GM's Code:
Quote:
You can please all of the people some of the time.
You can please some of the people all of the time.
You will piss off everyone eventually.
Printable View
GM's Code:
Quote:
You can please all of the people some of the time.
You can please some of the people all of the time.
You will piss off everyone eventually.
What can I say.
I'm biased and I'm quantitatively sure KotR had more dust ups, wranglings, arguments, threats, venom, spiteful activity than LotR.
The general dynamic worked for a number of reasons.
Therefore I'm suggesting that it is used again, with some changes.
In this instances the method of edict and CA power tied into the game very well, plus how land was secured and distributed, plus the houses was very well done.
Adoption handling, no RBG's, Family Tree usage and a limited understandable rule set are all still arguably well done.
I recall a major problem in the lategame for KotR when players playing important fms became inactive (or rather worse, almost inactive, preventing us from finding new players to fill in). At least that was the view from House Swabia. Didn't Ruppel end up being the only active fm in Swabia?
I did strongly consider the KotR ruleset when it was first brought up. I'd gladly gm such a game, or one closer to LotR. I consider both to have the potential to make the new game great and I'll go for whatever most people prefer.
However, remember when I joined KotR. The Cataclysm was a brief high point of activity followed by a long slow down. I did not experience most of the things you're talking about. I experienced a House with no leader, a manufactured conflict I had no stake or real desire to join (for that matter, when I did try to participate in it I was rebuffed by the players who were already planning the end of the game) and a sudden decision to end the game that I didn't see coming.
I spent the latter months of KotR working with Matthias Steffen to save Outremer (the best part for me, rivaling the Swabian rebellion) and sharing joking complaints with some of my fellow new players about how the Swabian leader was always absent.
The beginning months of LotR, on the other hand, saw a ton of scheming and constant changes in the relationships between my character and those of players such as deguerra, TheFlax, YLC, Tristan, Rossahh, and Smowz (listing only the newer players since I've noted some of the more veteran players seemed not to have known just how much was going on outside of their own admirable attempts to push the game along). I suspect that things might have done much better in the mid-late game had it not been so hard to fight a civil war, and if active players did not drop out without warning (myself included for those months I had no working computer).
I read most of the links in KotR's history thread, and I do think the game's "active period" was longer than LotR's, for various possible reasons. I also agree the Diets were more interesting, and we were much too cooperative in LotR. I think it's important to investigate why that's so. If it turns out that scrapping the LotR rules wholesale and taking up the KotR rules then I'm all for it. If people would rather keep what they like from LotR (flexible Houses, rgbs, etc.) and change the parts they felt hindered the game I'm all for that as well.
I guess what I'm getting at is that KotR does not hold any special magic for me that made it better, largely because I'm not a KotR vet. I joined the game during its waning period, when it's rules were no longer enough to help conflict along and instead events like Siegfried's planned death and the Cataclysm and everything that resulted from it caused most of the conflict. That is, outside forces.
So, for me and I suspect many of the players that weren't in KotR, some convincing is needed. Preferably a serious debate. If such arises I'll gladly start a poll to decide which rules to use. We could begin by asking TinCow to move the longer posts you and Ituralde made in the OOC thread supporting the KotR ruleset here. :yes:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Fair enough and I'm glad you posted a counter position to mine Zim. "Perception is everything" in many ways.
A lot of development went into LotR and I certainly think certain things must be included and melded with KotR. A "super set" of slimmed down rules from both would be ideal.
indeed.
So very true. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Now, from what I read, most people seem to want a compromise between KotR and LotR. (Correct me if I'm wrong).
I'll talk about Houses in an instant, first I want to talk about Ramses' proposition that votes be tied to land. While this has some merit, making land much more important and promoting conflict over land. I think it takes out too many newcomers out of the equation. I think it would be much more sensible to have some sort of system where the number of landed vassals are more important. Not only does land remain important, but people also become an important resource. I'm thinking it would make for a fun game if people had to fight for vassals and loyalty would become rather important.
If I remember correctly, LotR wanted to do that, but by tying voting power to stats, even the people with the highest ranks (like deguerra) never got high enough stats to benefit from their rank.
Now for the Houses, perhaps a mix of established "permanent" Houses and other more fluid Houses could be established. So lets say we go with the family tree being split into Houses, like KotR. We could also have RGBs who form small units of their own, similar to Houses, and who can pledge themselves to a House for a certain amount of time, at the cost of the established noble House. Just an idea and it could be more refined, it also does not remedy what to do with adoption. (I guess they could be treated case by case.)
I figured being on the short list of guys left who joined KotR in it's later turns my perspective might be different from people who were in it longer or never played the prior game at all...
I actually already have a few ideas for a hybridized system as far as House structure goes, the first time I've thought I could sit down and write up some rules. I'll save the details of it for after we have some discussion of the KotR rules set, though.
One strong point of KotR was that the fixed Houses meant very different characters might have to work together with common goals, something that happened less when you chose your House (although there was potential in LotR for Houses to develop around types of personality, say a dread House and a chivalrous House, in practice I thought they were quite similar). There would also be interesting situations like Swabia. Having its Duke be inactive caused problems, but it also meant that Ruppel had to step up to the plate. Because he wasn't officially duke there was some resistance to his leadership. All in all it meant a very interesting dynamic that I don't think was explored properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
I think our views of KOTR can sometimes be clouded a bit by the Illuminati-effect. One of the reasons KOTR is remembered so fondly is that there was a dedicated group of people who decided to play the bad guys over the long term. This in turn encouraged other people to become similarly dedicated in their opposition to the bad guys, resulting initially in a subtle political struggle and eventually moving into open warfare. From my perspective, it wasn't the KOTR rules that caused this, it was the players themselves: the Illuminati who played the bad guys and the loyalists who then stood up against them.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
I would be interested in hearing Northnovas' perspective on this, because I distinctly remember being told that he was very bored with KotR and was close to dropping out. One of the reasons we invited him into the Illuminati was to make the game more interesting for him. After that, he was a major player the entire time. If this is in fact true, the only thing that caused Northnovas' feelings about the game to shift was the Illuminati.
I may very well be biased here, because this game was my brain child. I definitely made huge mistakes with the rule system which cause serious, long-term problems. However, from my perspective as an impartial observer of the game from the very beginning, it seemed like no one every really took much of a lead in the game. I always felt like I had to do things myself to inject conflict and excitement into the game, and that wasn't how it was designed to work. LotR was meant to be a RPG sandbox game. It was designed to let people have a lot of freedom in their actions. Yet it felt to me like people were always waiting around for someone else to do something to cause the excitement.
There were a couple early sparks, like Elite Ferret getting kicked out of his House, but these were always soothed over and everyone tried to be friends. That's the perfect way to act in the real world, but it's damned boring in a game. The first person who took a lead on generating conflict was, not surprisingly, Ignoramus. Iggy played the only true 'villain' we had in LotR and while he did a great job, always remaining consistent in his actions, it took FOREVER for anyone to stand up to him. His blatant abuses of power were handled with a CA banning him from automatically taking the Megas position. That's it, that was his only penalty. The first time anyone really stood up to him was when Tristan stopped him from marrying off his daughter, and even then I had to step in and use my powers to try and make that conflict serious.
It was only about a month or two ago that people finally DID catch on to what was needed and what was possible. Ignoramus, YLC, Ramses, Cecil, Zim, TheFlax, Ibn... all of these people stepped out of the 'friend zone' everyone was playing in and decided to shake things up. Suddenly, the game became exciting, but unfortunately the damage had already been done.
I personally don't think it truly matters which rule system is used. I think a new game based on the KotR rules could be a massive success or a massive failure. I think a new game based on the LotR rules could be a massive success or a massive failure. The determining factor, IMO, is whether the players decide to take risks and rile up the system. No matter how good the rules, a game will be dull if this doesn't happen. No matter how agonizingly bad the rules (well, within reason), a game will be exciting if the players give it exciting plotlines.
These games are sandbox games. Sandbox games give players the tools to do whatever they want, but they have to create their own entertainment. If everyone just sits in the sandbox waiting for someone else to start building something interesting, eventually they'll all get bored and go home. Or someone will pee in the sandbox.
Regarding land and voting consider this: If we return to a 'fixed' House structure, which I can definitely see as a good thing for causing conflict, then vassals will be placed automatically and we can maintain a one province = one vote system without risking new players being unclaimed as vassals and losing the will to participate. If we combine that with a system to replace inactive leaders so the Houses stay active at the top we'll have a good mix of simplicity, engagement, and conflict.
Which is to say, following the KotR example, House Franconia has 3 members. The Duke has 3 provinces and his two counts have each conquered one. When a new general or family member comes into the House there's a huge amount of tension created automatically within the house. Does the Duke give up a province (And a vote) to invest his new vassal in the house? Does he give the new man an army and tell him to go get his own province? Which province can the new man go after anyway, surely the older counts want to expand in all the obvious directions already? Is it time to take a look at Swabia's lightly held central towns? Etc, etc.
There was none of this tension within Houses in LotR.
I like the LotR ruleset. I think TC built a good framework for open roleplaying and cooperative storylines, but during the test we didn't see that there weren't enough restrictions on the players to cause internal conflict and too much complexity in the ranks and powers. I think if we simplify things so that power is directly tied to land there will always be conflict, there will always be Houses and players eyeing each other's loosely defended settlements in the center of the Empire, which, let's face it, is one of the core flaws of MTWII. After you grow to a certain size there are vast regions where nothing is going on.
The fixed house structure is frustrating when you're playing it. Believe me, Fritz was in the worst possible spot in the KotR ranks with his younger brother being first Duke, then Prinz, and finally Kaiser. He had essentially no possibility of feudal advancement... which is why, in my mind, the Illuminati were so appealing to him. Conflict created, conflict resolved, interesting story produced.
I don't oppose having some modifiers to the votes because obviously the King, Prince, and perhaps former Megas/Chancellor should have some added influence, but I think the essence of the system for most players should be one province = one vote. I can nearly guarantee we won't reach the sort of static 'lock down' we have at the end of LotR where you have to march 5 turns across the Empire to try to find a fight.
I particularly think that if we keep the system for siezing captain led stacks we're going to see some interesting developments.
:egypt:
What about an in-game victory awarded to a house that controlled a certain percentage of provinces? So if there were 4 houses, victory might be achieved if a single house controlled a third or more of the factions provinces. The condition might not be enabled until a minimum number of provinces were controlled by the faction. It would certainly make for conflict as a house looks at weakly defended places belonging to another house.
I'd like to speak against the one province = one vote idea. I think it goes in the wrong direction. It encourages wild expansion, and will once again lead to bodyguards flying off left and right in the early game. Furthermore, there are only a handful of provinces in the early game for any faction, and it will make a large proprotion of the players disenfranchised. It would only serve to further weaken the Diet, and we have never before taken away anyone's votes, at least until the secession rules.
In fact, I'd rather go the other way: one person = one vote. If there is to be any good Diet discussion, there needs to be a powerful Diet. With everone having a vote, it would be up to the leaders to woo the voters, and each voter would maintain significant power. We also need to make expansion difficult and slow (the AI will not do that for us), which could be done through the territory Edicts I ranted on about in my last post. LotR had strong fuedalism and it killed the Senate. We need to go back to a more of a voting bloc thing rather than lord-and-vassal.
Requiring Edicts to take and dispense land would likely cut down on expansion greatly, and getting them passed would take on a new dimension if other Houses knew they'd be strengthening a rivals voting power.
That said, I'm a little concerned about the constant civil war that could result. It sounds like as soon as we reach a decent size Houses would likely start fighting it out for land. PVP is fun, but politics takes a nosedive during major pvp conflicts. Suddenly talking doesn't offer much, and everyone is afraid of saying anything lest they give something vital away. I'd like to see civil wars as being a fairly infrequent event, but major when they do occur.
Personally I'd rather see people being more important than land, or a mix of both. Certainly the stat caps we had need to be looked at, since they prevented even those of high rank from having any influence to speak of.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
At the risk of complication and I hate that.
Land could be taken into account, as well as rank and attributes. TC had a basic version of this and it did work.
flyd point is what I am concerned about.
However if all land is siphoned first to the King and then handed out, this checks that expansion issue to some extent. I really like the King being neutral (technically :inquisitive:), the Chancellor being an elected position who rivals the Kings powers but for a transient period of time, and then the houses below, with Dukes being regional power holder (i.e. deciding who gets armies, who gets land when it is handed to him by the king. With the Prince being aligned and "in waiting". That system, worked, and really was an excellent concept that created some great stories.
There is something to be said for observing the actual feudal hierarchy of history in this sense.
I think everyone feels the need to have enough of a chance to make a name for themselves and have social mobility in the game, which is such a modern democratic, personal freedom concept. It just wasn't the case back then, however if people can move up to being a Duke (which is harder because it should be by birth unless there are some untimely deaths and it has to move outside the family, and that's not to say a Duke could not name his heir from someone outside his family but having served loyally for years. Arnold would have done that due to having no children for example) or Chancellor (this is more likely to be achieved by any player as it is not based on the family tree and is elected) an otherwise excepting the position dealt to them in the game as basically their "lot in life", then people can operate inside this sand box and play their respective roles.
The static nature of houses and the personalities in them is exactly what created such great context. The longevity of feeling towards each of the families and their houses in KotR became epic in its proportions in many respects. Adoptions added fresh blood, hell the lead of one of the first houses was played by a non family member...who was that again.
Plus, TC is correct. You get out of it what you put in.
I liked the vassals idea more than mere land-based power.
But I was wqonderign how it works...
person A captures a few cities in the beginning.
He gives 2 cities to vassals B & C.
B captures himself another 3 cities and C 5 cities
B takes on 1 vassal (D), C takes 3 vassals (EFG)
Does that mean that person A has 6 vassals beneat him right?
BCDEFG?
Would make for some rare enormeous powerful men, something like a pyramid, no?
Unless we add a neutral king (well, supposedly neutral anyway)
are we talkign bout ingame faction leader or someone elected for a certain term or...?
Would be a major reason to get yourself elected king, you can hand out the provinces to whomever you want :p
Can you also take away lands as king?
This is the simplest method, and it's pretty balanced. It forces politicking to get your agenda through, rather than brute force from a few people.Quote:
Originally Posted by flyd
I'd like to ask the players how they felt about the 'Influence' votes in LotR. From my perspective, few people ever got beyond 1 influence, and it didn't seem to impact the game at all. Based on what I saw in LotR, I think it might actively be good to completely abolish stat-based Influence. Just give everyone one vote and be done with it.
sounds great.
Atleast everyone gets a say in the game, even if you join late.
Then again, not much incentive to gain ranks no?
Alright, it's likely horribly written, unedited, and full of unforeseen loopholes and complications, but here is an example of how I imagine a more fixed House structure like KotR that still allowed for oathbreaking and RGBs would work. Feel free to pick it apart.
The basic idea is that Houses are semi-fixed along familial lines. However, it also allows the creation of new Houses through either oathbreaking or the creation of new lines through marriage directly into the King's family. RGBs have greater flexibility but are restricted from leading Houses. Obviously it would be made less generic sounding after we picked a faction. :clown:
I. Houses:
(a). There are four starting Houses corresponding to the starting family members (excepting the King) and first two starting generals, named House "Zim Rules", House "Zim Sucks", House "Who Is This Zim Person Anyway?" and House "Gah!". The leaders of these starting Houses are exempt from any obligations to join the Houses of their current or future parents.
All other family members start in the House of their parents, regardless of whether they are born into the family, are adopted, or marry into it. They are able to break their familial oath and attempt to join another House, start a new one, or become independent. However, this brings with it the chance of Civil War as laid out in rule X.
(b). Recruitable generals start off in the game as independent Knights, excepting the first two as per rule I (a). From this position they are free to remain independent or join any of the existing Houses. Should they join an existing House and own land, they will be counted as landed vassals as per rule X (x), but are unable to inherit leadership of the House. Should a knight receive an adoption or marriage offer, they will be required to join the House of their new parents. If they are already members of another House this will still carry the risk of Civil War.
Should a recruitable general become married to any of the daughters of the current King, he is considered to have started a new noble line and is free to create his own House or have his family join an existing one as he sees fit.
About fixed houses: It's good that we've rediscovered them, but let's not forget that we had good reasons to move away from that system after KotR. Igno's attempt to forge a new duchy and my attempt to create an imperial county were both attempts to do things that fit perfectly into the kind of game we wanted to have, but they were both ill-fitted to the rules we had. In fact, I once sent a rules inquiry to econ about what I could do if I became Duke of Austria (I'm sure you'd all be *shocked* to know I was trying to figure out how I could use the position to benefit Prague). I asked if I could use the position to establish Bohemia as an independent county and then abdicate, or if I could move the capital to Prague and turn the Duchy of Austria into the Duchy of Bohemia. I was very surprised to hear that that I couldn't even do the latter.
I think we should start the game with three previously established, permanent houses as in KotR. But as the game goes on, it should be possible to rebel and establish new Houses, which are not permanent and must be fought for.
If we're worried about expanding too fast, we can always use Deus lo Vult as our mod. That adds a lot of extra expenses to the player faction.
What would you say to my attempt to start with fixed Houses allowing new ones by rebellion? :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil XIX
I would say, 'Wow, five people posted in the time it took me to write my post. :sweatdrop: Also, I agree with Zim's proposal.'
I thought this was interesting. I certainly agree that it's more players that drive game activity than rules, especially players willing to go against the grain.
I think I should mention that things could be tough for those of us joining late and out of the loop. Unlike players inside the conflict I was pretty oblivious concerning the Illuminati. People talked a little about a secret group but it was represented to me more as an obsession of Jan's than anything else.
Then a couple times when I tried to get more involved (considering a run for Chancellor and then later trying to be involved in the investigation Cecil was doing) I was rebuffed by one or more Illuminati members.
The story came together wonderfully at the end of the game and I see it as one of KotR's greatest accomplishments. However, I can truthfully say that for a few of us newer guys activity was stifled rather than encouraged by the group. Perhaps if I had taken up a banner against it things would have been different.
On the note of influence, I agree that it wasn't paid attention to much. Caps tended to be low and not many of us had the uberstats needed to have much influence, no matter the rank. I remember it being pretty much the Basileus with a lot of influence, former Megas' with 2 or 3, and lots of 1s...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
I think we should have the ability to form new Duchies but it should be harder than convincing a few people to switch votes. Maybe requiring the official approval of the King in order to legitimise it? The Kaiser in KotR had quite an important role in assigning new provinces, which meant that Houses couldn't afford to risk alienating him. If the King could officially sanction rebels of Dukes then it would create a sense of risk to go against him.
I also think that LotR flopped because of a lack of competition. There was simply too much land to go around. No one threw the kitchen sink into to getting a certain province.
A key element in KotR was stability. The four duchies were there to stay, and so you could make long term plans. In LotR, you were never sure whether a house would exist by the next term which made alliances riskier.
This is a very good idea. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
Okay I thought I would way in since my name has been mentioned and have after reading the thread. KotR was my first concept of a PBEM and enjoyed immensely. It was really the first time interacting on the web with people from all corners of the world. My spouse still doesn't grasp the concept of my "Barbie" game and with strangers but I digress.
Everything is there in the 2 games rule wise. The challenges are combining the 2 and not get complicated. The Chancellor should be the most fun position to play and everyone should feel that they would be able to take on that position without the burden of a heavy rule book. My involvement/decline of the 2 games had nothing to do with rules.
If I can go from the start with KotR I was intrigued by the concept and decided early that my allegiance was to the Austrian House and the reason behind my patience waiting for an avatar. However, I could still interact in the Diet and vote. That was important to be involved with the policy. What I really liked was the House concept. There was the concept of the lord-vassal but the Diet was really a democratic process with everyone getting their say. It is a rule but an important one and that has been discussed already.
Once I was active in KotR I did my thing and it is really what you make of it but unlike a single player game there is no immediate end. Members were to concern of expanding and ending to quickly so there is a balance to be had between expanding land and beating the AI too quickly where the challenge is gone.
By the time the Illuminate came along I had completed my story for the avatar and was unsure where to go or what to do. The Chancellor still seemed too daunting and even though I belonged to a House there was no advancement to being the Emperor of Faction Heir. The rules were not restricting me in this case it was my imagination.
When I was approached I thought why not, the game is what you make it and I was not even thinking along the lines of rebellion or striking out on my own; though the rules were not clear in this area or were flexible like LotR. By getting involved with the Illuminate it brought a new dimension to the game play and seeing the reaction kept the interest. In hindsight it could have been any concept that appeared novel and adding flavour to the game. It doesn't mean there has to be a secret society in every game. There were some good concepts in LotR by members.
For me personally there was a lot of time committed to KotR and there was an attempt to have a break between games. I don't know if the break was long enough or the play factor of MTW2 was getting old but I just didn't have the edge when the LotR game started.
It was great to be acknowledged with an avatar but there wasn't the same feel of being the Duke of the House in the Royal Family. I was actually surprised when the Houses were forming and it caught me off guard. I felt compelled to create something but wasn't sure what and in hindsight I should have just been a standalone RBG like flyd.
The stability of the Houses in KotR was an attraction for me and I did not see that in LotR and therefore found the rebellions confusing because who do I really want to side with and if it is the King what do I get as a reward? I felt there was something fighting for the King in KotR that was lacking in LotR. Even the idea of the Illuminate in LotR would lack purpose because of the instability of political structure. Who was going to be around the next term and what would we be plotting against? I guess that is involving the rules of the game a bit but it may have been the faction itself.
The other interesting thing I found with the LotR was the lack of edicts and that made the game unfocused. I don't know if it was the faction or the size of the game but there was no direction and even though there was war in the east a starting position in the west made it unfeasible to get involved or be concerned. I think this has also been stated about the civil war issue. In this case it was not the rules were not utilized by the Senate, but our need to take action on something to create a reaction.
In one case of the rules being improved in LotR was the RBG. I did like the idea that the RBG were accessible for LotR and no one had to wait for an avatar but I really feel having the family connection is important as a base. Some members would prefer to be unaligned and can play the RBG for what it is worth.
To end this long winded story it was not the rules that made the game stale. The rules are there and are a factor of play but they are not the deterrent of game play if that makes sense. It is what can be done in the game play within the rules that can be balanced and fun for the members involved?
If there is no foundation (stability, structure) to start from, then it is very hard to build up (game play). Only then when we are building up from the foundation can someone then take the risk and knock out a few blocks to see what happens.
How about some of these ideas?
The game starts with four Houses, each led by a family member. One of the Houses is designated as the Royal House, and is always ruled by the heir. The starting territory and soldiers are divided up between the houses and the King.
- All new provinces absorbed into the realm must be either assigned by the King, or the King must recognise the conquerer of a new province as its rightful lord.
- RGB's can be recruited when there are not enough avatars, however, they cannot lead a House, and cannot own more than one province.
- A new house can be formed if: (1) There is a civil war involving at rebel faction with at least 3 family members who are not leaders of a House (2) The King recognises or does not condemn the rebel group (3) The leader of the new house is a family member (4) The new house owns at least 2 provinces.
- The King can only control a maximum of 2 provinces. One must always be the faction capital, and the other must be a castle.
- The faction/royal capital can only be a city.
- The King controls 25% of the vote on declarations of war.
- Use the Influence system of KotR:
King = Stat influence
Duke = 3 votes
Count = 2 votes
Baron = 1 vote
- Major civil wars can only occur if: (1) The heir rebels against the King or (2) Half or more of the House leaders declare war on the King or (3) A succession crisis(where there is disputed succession due to MTWII's ridiculous "pick the heir" system).
- Minor civil wars(in-house wars) can occur if the natural son of the House leader is overlooked by the House Leader in his will.
Comments?
Some of those are actually in a sample rule set I'm working on...
What would be the difference between a major and minor civil war?
Major civil wars would be between Houses, while minor civil wars would be when there's a dispute to House leadership.
That's a lot of new posts suddenly. I haven't read all of them yet but I have to agree 100% with TinCows assessment of the player base. These games is what we make of it and somehow we failed to get a good start going. I think most of us realized this, that's why most of our later avatars were villains. It was probably just bad dynamic, but in the end there were too many good guys waiting for villains, and later there were too many villains waiting for good guys and of course the huge travel distances complicated matters even more. I guess there's a lesson to be learned here that has nothing to do with the rulesets used! :2thumbsup:
It's funny how peoples perspectives differ. From my viewpoint the start of the game (after the first megas term) was quite fun, interesting and full of conflict. Actually at some point it seemed that it was the Order vs. the rest of Empire with Asteri being neutral.
And speaking of people fighting Igno's rule abuse I have a clear recollection that we did all we could to fight it. And in the end that didn't end well at all. :skull:
I think the biggest problem at the start of the game was that, lacking any external narrative, the Basileus was very powerful and the new houses found it very beneficial to align themselves with him. At least Komnendoukai and Tagamata had such clauses in their charter and the mercenary Tepaki soon saw who could offer them most gain. I can see if you were in this camp it was very huggy-feely everyone's friends but outside of that camp it was entirely another game... I wonder how the other Order members from that time feel.
And while we are designing the rules for the next game and want everyone to be at each others throats all the time I'd like to point everyone to this article, which quite nicely points out that there are two kinds of gamers: competitive and co-operative, builders and destroyers. And ideally a game offers something for both kinds.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I think this is a little too restrictive, particularly points 3-5. However, I do think there could be utility in making a distinction between 'Major' and 'Minor' Civil Wars. If it was easier to win a 'Minor' civil war would encourage low-level unrest, and would also make it easier to depose House Leader's who are lacking in activity.
Under my character Asteri formed some fairly close ties with the then Caesar Ioannis. Iggy and I talked IC pretty early on. Maybe we can reveal some of those talks after the current game ends...
Little did I know that a. many of the Houses would form on a "loyalist" basis and b. that there would be some minor internal conflict over how close to the Imperial family Asteri should be.
Then when Kosmas backed down from his position as House leader the House snapped back into the in between position it had up until the end. I think deguerra was biding his time for something major to happen before Asteri attempted to intervene in any conflicts, but then the civil wars stalled and there never really was a chance.
Of course, other members of Asteri might have a completely different view of what happened over the game. :clown:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowan
Hmmm...can't currently think of anything to add, but I see us coming back to some of the ideas I had earlier or others have had.
I like the idea of creating new Houses by rebellion, but I also like the idea of being able to create a House peacefully. Maybe allow House Creation by either A) Having it ratified by either vote or the King/Emperor himself in the Council, or B) By blunt rebellion?
If we give Dukes (Heads of Houses) some freedom (such as the a better form of unit prioritization?), this unto itself could inspire people to actively rebel or attempt to gain followers and voting blocks in the Council sessions.
This also gives a sense of solidity to Houses while still having them being fluid.
As for distinguishing Civil Wars, I really don't think we need to, as it may create unnecessary baggage.
I'd also like to suggest that we make ownership of provinces much more fixed. If a person became a count of a province, it should be very difficult for him to lose that province, except by conquest.
How about one player, one vote.
And for every x number of vassals, you get a vote extra?
Combined with the need for edicts on lands, it will provide equal footing between the starting players in the beginning, but also rewards those players later on for their efforts.
And if your vassals get vassals of their own, both yours and your vassal's power rise... until some of your vassals break away :p
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I've been thinking about this a great deal (although I just realized I haven't read the article :sweatdrop:), because I think it's a very important concept in developing the theoretical framework behind these PBEMs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowan
I think there are two different types of play styles: Troublemaking and Reactionism. Troublemaking is pursuing your objectives & ideals on your own initiative. It's strategically offensive. Reactionism is defending your objectives and ideals against encroachment. It's strategically defensive.
Of course, any one character is not going to exhibit one of these styles for the entirety of his career. However, looking at some of the major players in LotR there are certain characters (and even players) that had a clear preference.
Troublemakers - Heinrich, Lothar, Fritz, Jan, and Ignoramus.
Reactionaries - Arnold, Matthias, Edmund, econ21.
These are only the examples which I though were most clear. Also, I think that players who have problems with inactivy are Reactionaries by default, or at least appear to be. Notice that there were Troublemakers and Reactionaries on both sides of the Illuminati Conflict. I think this last point is the key to the excellent conflict we found ourselves in in KoTR.
In my personal opinion, Troublemakers are "dread" characters and Reactionaries are "chivalry" characters. Although that would be different then being a "dread" or "chivalry" character in the in-game sense, as we have seen. I know it's odd to call Arnold and Matthias chivalrous, but if you judge them solely by the way they interacted with other other Electors, opposed to Fritz and Jan, I think you'll see where I'm coming from.
In any case, this ties back with what's been said about how important the players are to making a good game. Upon further reflection, I think it's safe to say that there wasn't a single player in KotR who didn't interect with Heinrich in some way. His troublemaking was so momentous that it set the tone for KotR in it's entirety, as has been alluded to by the fact that some Illuminati have mentioned that Heinrich was an inspiration for their desire to eliminate the Kaiser as an institution.
However, that is not to say that reactionaries are not also important. Movers & shakers need dedicated resistance, and in my opinion that can only be provided by Reactionaries. If there's any immediate practical advise to be gained from this, I think it's that at the start of a PBEM we should try to place Troublemakers in position of power where they're most likely to be able to start trouble, and thus get the ball rolling.
Just wanted to let everyone know I'm still around. My wife and I will be moving into a new place the next few days.
I've been waiting for comments after pming a decent chunk of possible rules I'd written out but haven't gotten any yet. I may just post the horrible unedited mess tonight to see if everyone thinks it's going in the right direction.
Everyone that wants to play while waiting for the successor for LOTR: you can join Magna Carta II
A PBM set up by Ignoramus, playing England.
We're just kicking it off, so join from the start! :)
You can find it in the throne room.
Just to add my grain of salt about expansion : if we fear it might be too easy (due to the poor and dumb AI) and do not want a re-do of Methodios BG exploits, what prevents us from boosting the AI as was done during the KotR Cataclysm ?
That would provide enough challenge for any players and force the creation of power-blocks with the intent of taking on the AI...
I remember fondly (and with dread as well...) the battles led against the French with their full stacks of gold-chevroned lancers...
That was because the AI we faced wasn't...the best. Supposedly, Lusted's AI for LTC Gold is the best avialable AI combined with how the campiagn was set up. There is also a few submods that add even more refined aspects to make the game an even greater challenge.
Exactly so why not use the console commands and create for the AI what it is not capable of creating for itself, ie stacks not completely made up of cheap troops or siege engines ? That would surely prevent too fast an expansion on the part of the players.Quote:
Originally Posted by YLC
As to player involvement, I think that what differentiates KotR from LotR is that some of the most active and influential players in KotR remained out of the game/ in the background in LotR.
I agree with Tincow that most of what makes the fun of this game is what players make of it and it is where LotR missed something from KotR.
For my part, I was sorry to see PK go as he sure managed to create characters that provided a lot of strife in the Diet/Magnaura. The fact that Tincow, GeneralHankerchief didn't play but remained in their role as GM also cut out a part of the possible mischief. The fact that AussieGiant and Overknight took also unpretentious roles deprived us of some of the debates that raged in KotR.
Those experienced players should have taken the bull by its horn, putting up a standard for the newer players to live up to. The new set of rules would still have allowed players to make their place in the sun...
With Lusted AI (and LTC) you woulnd't have to worry about that much, although an occiasonal beef may not be bad ~;p.
Indeed, that is how i felt as well - I especially felt a drop in the game tension after PK left. I wish he hadn't.
There were a few players that rather disliked the gold chevroned stacks.
Making some balanced stacks for them from time to time would be easy enough if people didn't mind the heavy gm intervention. Heck, with the hotseat function I or someone else could even "play" an ai faction a couple turns to help them get their act together.
I don't really remember needing the Hotseat function for that, correct me if I am wrong? Maybe I am too used to the console...
This might not be that good idea. I've heard and seen it myself that after you have taken over a faction and played it for couple of turns it will start making some really stupid things if they do anything at all. It lasts about 2-4 turns and after that AI is capable doing it's own decisions again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zim
Perhaps I'm wrong but Egyptian AI in LotR, after TinCow took control over it, had the same problem. But don't take my word on it.
Yes and I was among them... Those stacks were a nightmare but they provided something which we often lack : CHALLENGE...Quote:
Originally Posted by Zim
So they may have been a bit over the top but giving the AI a chance by building stacks that have some viability or by garrisoning its cities with more than two units of peasants might be enough to provide some much sought-after challenge...
Enough so, I hope, that it would force the players to cooperate (up to a point) for any warlike endeavour..
Maybe we could have a person do the AI recruitment and construction? At least for neighbouring factions.
Indeed. I suppose I could handle building the AI's stacks for it, or giving whatever units the AI builds EXP bonuses, but I can't stand a situation like what happened at the end of KotR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zim
It's nice to have a challenge, but if the AI can just spam armies against you regardless of whether or not you're fighting or winning then every battle is a “Why the *#%! did we just fight this?” battle.
The thing is mainly that we'll have to find a balance between fair competition with the AI by giving it balanced stacks and keeping players off by spawning unbeatable stacks of doom...
I think we're all experienced enough players of M2TW to know which is which and go from there...
Now that I have a reliable internet connection again there's some chance of reviving this idea. Are people still interested?
I still am. :)
depending on what mods you guys used I would probably join.
At the moment a mod for vanilla MTW2 seems most likely, although I'll probably put it up to a vote again. Personally Broken Crescent is my favorite, but it always seems hard to get people to play a mod that's pretty much entirely outside of Europe. :clown:
I'd be interested if it was a Broken Crescent game. Are you talkin' hotseat or single faction?
It would be an RPG game along the likes of LOTR or WOTB, so likely single faction. It is possible to play multiple factions in such a game, but we'd need a good number of starting players for that to work. :yes:
Broken Crescent is my favorite choice for a mod, although if the new version comes out soon we'd have to discuss whether to use it (since it requires Kingdoms, which could make it harder for some). I'd also note some objected to a mod that wasn't based in Europe, and the mod chosen would likely be voted on.
The upcoming release of BC isn't going to require Kingdoms. It will be on the MTW2 patch 1.2/1.3 platform. The "kingdoms confusion" is because someone adapted the 1.05 release to kingdoms, but that was not the BC dev team. There's some talk of porting over to kingdoms after it is released, but I've read that the dev team aren't going to worry about it, but if someone wants to do it, they can.
That's good to know, especially with it coming out soon.
I'm in, of course.
:egypt:
I'm a bit busy right now, but I expect my schedule to free up somewhat around October. I would consider joining in at that point if the game was going well.
meh, i dont like eastern factions
My schedule is a bit tight at the moment but I would join gladly once it gets more free...
That kind of game is what keeps me checking the .Org
I'll hope back in, but I'll need some help getting into an Eastern mindset if we go BC.
I don't think I can manage to participate, too much other things in life.
Including SON, eight days old and growing! :beam:
also, :help:
Congratulations Rowan! :balloon2:
Little kids are adorable .. when they are quiet and not crying(I know.. I have one)! :laugh4:
QFT, and also when they actually listen, though that ends at about age 4 1/2. :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun
You guys are olddddddd!!!!:clown:
Unfortunately, I doubt that I will participate in the next game. I love this kind of thing but I'm starting uni in the fall so I'll probably be too busy for this kind of stuff for the first semester. :sorry:
Ramses II CP Glad to have you in the game, Ramses. :yes:
TinCow It'll be great to see you playing a character again. Lothar was one of the greats of KOTR.
mini You can always vote for Lands to Conquer or some other mod. :beam: In fact, the way the discussion had gone previously I suspect you might not be the only one. BC certainly lost out in a big way in the vote for LOTR's mod.
Tristan de Castelreng I hope you join. The Throneroom has been poorer for your absence. :yes:
YLC No guarantee it'll be BC at the moment. It's my favorite TW mod, but I can see how people are tired of playing in that region. We never really broke out far west of the BC map util nearly the very end of LOTR...
Rowan Congratulations! :balloon2:
woad&fangs I'd probably be included among those old people, although no kids yet. :clown:
Posted the last half of the rules. It's closer to LOTR than the other sections, so there are likely fewer kinks to work out...
Let me know if there are any issues with the rules. I have hopes of starting the game soonish. :yes: