Game 10

Is it wrong that my mischievous side now wants to see the Ark rolled out, declared genuine and proven by being carried by an "army" of the Emperors bodyguard who take on a defeat an "army" of injured and crippled captured enemies and then challenge anyone to prove it isn't the Ark.

I am fascinated by Biblical relic's so anything relating to such items being brought into the game gets a big thumbs up from me.

Whilst it seems strange there is much in what tkolter says.. Early Christianity was considered to be a Jewish sect with a very permeable relationship between the two. The best read on this is In the Shadow of the Sword by Tom Holland. The Patriach of Alexander can also be considered to have had a claim for Primacy in the Christian Church with its own Apostlestolic succession, as had Antioch. At one time Rome was considered the junior of the five Patriachal sees.
Much of Christian imagery comes from Egypt and the religious and cultural world that was African. The concept of the Trinity and the Virgin Mary as mother of God comes from the Egyptian world. The art in relation to the goddess Isis is incredibly similar to the later representations of Mary. There are lots of pictures on the internet to see this and it is prominent in temples available to visit in Egypt today. I have been lucky enough to see some of it myself.
In game turns I think it should be credible to claim a lineage which goes back a long time. If tholter has a look at some the Coptic Church I think this would help in the game.
In Scramble for Empire I have been able to use supernatural powers to kill characters. So I wouldn’t rule it out 100% in this game! However Scramble is a bit more wacky.

Basileus wrote:
In Scramble for Empire I have been able to use supernatural powers to kill characters. So I wouldn’t rule it out 100% in this game! However Scramble is a bit more wacky.

Supernatural powers ! Am I being outclassed in Scabble?.....................the poor old Hon East India Company seems to be limited to its faith in the Queen and Cricket plus High Explosive, Machine guns, and their trusty Lee Enfield Indea pattern (which now comes in limited edition with inlayed cross and holy water hollow points).

Ref Holy Relics in Glori......according to page 37/38 of the Glory & Argument supplement in 1700 there are three Holy Relics each claiming to be the Holy Lance in Rome, Paris and Nurnburg (the later being part of the regalia of the Holy Roman Empire). The King of France has also got the Crown of Thorns and I assume the Turin Shroud is in Turin? While the Ottoman Sultan has the odd relic or two even though as a Muslim he is surposed to be above that type of thing.

So if the Emperor of Abyssinia wants to claim the Ark why not.......might even give his forces a bit of a in game morale advantage. But just think of the blow to your honour if you lost it!

I think there are several tons of pieces of the true cross scattered across Europe.

The Ottomans hold a number of purported relics of Mohammed: Sacred Relics at Topkapi Palace

There is an awful lot of Buddha scattered over East Asia too, so it isn't just a western phenomenon.

Claiming possession of the Ark is just one more entry to a very crowded party.

Basileus wrote:Whilst it seems strange there is much in what tkolter  says.. Early Christianity was considered to be a Jewish sect with a very permeable relationship between the two. The best read on this is In the Shadow of the Sword by Tom Holland. The Patriach of Alexander can also be considered to have had a claim for Primacy in the Christian Church with its own Apostlestolic succession, as had Antioch. At one time Rome was considered the junior of the five Patriachal sees.
Much of Christian imagery comes from Egypt and the religious and cultural world that was African. The concept of the Trinity and the Virgin Mary as mother of God comes from the Egyptian world. The art in relation to the goddess Isis is incredibly similar to the later representations of Mary. There are lots of pictures on the internet to see this and it is prominent in temples available to visit in Egypt today. I have been lucky enough to see some of it myself.
In game turns I think it should be credible to claim a lineage which goes back a long time. If tholter has a look at some the Coptic Church  I think this would help in the game.
In Scramble for Empire I have been able to use supernatural powers to kill characters. So I wouldn’t rule it out 100% in this game! However Scramble is a bit more wacky.

I hope the Roman game includes some wacky stuff. While I'd love to have some in a Glory game, I think that's something that players would have to sign up for and expect. It isn't what I think any of us expect in Glory.

Don’t quote me on this, but I think the Turin shroud was held by the Byzantines at one time, was known in Edessa, had a period with the Templar’s and is now with the Papacy.
In Scramble Stuart you may recall a North American politician who drowned in his carriage during a storm, his wife escaped but later went mad and killed herself. I think I have unleashed something unpleasant in North America. That was done, in game, through supernatural means, so it is possible.

Basileus wrote:Don’t quote me on this, but I think the Turin shroud was held by the Byzantines at one time, was known in Edessa, had a period with the Templar’s and is now with the Papacy.
In Scramble Stuart you may recall a North American politician who drowned in his carriage during a storm, his wife escaped but later went mad and killed herself. I think I have unleashed something unpleasant in North America. That was done, in game, through supernatural means, so it is possible.

Wonder what the reaction would be if a player character started to collect relics? And if instead of a province or a colony demanded a relic as part of a treaty would it be viewed as "Old Fashioned" in 1700?

When the Ottomans sacked Venice in G2 orders were given to reclaim the Bronze Horses and other treasures looted from Constantinople in 1204 plus a few extra's. Sadly Agema report's did not seem to put much emphasis on the Art recovery and seemed to think a dead Doge and the Arsenal burning was more important.

In Scrabble looks like I may have run a bit of a risk when I cut down the Thuggee sacred groves and turned them into cricket bats!

Basileus wrote:Whilst it seems strange there is much in what tkolter says.. Early Christianity was considered to be a Jewish sect with a very permeable relationship between the two.

I can accept that in the first few years after the birth of Christianity (the Resurrection) there was some confusion between Jews and Christians, I don't think you can describe Christianity as a Jewish sect. Yes, Christ was born a Jew and his mission was to the Jews, but the Jews condemned him and after his resurrection, the Apostles. I think we can conclude that Jews did not see Christians as a Jewish sect. Some Christians did identify strongly with their Jewish heritage, but not all were Jewish converts and as the early Christians began to understand their faith more and organise, the links with the Jews were increasingly hard to sustain until they broke completely. If we were talking about a gradual move over a few hundred years then fair enough, but the Council of Jerusalem was about 20 years after the Resurrection, so I don't think the Jewish sect premise holds.

Basileus wrote:The Patriach of Alexander can also be considered to have had a claim for Primacy in the Christian Church with its own Apostlestolic succession, as had Antioch. At one time Rome was considered the junior of the five Patriachal sees.

Although some may argue otherwise, Primacy is not simply as a result of being the oldest, largest or even richest of the Patriarchal sees. Early Christianity was in a state of flux with suppression and persecutions in all of them at different times. What is significant is that when these sees sought clarification on doctrine or to resolve disputes, they referred to Rome and accepted the judgement of the Pope. That is really the basis of Roman primacy and although from time to time patriarchs and bishops thought they new better and put in their own claims for primacy, the majority have always come back to accepting communion with Rome is the mark of the Catholic Church.

Basileus wrote:Much of Christian imagery comes from Egypt and the religious and cultural world that was African. The concept of the Trinity and the Virgin Mary as mother of God comes from the Egyptian world. The art in relation to the goddess Isis is incredibly similar to the later representations of Mary. There are lots of pictures on the internet to see this and it is prominent in temples available to visit in Egypt today. I have been lucky enough to see some of it myself.
In game turns I think it should be credible to claim a lineage which goes back a long time. If tholter has a look at some the Coptic Church I think this would help in the game.

Different cultures have always portrayed images of Christ in their own terms and it is certainly true that Christians ventured out into the Egyptian desert to seek God away from the distractions of cities or to escape persecution. Pachomius is considered by some to be the founder of monasticism, which spread to the west with Cassian. Many years ago I spent some time playing dominos with Egyptian Coptic Christians and certainly remember the experience far more favourably than my argument with a machine-gun toting guard on the train. In case you're wondering - he lost - though somehow I suspect he was only biding his time until I got off the train.

Stuart Bailey wrote: Wonder what the reaction would be if a player character started to collect relics? And if instead of a province or a colony demanded a relic as part of a treaty would it be viewed as "Old Fashioned" in 1700?

Relics cannot be bought, sold or exchanged for anything of value, which makes collecting them rather difficult. Demanding relics as part of a treaty would count as a transfer of value so would also be prohibited. The reason is that a relic is simply a physical object which has links to a saint or Christ, used as an aid to prayer. They do connect us in some way with the saint, but possession of a relic does not confer any special advantage, so I struggle to understand why anyone would want to build a collection of them. They are sometimes brought out for processions if the saint had a particular connection with that place, but otherwise tend to be hidden away. On a personal level I struggle to see the appeal ... there are better aids to prayer such as Exposition, but then I also struggle to see the point of some museums dedicated to individuals which hold personal items belonging to them. They are interesting to look at once out of curiosity, but the remains of a worn out shoe in a glass cabinet doesn't particularly connect me to someone. Probably just me, but I have the same kind of reaction to most relics. I would feel differently if it was something which could be used, e.g. praying with a prayer book or rosary which belonged to a saint, but since relics tend to be sealed up so they cannot be used, they are more similar to historical curios.

.

Ref the Question for how long was Christianity considered a Jewish Sect.........I guess it varied depending on if you were Jewish, Christian or Roman Pagan.

Feel its likely that even during the life of St Paul and St Peter and for a while afterwards while Orthodox Jews and Christians would deny that Christainity was a Jewish Sect the rest of the Roman Empire would take view.......It worships the Jewish God, It follows the teachings of a Jewish Religious teacher and the Jewish Holy Books and most of its leaders are Jewish = Its a Jewish Sect.

In much the same way while its followers would be in 100% disagreement...........in Europe and Persia early Islam was viewed as a Christian Heresy.

Wonder if such religious disagreements will come into the Roman Game? Or if Senators should limit their circuises to animal acts and Chariot racing only? (Still trying to work out if I want to be a Green, Blue, White or Red)

Ref the issue of Relic's think that saying the buying and sale of relics is forbidden in canon law is a bit like saying saying usury, marrying of relatives and divorce is also forbidden in canon law. Saint Louis of France may not have "bought" the Crown of Thorns from the Latin Emperor but in exchange for the "gift" he sure cleared a lot of the Emperors debts. Which if the Venetians and Genoa were not charging interest/usury on and their contracts were totally legal..........they would seem to have been drawn up by the spiritual fathers Goldman Sachs Lawyers.

De facto Relics were important in the middle ages and were the subject of collection and "exchange" (Bit like Historic Works of Art these days). Such practices were then attacked by religious reformers (mostly Protestant but not all) and for example when Saxony converted to Protestantism the Elector sold off his large collection of relics.

I was just wondering which if any Characters in a game set in 1700 would still collect Relics or consider them important? Apart from the Ottoman Sultan and the Emperor of Abysinnia? Or should European Characters stick to the Art Works? And being a patron of Science?

Is the Roman game starting soon?

Sent from Topic'it App

Not heard anything more about the Rome game. Not a period I'm particularly interested in gaming, but I can see how it could appeal to wargamers.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Ref the Question for how long was Christianity considered a Jewish Sect.........I guess it varied depending on if you were Jewish, Christian or Roman Pagan.

Feel its likely that even during the life of St Paul and St Peter and for a while afterwards while Orthodox Jews and Christians would deny that Christainity was a Jewish Sect the rest of the Roman Empire would take view.......It worships the Jewish God, It follows the teachings of a Jewish Religious teacher and the Jewish Holy Books and most of its leaders are Jewish = Its a Jewish Sect.

In much the same way while its followers would be in 100% disagreement...........in Europe and Persia early Islam was viewed as a Christian Heresy.

Since when did the authorities of the Roman Empire understand Jews? Are cats and dogs the same as sheep just because they have 4 legs?

Christianity is a religion of creed so if this is not considered then presumably all 30,000+ Protestant sects can be classified as Catholic which would seem to be a rather ridiculous assertion to make.

Others are probably better placed to discuss early Islam.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
Ref the issue of Relic's think that saying the buying and sale of relics is forbidden in canon law is a bit like saying saying usury, marrying of relatives and divorce is also forbidden in canon law. Saint Louis of France may not have "bought" the Crown of Thorns from the Latin Emperor but in exchange for the "gift" he sure cleared a lot of the Emperors debts. Which if the Venetians and Genoa were not charging interest/usury on and their contracts were totally legal..........they would seem to have been drawn up by the spiritual fathers Goldman Sachs Lawyers.

De facto Relics were important in the middle ages and were the subject of collection and "exchange" (Bit like Historic Works of Art these days). Such practices were then attacked by religious reformers (mostly Protestant but not all) and for example when Saxony converted to Protestantism the Elector sold off his large collection of relics.

I was just wondering which if any Characters in a game set in 1700 would still collect Relics or consider them important? Apart from the Ottoman Sultan and the Emperor of Abysinnia? Or should European Characters stick to the Art Works? And being a patron of Science?

The reason I quoted the legal position in respect of relics is to demonstrate that they have no financial value. If someone bought a relic, what would they do with it? Stick it in their own private reliquary ... why, when there are no spiritual benefits? Bit like those who steal paintings from museums - they can never sell the painting, can't display it or tell anyone they have it. There is no market for them so pointless collecting/stealing them. With relics it is also highly likely that if a Catholic is in possession of them, they will have committed a sin. If they were stolen from churches or the original recipient then the church is legally unable to pay any ransom to get them back. So the collector has a dilemma ... he can't do anything with the relic, and it would be difficult to prove it was real without incriminating himself. Who wants to boast about possessing something he shouldn't have? He could try to dispose of it by giving it away, but that would simply transfer the problem to someone else. So although you could make up a character who wanted to collect relics in 1700, I don't see how it would work. Collecting paintings or being a patron of science sounds much more 1700.

.

The 30,000 sects comment that keeps getting thrown out has been thoroughly debunked.


http://m.ncregister.com/blog/scottericalt/we-need-to-stop-saying-that-there-are-33000-protestant-denominations

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/02/33000-protestant-denominations-no.html

http://m.ncregister.com/blog/sbeale/just-how-many-protestant-denominations-are-there

http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a120.htm

I think the fluidity between early Christians and Jews only really starts to end with the conversion of Constantine and the Council of Nicea. Both Christian and Jewish authorities tried to create a gulf between the faiths which originally was not there. There were Jewish people who were also Christians and Christians who followed Jewish practise. It was the leadership of both religions that had most to gain from clear blue water between the faiths.
The primacy of Rome was really achieved because the other four patriarchies fell within the Muslim world. In particular in late antiquity and the early medieval world. The Byzantine emperors would not hesitate to imprison troublesome Bishops of Rome.
Getting partly back on track with where the topic was going. Alexandria was for a period of time, especially in the first couple of centuries AD, the intellectual driving centre of Christianity. In part because it had become the intellectual centre of the Mediterranean world under the leadership of the Hellenistic Ptolomies. This continued into the Roman period and thus the early Christian period. Another example of Egyptian influence on the church was the ahnk symbol which was taken up as the symbol of the crucifix instead of the earlier fish symbol,

Well I'm going to base my understanding of Abyssinian Christianity on a book I read. Wilbur Smith's The Seventh Scroll

If somebody comes all along to Khami, digs some ditches for water flow alongside a field and plants seeds in nice neat lines on worked earth, then waves an old thigh bone over the farmland and tells me it belongs to a long dead Saint, and then come harvest I look at their crop compared to our own dry, heaped cast seeded crop and there's a heck of a big difference with theirs being better. Well I'm going to believe it to be Christian magic and the power of holy relics. Sell me some please

Or the Japanese or Chinese turn up off the coast and start waving around little carvings of a merciful and caring holy female with child. Because that would certainly confuse my Rozwi mind. Just where did this powerful religion come from and who do we believe? Who is it we should trust to sell us the magical means to enjoy good crops and healthy cattle

Whiterose - as Rev observed a few posts ago, protestants will protest! They don't have any choice, really, since their legitimacy depends upon attempts to justify their break from the Catholic church. There are more protestant sects than I can name and I suggest than you can name - the point I was making is that they differ in belief from Catholics and each other, so although secular authorities may lump them altogether as 'Christian', or 'non Pagan' (since Stuart was discussing Ancient Rome), it is a meaningless categorisation. Stuart did accept that "its followers would be in 100% disagreement".

Rozwi - one of the advantages of playing an Empire such as yours is that you can interpret such things in the way you choose, so good on you!

Basileus wrote:I think the fluidity between early Christians and Jews only really starts to end with the conversion of Constantine and the Council of Nicea. Both Christian and Jewish authorities tried to create a gulf between the faiths which originally was not there. There were Jewish people who were also Christians and Christians who followed Jewish practise. It was the leadership of both religions that had most to gain from clear blue water between the faiths.
The primacy of Rome was really achieved because the other four patriarchies fell within the Muslim world. In particular in late antiquity and the early medieval world. The Byzantine emperors would not hesitate to imprison troublesome Bishops of Rome.

It is a serious line of argument. Some scholars do prefer to use the conversion of Constantine and Council of Nicea (325AD) as pivotal events on which to build their thesis. Others prefer to use the Council of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70AD. I prefer 70AD because this is the earliest evidence of formal distinction in belief and practice between Christians and Jews, evidence recorded in Scripture and accepted since then. After the destruction of the temple, the number of Jewish sects increased and it is quite probable, as Basileus states, that some identified more with Christianity whilst others sought to claim Christianity as a Jewish sect. But those attempts failed.

Basileus wrote:The primacy of Rome was really achieved because the other four patriarchies fell within the Muslim world. In particular in late antiquity and the early medieval world. The Byzantine emperors would not hesitate to imprison troublesome Bishops of Rome.

This is a slightly different point and the 2 are not related. The primacy of Rome was accepted long before Islam appeared (c.600AD) If the bishops of Rome had not established primacy, then why would any Byzantine emperor needed to imprison them? He could surely have simply asserted the primacy of another See and made Rome look foolish. He didn't because he couldn't. Even from prison, the Pope has unparalleled authority.

For those interested, the wikipedia summary is as good an introduction as any: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_papal_primacy

I'm happy to concede that Papal primacy developed as the size of the church grew, probably hitting a peak in the early middle ages, but that doesn't mean it never existed. It would be wrong to think that it was Rome insisting on its primacy whilst other Sees insisted on theirs and that Rome won not on its own merits, but because the others dropped out. St.Ignatius of Antioch and St.Clement of Alexandria were both willing to accept the primacy of Rome which would be somewhat odd if they had asserted their own primacy by the 2nd century.

It was rarely a case of Rome extending her authority without being asked by others to resolve disputes. More often than not it was Rome being forced to act because of circumstances in other churches, then once the ruling/clarification had been issued it was beholden on all to accept it. Many of the early problems were over such matters as the correct titles to be used by certain bishops and their position in the heirarchy. Not so much disputes over belief, but social status, yet Rome was obliged by her position, to sort it out.

Basileus wrote:Getting partly back on track with where the topic was going. Alexandria was for a period of time, especially in the first couple of centuries AD, the intellectual driving centre of Christianity. In part because it had become the intellectual centre of the Mediterranean world under the leadership of the Hellenistic Ptolomies. This continued into the Roman period and thus the early Christian period. Another example of Egyptian influence on the church was the ahnk symbol which was taken up as the symbol of the crucifix instead of the earlier fish symbol,

I did post earlier recognising the influence of Egyptian Christians, but I don't think a successful case can be made from Christian Primitive arguments which tend to ignore the way that the churches accepted the authority of Rome at the time. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism for many permutations along the same theme.

.

Sorry to interupt,

Can some one please tell me how ot access the G10 thread, I keep on clicking on it from the " Portal", but somehow keep on ending up on this thread on relegious discussion & debate, rahrt than the goings on in game 10.

Hey, I'm having the exact same problem! Can't be your machine...

Sent from Topic'it App

J Flower wrote:Sorry to interupt,

Can some one please tell me how ot access the G10 thread, I keep on clicking on it from the " Portal", but somehow keep on ending up on this thread on relegious discussion & debate, rahrt than the goings on in game 10.

Think I understand your problem (and that of anyone else playing a muslim or heretic character) .........but after 9 games and three failed years of trying to find a solution to the Spanish Succession G10 has decided to go down a new more gentile path abandon the Spanish Succession and in future this thread with be known as G10 - Religious Conferences & the settlement of Christian Religious Differences.

Early topics for debate and consideration will include:

a) Who is senior the Patriarch of Rome or the Patriarch of Abysinnia? - Plus the conversion of Africa (both the Emperor and the King of Rozwi get nominated as Saints but some question in getting a load of Witch Doctors drunk locking the doors and setting fire to the hut is a Saint like action - examples from Orthodoxy which prove its very Saint like cause problems for b)

b) Church conference held in Ukraine to heal schism in Church between Catholics and Orthodoxy - King of Poland hosts conference and locks all the Bishops into a room with no food or drink until the last one alive agrees to a united Church which uses Orthodox services and way to work out Easter but lead by the Bishop of Rome.  Conference calls for a crusade to liberate poor Protestants in the Baltic States from rule by a Heretic.

- Czar of Russia agrees to take the cross but is a bit busy locking Orthodox Bishops in a room untill they agree to re-united Church lead by Pope.

-  Question as to make the King of Poland a Saint or excommunicate him is subject of five re-counts.  

c) General Council of Catholic Church - solves hundreds of issues inc Papal taxation of National Churches, who appoints Bishops etc. etc

- Louis XIV the HRE, the Pope and the Doge of Genoa are made Saints
- Bart, Forbin & the Duc of Savoy take Holy Orders and become Cardinals
- English and Scots lawyers/Parliaments so impressed by quality of debate esp that of Papal Lawyers that they vote to rejoin the Catholic Church and adopt Othodox rites (Lord Melville invents a special tonic to help Clergy grow proper beards)

Clearly settling all the issues by sweet reason, religious debate and beating swords into ploughs must be better and easier than using armies so how can anything go wrong?  Or even object?

(PS Players note that while spending all this time and effort on Religious conferences a lot of merchant ships have gone missing -terrible problem with storms and sea monsters in G10 can not think why.)

Stuart Bailey wrote:Clearly settling all the issues by sweet reason, religious debate and beating swords into ploughs must be better and easier than using armies so how can anything go wrong?  Or even object?

Sounds good to me.

Rather difficult to fight a war when your army is only 9 men and an officer. They form a very short line, very square column, and don't really need advanced tactical deployment such as a square. Must be difficult to fight an opponent who doesn't exist.

Perhaps if Stuart's dream plays out and we are all united, he may get his war if enough players ask for a crusade against the Ottomans. Sure that would be more your style, Stuart ... after all, who else could be to blame for all those missing ships?

Papa Clement wrote:

Must be difficult to fight an opponent who doesn't exist.

Perhaps if Stuart's dream plays out and we are all united, he may get his war if enough players ask for a crusade against the Ottomans.  Sure that would be more your style, Stuart ... after all, who else could be to blame for all those missing ships?

Please take care with comments about fighting an opponent who doesn't (seem) to exist on a G10 tread......it could cause horrible confusion and scabble influenced visions of the future in London.

If the 1st Lord Blandford shows up in Rome as a Jacobite Propanganda chief and Opium Traders start to go missing I am going to blame the Royal Navy!

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Please take care with comments about fighting an opponent who doesn't (seem) to exist on a G10 tread......it could cause horrible confusion and scabble influenced visions of the future in London.

If the 1st Lord Blandford shows up in Rome as a Jacobite Propanganda chief and Opium Traders start to go missing I am going to blame the Royal Navy!

Not in Scabble, so all this is lost on me.

Something completely different;

I have been attempting to flesh out some of my charactres in game ten, rather than just having an ambassador who gives over his papers & is then no longer seen or heard from again I am trying to get some of them activley involved in the games by giving them a personality & letting them carry out actions, I'm just wondering if anyone else has tried this approach in other games of LGDR & if so what have they had their characters undertake?

I tend to send ambassadors with 2-3 traits or points for their character (1-2 positive and 1 not so positive). Am hoping that this helps Richard to give a response if they are asked anything, though I've not actually asked them to do much yet. I have the same approach with advisors I create resulting in some interesting responses that generally cause me more doubt on a course of action. At some point I should investigate the background Richard has developed for them but am busy with other orders atm.


When I played Scotland many years back one of my characters blackmailed the Bank of England in to giving Scotland a nice hefty loan that I invested in trade - it helped that England and Scotland both used the pound as currency

I did a little of this in game 8 with my french ambassador who is into art and culture and has thrown banquets for the literati and artists of France.

I've heard it can pay dividends over time. Other players have written about how role playing the ambassador gave them advantages.

That said, to do it regularly is an investment on your turns, so I stopped doing much there as I tried to manage my turn fees which had gotten a bit out of hand.

On that note, I have been trying to do game 10 on more of a budget with mixed success. My experience to date suggests that if you're just running/role playing the position, you'll be fine. If you're trying to accomplish something semi-difficult, the roadblocks that Richard throws up mean you have to spend more to adequately overcome them. Or you throw up your hands and cut corners, which has been my approach