Interesting. I think I’ve been working along many of the same lines. I’ve been working on a more scalable system that will also help DMs running non-BR settings to help add dimension and life to their worlds (particularly considering that 4e is finally trying to normalize larger scopes of play in the game worlds through the tier system).
Attibutes: influence, power, holding stability, holding “identity” (cultural, alignment, etc), reach, “legality”?; basically having each holding being something of a mini-province in themselves.
Influence being the primary measure of regency collection, while other possibly enhancing or being merely for other aspects of play
I’m not sure where you’re going with holding attributes–could you please explain further?
In my own approach, I’ve been trying to keep the number of variables as limited and simple as possible, only adding more when one wants to “scale up” (or down) to a different level of play (from the “standard” BR level of play, which is more focused on barony-sized realms, to kingdom factions or empires, to province or intra-holding play in the other direction). So I would recommend keeping only the essential variables for each type of play.
- Provinces: Divided Primarly between Organisation and Population levels(and agricultural potential?):
- Population determining the number of cities in a province:
- Population and Stability
- Population and Organisation
What do you mean by tying population with multiple other variables?
Holdings: Law, Guild, Manor(agriculture and rural space?), Trade, Temple, Source, others? (space, mineral, natural ressources exploitations… in trade?)
I consider “Province” holdings to represent the centralization of government control over a general populace (efficiency of taxation, administration, delivering and carrying out of orders, etc.), while “Manor” holdings represent control of a small number of people over land and basic production/exploitation of resources. Province holders don’t really “own” the province, but Manor holders do tend to own, lease, or hold in indentured service the land and labor to cultivate crops and livestock, fell timber, and mine ores or quarry stone. To keep a feudal focus, Manor holdings for me generate a small amount of income but can also call a muster in a manner similar to levies, but with better trained and equipped units.
I allow Guild holdings to compete with Manors in these renaissance societies, as more yeomen arise (producing basic resources outside the Manor system) and allowing more refined goods to be produced. Thus in Brechtur, particularly, there may be 1 Manor holding to every 2 or 3 Guild holdings, with Guild holdings exceeding their normal limits by taking up Manor slots.
I also have a system for tracking resource exploitation. I use Food, Timber, Stone, and Ore, linking them to the ability to sustain Cities and Armies, build ships and some buildings, build fortifications, and muster troops, respectively. Resources are exploited by corresponding levels of Manor or Guild holdings and transported through Trade. This is one of my “layers” that doesn’t need to be used at all, but adds a strategic level to game play, particularly in a more war-focused game.
- Holding representing Influence over a certain field, like the percentage of actual influence over a certain field
…
- Volatile “Holdings” untied to actual power base but resulting of some sort of definite influence (i.e. bloodthristy pirates getting regency from their fearsome reputation over the coast of coeranys…)
I started thinking about this just in the past couple of weeks–I’d be really interested to here what you’re thinking. I wanted some way to abstractly represent someone’s influence and ability to “call in favors,” so to speak, get something to happen, or work plots behind the scenes. Now, PCs mostly should be doing this in active roleplaying–unless your time for that is limited and you want to focus your face time with the PCs in more action-packed adventure, with the PCs pulling strings in your increasingly-epic plots during your down time between sessions :). It may also be a great help for a DM to help keep things dynamic and interesting with many more NPCs than one with limited time and creative horsepower (like myself 
) might be able to do otherwise. The goal is to represent how, for instance, Gandalf or Elrond or Sauron might pull strings throughout the known world; who does Belgarath have pull with and how hard can he push to get things done; how do the immortal plots of Graz’zt or Asmodeus play out across the planes, and what influence do they have where?
You’re right in your approach, I think, to detach influence from holdings on some level. Favors, loyalty, reputation/respect/fear/honor, contacts, networks, and various resources and assets less fixed than holdings can and should be able to make a difference at domain levels of play. It’s not what BR is focused on, but it should be a “layer” that could be added if one wanted.
- To see if not possible to make the “holding” levels untopped in some way, in order to make the contest and rule holding actions more dynamic and less radical in their expression
- I.E. Possibly having a stability or prosperity penalties or bonuses for multiple holdings fighting for the same “slot” making room for actual virtual “holding slots”
I’ve been trying to figure out how to incorporate prosperity, “tech” level, or type of government, but have not found a way that is neutral enough or simple enough. I also haven’t gotten very far in delving deeper into individual holdings, or those nebulous steps where PCs might have started their own enterprises, gained influence over a temple, or gained a small charter of land and tenants, and thus are much smaller than a typical holding but want to expand upon these organically to develop a domain.