Trade Routes and Guild Holdings

Dungeons & Dragons MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
1

Howdy,

FAQ opinion/answer

“Do I need to have Guilds at both ends of a trade route?”

Yes. Unless the guilder/thief/ranger/whoever has a sea trade route to “parts
unknown” a guild holding is required at both ends of the trade route. Now, if
you want to create route without anyone else’s agreement, both guild holdings
must be yours. If you want create a route that terminates at another regents’s
guild holding, roleplaying/diplomacy/adventuring is required (optionally you could
try to muscle into the other regent’s territory with a level 0 holding). These type
of actions usually result in a trade agreement; with the various regents involved each
taking a piece of the pie.

As a final note, DMs should strictly enforce the “number of trade routes allowed per province”
rule. No guilder in the Imperial City wants to establish a trade route with Roesone, when they
could have a trade chain with Halskapa and Muden. DMs should consider that too. Most, if not
all, the juicy trade routes should be already occupied, with a consortium of powerful regents
who are all collecting GB ready to squash any interloper who dares to upset their cash cow.

In short, the diplomacy and adventure surrounding the creation/control of trade routes (and thus,
most of the economy) make this one of the most interesting domain actions.

Randax

2

Actually, you don’t need guild holdings at both ends, only at the origin of
the trade route.

Fred Hilbrandt

> From: Randall W. Porter@6550
> To: birthright@MPGN.COM
> Subject: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Trade Routes and Guild Holdings
> Date: Friday, October 24, 1997 12:17
>
>
> Howdy,
>
> FAQ opinion/answer
>
> “Do I need to have Guilds at both ends of a trade route?”
>
> Yes. Unless the guilder/thief/ranger/whoever has a sea trade route to
“parts
> unknown” a guild holding is required at both ends of the trade route.
Now, if
> you want to create route without anyone else’s agreement, both guild
holdings
> must be yours. If you want create a route that terminates at another
regents’s
> guild holding, roleplaying/diplomacy/adventuring is required (optionally
you could
> try to muscle into the other regent’s territory with a level 0 holding).
These type
> of actions usually result in a trade agreement; with the various regents
involved each
> taking a piece of the pie.
>
> As a final note, DMs should strictly enforce the “number of trade routes
allowed per province”
> rule. No guilder in the Imperial City wants to establish a trade route
with Roesone, when they
> could have a trade chain with Halskapa and Muden. DMs should consider
that too. Most, if not
> all, the juicy trade routes should be already occupied, with a consortium
of powerful regents
> who are all collecting GB ready to squash any interloper who dares to
upset their cash cow.
>
> In short, the diplomacy and adventure surrounding the creation/control of
trade routes (and thus,
> most of the economy) make this one of the most interesting domain
actions.
>
> Randax

3

> FAQ opinion/answer
> “Do I need to have Guilds at both ends of a trade route?”
>
> Yes.
> As a final note, DMs should strictly enforce the “number of trade routes allowed per province”
> rule. No guilder in the Imperial City wants to establish a trade route with Roesone, when they
> could have a trade chain with Halskapa and Muden.

On the other hand it seems a bit artificial that the City of Anuire
trades only with Muden and Halskapa and not with lands just next to
it. Moreover lower level provinces tend to trade with each
other and not with big cities as would be natural..

So, in my game I have introduced so called “minor trade routes.” The
differences are:
-a regent needs only 0 level holding in the destination province
(while a major trade route requires at least 1lev guild holding in
both provinces)
-a minor trade route doesn’t count towards the maximum allowed for
the destination province (but for the source province it does)
-a minor trade route generates only half (rounded down) of the GB’s
and RP’s

Final notes:

It seemed to me that giving to thief regents so steady and
relatively easy to create source of power would be unfair for other
character classes.

So I cut down the RP's - half  (rounded

down) of GBs produced. (Yes, the GB’s produced not the actual worth
of the trade route. To my mind the regency should be awarded for
actual trade not for the potential to carry it out. So, a guilder who
has a sea trade route from the City of Anuire to Aryia but no ships
to support it, wouldn’t collect regency just for sitting and doing
nothing)

The income generated by trade routes seemed to be too steady.

(Compare it for example with the income generated by guild holdings)
In order to simulate “the flux of trade”, I let the player roll a
die. For example a 6GBs trade route would generate d4+3, or d2+5, or
d6+3 or whatever other combination that seems appropriate taking into
account the hazards of the route. (ie more hazardous routes would
have a greater die to simulate the random events that may occur)

Creating of a trade route seems to be too easy compared with

creating a holding of an equal power. (Compare creating two 3GBs
trade routes with creating a guild holding and ruling it up to the
6th level (On the 6th level (in 6th lev province) it would generate
on average the same amount of money as two 3GBs trade routes)
So, as Randax wrote in his letter, creating and controlling a
“juicy” trade route should involve a great deal of diplomatic
manoeuvring and perhaps adventuring.

Just my d2+1 GBs

KaaRel

4

>
> Oh, with the advent of Cities of the Sun and access to almost the entire
> campaign world, the “parts unknown” trick shouldn’t work anymore. We all
> know where things are and where there are ports. Just a reccomendation.

Unfortuantely, we don’t know the ports of Djapur (sp?) and Aduria (short
of those listed here by creative list members). Unless you want to go
through the trouble of making these up for your PCs (and subsequently
working up a scenario should they decide to go there) the parts unknown
trade route is still useful.

Sean

5

======== Original Message ========
>
> Oh, with the advent of Cities of the Sun and access to almost the entire
> campaign world, the “parts unknown” trick shouldn’t work anymore. We all
> know where things are and where there are ports. Just a reccomendation.

Unfortuantely, we don’t know the ports of Djapur (sp?) and Aduria (short
of those listed here by creative list members). Unless you want to go
through the trouble of making these up for your PCs (and subsequently
working up a scenario should they decide to go there) the parts unknown
trade route is still useful.

Sean

‘unsubscribe birthright’ as the body of the message.
======== Fwd by: Joel Parrish ========

IMHO, Instead of seeing it as “parts unknown”, I see it more as travelling
to many different ports-of-call, delivering goods from the home province to
many ports. Therefore there would not be a single destination as there would
be in a overland trade route, and the goods would make a profit equal to
half the province rating due to the selling and buying of goods at the
different ports on the route and the expenses of the ships.

KOS
“My valentine has hollow eyes”