Do you want the three starting non-Royal generals to be permanent Dukes of their Houses or Stewards until the King's sons/son-inlaws are ready to rule them?
In the LtC early campaign, France has five provinces and five generals (including faction heir, prince and three non-royal generals) at start, so we will have four initial Houses with a general and Paris with the King. The King has a faction heir, the Dauphin, a 19 year old daughter and two young sons, aged 2 and 1. One House - Aquitaine/Toulouse - will be led by the Dauphin. It is the fate of the other three that is being voted on.
If you vote for permanent Dukes, that is voting for the current rules. Each starter non-royal general will become a Duke and nominate his successor. Unfortunately, they will not have children spawned unless they marry into the royal family tree, so succession is likely not to be by blood line initially.
If you vote for Steward Dukes, then that is voting for the KotR system. Each starter non-royal general will act as a Duke with full powers, but then should step aside when a royal replacement appears. The royal replacements will be the two boys, age 0 and 1, when they come of age; and the husband of who ever the 19 year old Princess marries.
To declare an interest, I prefer the Steward system, but these the pros and cons of the two systems as I understand them:
Permanent Dukes:
- Makes the game more decentralised and feudal
- In medieval France, not all Houses were of royal blood
- The Steward system would give the King too much power at the start
- The steward system would make recruitable generals of lower status
Steward Dukes:
- The core of each starter House will be neatly represented by each of the four tries of the royal family tree
- Making each House dynastic will encourage "familial" role-playing, so brothers and sons will tend to be aligned together
- There are interesting role-playing issues around Stewards - do they step aside (think Aragon/Boromir)
- It makes recruitable generals of lower status
Bookmarks