@TVS: I wouldn't worry, I've misunderstood you. Thanks for clearing that all up. If i understood correctly....we agree. Yes?

@johnhughthom: The Germans may not have had a system of money like the Mediterrainian civilisations did (which is why I was toying with the idea of land and assets rather than money wealth for the Thanes) but unfortuantely the EB engine does not see the difference, and it costs gold to build and recruit no matter what civilisation you are. So we really have no choice but to use money.

Now, I hear you say, why not do as you suggest and build due to victory points, and add a certain amount of money per victory point? Well, that would be more historical, but its also an unnecessary middle man, that would do nothing but annoy the GM as he has to monitor it all, and should he be absent or miss any it would create problems. So it may not be historical, but we have to get the balance between historical accuracy and easy gameplay. Because ultimately it is the ease of the game that keeps it fun to play.

@CDF: I agree, we should choose the initial tribe chiefs from our core player base, and either assign, let the chiefs or the players choose whatever tribe they want to join. There should, however, be a certain amount of slots per tribe, so that there isn't a risk of a huge inbalance of players:tribes.

Raids

Now, I like the idea of raids, but these should not be the primary or the only way of obtaining wealth. It should cost something to conduct a raid, either money or some other resource that we use. Otherwise, come spring/summer of each year every tribe is going to be conducting large raids on the others with little or no consequences, and nothing gets achieved.

Obviously we can gain bonus' from successful raids, or lose something from unsuccessful raids. That would initiate the sense of risk when conducting these activities. We can also use them to give our younger players (tribal warriors/thanes) experience in the field, which should be valuable in some ways.


Now then...

* So do we want to have some kind of elected position to deal with all economic issues? Or should we have each tribe elect their own?
It is going to be difficult, and we need to decide as a group whether we are going to basically be like the American governmental system, where each state (roughly, I know its more complex than this, but hey) controls themselves (in other words, let each tribe, led by the chief, control their own incomes and so on), or a more autocratic style, where the GM controls everything, making it a bit fairer and evenly run, but ultimately slower, more stressful and in my opinion less fun?

We could go for a counterbalance, where each tribe runs themselves, using a certain amount of resources and console work that is controlled by the GM, and each tribe reports back (OOC) to the GM, who can then decide whether each tribe is being fair and so on. This might need more work later.



* Do we want some kind of dueling system? (That is going to be a B!t<h to write, with EB’s trait system.
I haven't really read into KotF and it's system of running things yet, so I can't comment. Maybe that can be your job to decide, CDF. Is it good? Does it work? Can we use it? Is it worth the work?


* We need to actually make the rankings. How much power should each chief have. How influential should Thanes be?
Well, I think this needs revisiting once we decide (or know) how many players are going to be in each tribe, but the way I see it we are not going to be needing many ranks, and they won't be ranks in the same way as in BtSH, WotB and the like. They were more offices, if you see what I mean.

In this, I see ranks as being exactly that: how high does the chief (and the rest of the tribe) rank you as a member of the tribe. Your power, prestige and popularity rests solely in your relationship and respect of and with the rest of the tribe and the chief.

Therefore, there will be no need for more than two main ranks (with some subdivisions, I'll get there).

1: Chief

2: Thane

The chiefs family (namely his sons, as these will be the playable characters) will probably be of high importance, or a subdivision of the chief. However, I do not have the necessary knowledge to decide whether the tribes of the time respected a chiefs son would naturally take over from him, or the next strongest warrior would take the 'throne', for want of a better word. If someone could find that out for me, with evidence or assurence from, maybe, an EB team member, I would be very grateful, and we could decide whether to class son's as thanes or royal family.

The Thanes would obviusly be the noblemen of the tribe, and thus would lead by example, bravery, and hold riches such as gold or resources. These would be the majority of the players' positions. Each holds the title of Thane, but their rank is decreed by several things:

- Wealth/assets/land titles, that sort of thing, giving them material importance
- Bravery/skill in battle, giving them the respect of the warriors
- High intellect/power/trust from the tribe
- Favourtism by the Chief or other important Thanes.

Therefore there is no high or low rank to be written down. Players must make their own ranks based on the respect of other tribe members and the Chief, and could lose it through inactivity or a false move. This should boost activity, as players who just pop on from time to time and do not put much into the game should not expect to get as much out of it as others who work their way up themselves. Thanes' influence should coincide with their gameplay effort and stance within the tribe.

Now, I do not know how much power chiefs had; whether it was completely autocratical or if (like in Makedonia) they were kept in line by the Thanes. I think a balance between the two would be the best for gameplay, but I would like to know for historical accuracy as well. Being the Chief should be the ultimate aim of the players, but they shouldn't be spending the entire game fighting with the other members of their own tribe trying to kill of everybody until they are chief. That's pointless. The Chief should make decisions, be respected and be in charge of the tribal movements etc., but he should know that, if he makes several extremely unpopular or bad moves, he may be removed. However, this should not be easy, and we may have to set up a system of bodyguards and stuff to make sure we don't have too many deaths.

Phew, that was a long one.


* How are we going to handle the creation of new tribes? How will we allow rebellions?
Hmm, a difficult one, and one we need to discuss. However, I think we should leave this for the time being, make sure we are happy with our inital tribal set ups, make their foundations solid, before thinking about how to make new ones. Fair? Otherwise we start down too many paths and never reach the end of any. The same goes with rebellions for now. We will deal with them, though.


And finally, for now:

* Do we allow each chief to handle their own console work or have the GM do it?
Ah, I've mainly already given my point on this one. Yay.