on the ConR.


Next, I wanted to interpret how the higher levels of ConR (ConR4+) "increased" the effective CR. To me, that didn't always make sense as there's not a direct link between CR and how others treat you. I replaced it as follows:

ConR4: Those who don't follow the societal norms receive a Social Stigma [-5] that gives a -1 reaction, and results in an informal but just as real loss of rights and protections normally provided to the members of the society. As a rule of thumb for the impact of this, assume the CR is roughly one level higher or lower - whichever is worse in a given situation - with respect to what you have a right to or for what others can do to you (e.g., your firearm licenses application is rejected for no reason, you are not accepted into higher education, or police may not fully investigate certain crimes against them.)

ConR5: As ConR4, but the Social Stigma [-10] gives a -2 penalty to reaction , and the loss of rights and protections is roughly equivalent to increasing or decreasing the CR by roughly 2, whichever is worse for a given situation.

ConR6: The Social Stigma [-20] for those who don't confirm gives at least a -4 reaction, and CR is either treated as CR6 with respect to what you can do or CR0 with respect to what others can do to you. For example, no one would even bother to investigate your murder... you may thankfully still be relatively safe from people actively trying to kill you in a ConR6 society if the society itself frowns at murder, but if it does for some reason allow "death punishment of ostracized people", mob violence could be a real danger.

Note that the Social Stigma for these levels of ConR only applies to people of that society. Outsiders aren't necessarily expected to confirm to local practices, and while they may be viewed as offensive for not following proper behavior, aren't automatically stigmatized and don't necessarily qualify for that particular Social Stigma.


Finally, the issue that started this trouble for me in the first place was how to address the -1 CR for a ConR0 society (specifically, that rule made it easier to obtain weapons in a subjugated realm if you follow it literally). To be honest, I still haven't quite figured it out how to neatly solve this one in a nice little package. I'm going to lean back on the reaction modifiers to those outside of your own specific group (e.g., caste, class, race, religion, etc.), and say that the infighting between the groups means that they view laws more seriously when done by other groups toward them but less seriously when done by their group toward other groups. So, if you steal from the enemy group, your team will be fine with it and probably won't punish you. If you steal from your own group, you get the normal punishment. But if an enemy group steals from you, you will crack down more harshly and give worse punishments.

That still doesn't say how a -1 CR come into play. Like I did with Social Stigma for the higher ConR levels, I think it may be best to say a +1/-1 CR (instead of just -1 CR) depending on the situation and who you are interacting with. If you need a weapon permit, that's +1 CR if the group issuing weapons is an enemy group, making it less likely to get one. If you did something illegal that affects an enemy but the police are part of your group, that -1 CR with respect to them possibly arresting you (e.g., they may overlook something minor, but not a major crime)

I think this is what ConR0 was trying to imply, but it's much more nuanced than the simple effects of a Social Stigma that removes rights and protections, so there's no easy way to just put a quick stat or trait to it.


I think the above makes sense, or at least more sense to me. Anyone else have a different interpretation or ways they would go about it?

[Kallatari]

Originally Posted by Kallatari

Finally, the issue that started this trouble for me in the first place was how to address the -1 CR for a ConR0 society (specifically, that rule made it easier to obtain weapons in a subjugated realm if you follow it literally). To be honest, I still haven't quite figured it out how to neatly solve this one in a nice little package. I'm going to lean back on the reaction modifiers to those outside of your own specific group (e.g., caste, class, race, religion, etc.), and say that the infighting between the groups means that they view laws more seriously when done by other groups toward them but less seriously when done by their group toward other groups. So, if you steal from the enemy group, your team will be fine with it and probably won't punish you. If you steal from your own group, you get the normal punishment. But if an enemy group steals from you, you will crack down more harshly and give worse punishments.

That still doesn't say how a -1 CR come into play. Like I did with Social Stigma for the higher ConR levels, I think it may be best to say a +1/-1 CR (instead of just -1 CR) depending on the situation and who you are interacting with. If you need a weapon permit, that's +1 CR if the group issuing weapons is an enemy group, making it less likely to get one. If you did something illegal that affects an enemy but the police are part of your group, that -1 CR with respect to them possibly arresting you (e.g., they may overlook something minor, but not a major crime)

I think this is what ConR0 was trying to imply, but it's much more nuanced than the simple effects of a Social Stigma that removes rights and protections, so there's no easy way to just put a quick stat or trait to it.

Just dawned on me that the trait that represents the effects of ConR0 is Intolerance (Groups in my Realm in conflict with my group) that everyone - or at least a vast majority - in the realm has, with a Quirk-level variant for those in any other group not in conflict with my own.

This still doesn't solve how exactly to apply the -1 CR in a ConR0 society, but at least every ConR rating can now be linked to a character trait that accurately represents being someone who is a part of that society. For the higher ConR, Social Stigma works perfectly for non-conformists as that trait specifically implies a loss of rights/privileges that others in the society enjoy, so it has a built-in CR effect in its cost.

[Kallatari]

11. Should having a higher/lower than campaign default mana level throughout the realm be a realm enhancement/limitation? or just be viewed as any other cost-neutral natural feature/terrain?

If it is an enhancement/limitation, what should it be worth?

[Kallatari]

12. My next point on Carrying Capacity and ability to feed the people was sort of already covered, but I'm hoping to delve into it a bit more as I try to create Athens 450 B.C. with the realm management rules.

Originally Posted by whswhs

What I don’t understand is what difference it makes if you lower the carrying capacity. I mean, suppose that the CC is 50,000, but instead of being 60,000, the population is 600,000? or 6,000,000? I don’t see anywhere that that makes a difference to how things go for the realm in the course of play.

Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice

Carrying capacity determines population. Population determines things like Realm Value which determines revenue, military spending, etc. In my original draft having over your CC basically inflicted a famine on your people that got worse the more over you were. It looks like I cut that for being fiddly and instead left it up to the GM. I couldn't cover everything I wanted to. It's why I'd like to write some follow-ups to add more rules and give more examples.

Looking at Drought/Famine, it does indicate that 3 AP are needed each month to feed your realm. And AP do scale, indirectly, with population, as their cash value is based on the Realm Value, which is in turn based on the Population size.

It's actually a bit more complicated... Realm Value is also based on monthly pay of average citizen, which would make sense are wealthier people will tend to want to eat more expensive food, but presumably a starving population won't be as picky. It's also based on realm enhancements and limitations... some of which could presumably affect the cost of food, but most would not, and even those that do wouldn't have a specific rule as to how they would. The rules for Trade also murky the water by saying it scales on realm size, not population (see my comment #7, but I solved that by making trade based on Population as a house rule). Despite these complications, I actually find hand-waiving them away to keep more detailed rules for feeding people simpler. The fact that, at its base it values up according to its Population is good enough to more-or-less work.

So, the next step is to determine what happens when you exceed Carrying Capacity. Short answer, you don't have enough food for your entire population. So that food has to come from elsewhere.

This issue basically came up when I tried to convert the Athens 450 B.C. from GURPS City Stats into Realm Management stats (I'm planning an Amazon invasion of Athens in my campaign!). I had to do a bit of research on Athens to figure out the missing stats. It seems the land of Athens more or less covered the Plains of Attica, thus setting up the square miles of the land, but the Carrying Capacity for TL2 means that the population of Athens (360,000) exceeds the Carrying Capacity of the realm by an order of magnitude (wasn't exactly x10, but close enough to use x10 for this discussion). It would be even worse if you take into account that the Plains of Attica were considered poor land for crops and agriculture (so a lower Habitability and/or Infertile Territory), but these have no impact on Carrying Capacity.

While the quick solution is to just buy Increased Carrying Capacity, that's clearly not what Athens has. Historically, Athens imported a lot of its food with its naval trade, thus supporting the fact that it exceeded the local carrying capacity.

So how do you account for such a realm in Realm Management terms?

I was thinking maybe requiring the consumption of additional AP each turn. This makes the assumption that 1 AP = 1/3 of Population maximizes once you reach or exceed Carrying Capacity, so it maximizes at 1/3 CArrying Capacity. If it takes 3 AP to feed your population up to its normal Carrying Capacity, then perhaps every additional 3 AP gives you food for another 100% of Carrying Capacity. So, if Athen's Population is an order of magnitude higher than its Carrying Capacity, that is roughly +900% population above Carrying Capacity, so that would require 27 AP per turn imported to feed everyone.

Does that make sense? It matches what Christopher R. Rice mentioned was in his original draft of a greater and greater famine the more you exceeded Carrying Capacity, but the number seems really high. (Or does it, seeing how it does exceed capacity by x10!) (Would you be willing to share some of your earlier drafts on that?)

Assuming it was accurate, how would Athens even afford it? Presumably to trade for it, it would have to find 27 other Resource Points for a fair trade (which it will be unlikely to produce every month, so not really viable) or purchase it with cash (and since a RP is worth approximately 1/10 of your monthly revenue, would require about 3 months' worth of income to cover, So again not really viable). Further in the future, as Athens conquers/intimidates other realms, they can likely cover a bit - or even all - of that with the tribute they receive (I'd treat that as a permanent unfair Trade in their advantage), but that's not the solution at this point in time.

Another alternative is that the people pay for the food, not the realm, and it affects them. GURPS Space did this by dividing the average monthly pay of people by the factor in which the population exceeded the planet's carrying capacity. Importing that rule here, since Population exceeds Carrying Capacity by a factor of x10, Athen's Comfortable (x2) Wealth effectively becomes a Poor (x1/5) Wealth. Digging around in the history here, Athens and other Greek cities were indeed "poor" compared to other nations of the time (e.g., Persia), as they didn't have mansions or palaces or wear fancy clothes. Plus there are a lot of slaves that didn't get to keep much of their income. So, that method seems promising...

... until you factor in the new Wealth and monthly salary of the average citizen into the amount of funds for the realm's Revenue and Military Resources. Having a lower Revenue, I can live with that, as it makes sense. But lowering the Military Resources means Athens wouldn't be able to afford the military it did have (which works out relatively nicely with the currently listed Military Resources with a Comfortable Wealth).

So, the costs need to come from somewhere else? Any thoughts on how this could work?


Assuming you could get the food you need from Trade or other methods, is that not, in of itself, still worth a limitation? A simple trade dispute, embargo or war, could result in your realm starving, which realms that can produce their own foods aren't at risk for. Is that worthy of a Realm Limitation or is that just something of a "roleplay feature" in which other realms can threaten/bluff your food imports to get concessions out of you (and note that it still very obviously a roleplay feature even if it was also a Realm Limitation).

[Donny Brook]

Seems like it could have used more play testing

[Kallatari]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Seems like it could have used more play testing

In fairness, I think I'm going more into the weeds than was intended by GURPS Realms Management. For wanting to cover a realm with broad strokes, I think Realm Management does a good job: you are abstracting several features and problems, use them to generate a "story" to play, and solve it with a couple of die rolls each monthly turn.

While there are indeed a few minor problems/errata to fix (I've spotted one or two), all things considered, for the sheer amount of new rules/game mechanics added, I think it's a relatively small number. Especially when I hear how the draft was significantly cut down to fit the required word count suggesting that some of the things I'm looking for were probably covered in draft and were simply cut... So, despite all my questions and comment I'm making in this thread, I can honestly say I am very happy with the product and still think it was a worthwhile purchase.

My personal "problem" (flaw? disadvantage?) is that I need to understand everything... why does it do that? how? what are the impacts? What does ConR4 look like exactly? And then I try to create something specific, and it gets me wondering how it fits into the broader generalized and abstract stats and rules. I'm one of those poor fools who likes the detailed logic behind GURPS rules, not because I need them to play - I really don't, and none of my players care about the behind-the-scenes stuff - but because I want to understand them in case I ever want to push the limits or do something unusual. (In the Technical Grappling playtest, I was the one bringing in ridiculous ST 5 and 100,000 lbs vs ST 50 and 150 lbs combatants just to see what it would do)

In this particular case, I'm really digging in deeply into Realms Management because I'm trying to consolidate GURPS City Stats, GURPS Boardroom and Curia, and GURPS Realms Management into one, preparing for an upcoming direction my campaign is taking (I have a queen of Amazonia/Themyscria, a head of the magical library of Alexandria, and a high-ranking priest of a religion, and their various groups are going to start playing a "realm management" style game). So, I need it all to be compatible, thus I am really starting to dig into the weeds of all the three products. But the former two are much simpler - and you can do less with them - than GURPS Realms Management, so my questions are mostly falling here rather than with the other products. Again, I don't think either of those three products were intended to go where I'm going, and I like them for what they actually are... but I hope my comments raise good questions to think about in future products.


Although I admit, no consequences for exceeding carrying capacity is bugging me a bit... without consequences, any player trying to abuse the rules would grow his population infinitely as more people = more money. If only there were some sort of neutral detached arbitrator or master of the game to keep such players in check. ;)