Successor game rules, draft one.

TheFlax makes a good point about how players might still 'rush the map'. YLC response is sound as well, I think it all depends on how the players as a whole decide to act. With that in mind, I like Tincow's idea of having the Council block the King. I think it might be better if the Council could override the King's decision AND give it to someone else in particular, but I don't feel to strongly about it either way. I like the fact that Tincow's idea lets the King retain more power.

As to RGBs: I think they should just be limited, something of a middle ground between LOTR and the beginning/middle of KOTR. Here's a thought though, that may or may not be true: Is it possible that by forcing people to wait for avatars, the ones most likely to stick around were also most likely to be active and participate? The guys who played KOTR from beginning to end would know more about this, but to me it seems like the least active avatars appeared more around KOTR's end than it's beginning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

TheFlax makes a good point about how players might still 'rush the map'. YLC response is sound as well, I think it all depends on how the players as a whole decide to act. With that in mind, I like Tincow's idea of having the Council block the King. I think it might be better if the Council could override the King's decision AND give it to someone else in particular, but I don't feel to strongly about it either way. I like the fact that Tincow's idea lets the King retain more power.

---

Which is what my idea has basically come down to - seems fair, and realistic to me. You can still rush, but you will need the Council or Kings support. This increases dependency on established Houses, or the King himself to gain any power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

to RGBs: I think they should just be limited, something of a middle ground between LOTR and the beginning/middle of KOTR. Here's a thought though, that may or may not be true: Is it possible that by forcing people to wait for avatars, the ones most likely to stick around were also most likely to be active and participate? The guys who played KOTR from beginning to end would know more about this, but to me it seems like the least active avatars appeared more around KOTR's end than it's beginning.

---

My idea is that they are promoted or sponsored - possibly a House is allowed to sponsor a new general (RGB) once per term, with the condition that the new RGB is attached to the House.

At the very least, I'd go with TC's version of land management.

Anything more is neutering the King too much. He is the King.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

At the very least, I'd go with TC's version of land management.

Anything more is neutering the King too much. He is the King.

---

If 2/3rds of his own Nobles disagree with him, I think realistically, he wouldn't have much say anymore in how the affairs taken care of in his Kingdom, and France was a prime example of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

If 2/3rds of his own Nobles disagree with him, I think realistically, he wouldn't have much say anymore in how the affairs taken care of in his Kingdom, and France was a prime example of this.

---

The Council can veto it, but not force it to a certain House or noble. The King still decides. I think that is appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

The Council can veto it, but not force it to a certain House or noble. The King still decides. I think that is appropriate.

---

Hmm...I still think we need people to pander to Houses more, and thus become dependent on them for power or any kind of gain. We also want to stir inter house rivalry. Being able to fight over who gets what could help, and it shouldn't always be the backers of the King that get everything.

My 2 cents.

Also, what do you think of my idea concerning RBG's?

if we force rgb's to be sponserd (linked to a house) we will have more civil wars, as people might want to move up in the world. That may not always be possible if ur forced to part of a certain house ;p


I joined Lotr fairely late, but did manage to fight a battle (and lose :p) and got involved in the 4 basilei war.
I hope i can get my hands on one from the start this time ;p

RBGs:

There are two main concerns that seem to be expressed regarding using RBGs. First, that players consider them disposable. There's no way to make someone keep an avatar alive when they don't want to, so it's pointless to try and do that. However, we can encourage someone to be more dedicated to their present avatar, regardless of the circumstances they're in. I see two ways of doing this:

1) Respawn timer. After a player dies, a new RBG cannot be spawned for them until X turns have passed. 5 seems reasonable to me. This would prevent avatar swapping unless you're moving from a RBG to a family member, which should probably not be blocked since those avatars stick around even if they're not being used. This also allows someone who won a battle in a civil war (and killed an enemy avatar) time to exploit their opponents temporary weakness before the player gets a chance to respawn and sign back up to fight for the same side.

2) No more multiple RBG spawns. Instead of spawning 3-6 RBGs and letting a player pick from them, a single RBG is spawned and that's what you have to take, regardless of traits, etc. This will make respawning risky because you might well get stuck with a crappy avatar or one you don't particularly like. It might also encourage more interesting roleplaying, forcing a player to take a character in a different direction than they had otherwise planned.

A combination of both 1 and 2 might be effective while still being simple to implement.

The second RBG concern that has been expressed is house instability, which I frankly think is an issue for family members as well. The best way to solve this is simply to make it hard to leave a House once you've joined one. In feudal societies, changing allegiances was a major thing and it would make sense to have major consequences. The most basic idea is simply to prevent any player from breaking an Oath except (1) if he has a dispensation from the King or (2) he declares war on his former Lord. While it makes sense to allow an Oath break if the Duke agrees to it, if the Duke and the vassal are in agreement, I suspect most Kings will give a dispensation. If the King won't allow it, it's just good IC politicking. This also gives the King a second way to manage Houses in addition to the land allocation power we are discussing.

Civil War Mechanics:

This seems to be a question of balancing strategic complexity with efficiency. I can think of many different ways of managing this. The more strategically complex it is, the slower and less likely to result in a battle it is. Here are the various systems I can think of off the top of my head, in decreasing order of complexity (and thus increasing likelihood of battles occurring).

1) Basic LotR system, as the rules are currently written. Players move normally on the map and battles occur when they encounter one another. This allows total freedom of movement in the game and is thus the most strategic, but as we saw in LotR in-game movement speeds often result in 'phony' wars with no fighting whatsoever. This system thus makes civil war almost completely harmless to an enemy whose lands are not near your own, which reduces their impact and makes them less serious. This system has the advantage of allowing gameplay to continue relatively normally while the maneuvering is in progress.

2) Phased Movement system, as was used in the LotR War of the Four Basileis. Essentially, players submit movement orders by PM to the GM or battle Umpire, who then makes all the moves simultaneously, using the console to allow multiple movement phases without advancing the game year. Only combatants submit orders, with all neutrals remaining frozen while the war takes place. This is faster than (1), more likely to result in battles due to the ability to allow increased movement ranges, and still allows moderate strategic movements, such as occupying bridges or defending certain settlements. However, players can still run away from one another or otherwise refrain from fighting if they want to. This also makes everyone else sit around and twiddle their fingers waiting for it all to be over, which can be a pain if it lasts a long time.

3) Phased Movement system, as was used in the KotR Cataclysm. Pretty much the same as (2), but everyone submits movement orders, even neutrals, and the game year keeps advancing. Has the advantages of (2) without making people twiddle their fingers. However, it's a lot more work for the GM/Umpire and it risks exploitation if the neutrals use this period of time to beat up the AI with their bonus movement.

4) MTW/Risk-style system. Similar to phased movement, but players submit orders to move based on province proximity. For instance, any player can move their army up to two (or one, or three, or whatever) consecutive provinces per phased turn. When players enter a province with a hostile force, a battle occurs. Battles are treated as they are in MTW, namely that if one army is moving into a province with the enemy, but the enemy was stationary that turn, the moving army is the attacker and the stationary army is the defender and may get a terrain/settlement advantage. If both armies were moving, it is a meeting engagement and occurs on an open battlefield without one side getting a terrain advantage. This is even faster than (2) and (3) and very likely to result in a battle, since people don't need to move close to each other in a province, they just need to be in the same province. However, this doesn't allow for the same level of strategic detail as (1) through (3) and generally limits people to deciding whether to attack or defend. This also will make the neutrals sit around watching for a while, though for not as long as (2).

5) Instant battle system. As soon as a civil war is declared, all players declare who they support or whether they are neutral. When this is completed, a battle instantly occurs with all participants on both sides showing up. When the battle is over, the war is over. This is the fastest method possible and will ALWAYS result in a battle, making civil wars very serious things. However, it allows for pretty much no pre-battle strategy beyond politically recruiting allies.

Please feel free to discuss these options or otherwise propose your own systems.

As a basic premise, KotR had more interaction and IC politicking than I could handle. Therefore to me the system supported this aspect extremely well. I know it's just my experience but I did play both extremes of the spectrum, unnamed elector, then a family member.

A bit of light reading of the Diet sessions can confirm this.

RBG's are nice, but not a "must have" in my view. At the very least it's a one shot spawn in order to ensure the disposability of the RBG is not exploited.

Civil Wars...again I thought the KotR system was a nice blend of characteristics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Civil Wars...again I thought the KotR system was a nice blend of characteristics.

---

The only KotR civil war system was the Cataclysm, and that took so much time to implement that I had to promise my wife I would never do it again. Just a warning to anyone considering running that kind of thing. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

The only KotR civil war system was the Cataclysm, and that took so much time to implement that I had to promise my wife I would never do it again. Just a warning to anyone considering running that kind of thing. :laugh4:

---

Well lets strike that from the list of options then. :beam:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

4) MTW/Risk-style system. Similar to phased movement, but players submit orders to move based on province proximity. For instance, any player can move their army up to two (or one, or three, or whatever) consecutive provinces per phased turn. When players enter a province with a hostile force, a battle occurs. Battles are treated as they are in MTW, namely that if one army is moving into a province with the enemy, but the enemy was stationary that turn, the moving army is the attacker and the stationary army is the defender and may get a terrain/settlement advantage. If both armies were moving, it is a meeting engagement and occurs on an open battlefield without one side getting a terrain advantage. This is even faster than (2) and (3) and very likely to result in a battle, since people don't need to move close to each other in a province, they just need to be in the same province. However, this doesn't allow for the same level of strategic detail as (1) through (3) and generally limits people to deciding whether to attack or defend. This also will make the neutrals sit around watching for a while, though for not as long as (2).

This seems like a simple yet flexible system. If the player does not specify the umpire will assume they are taking the most direct route. However, the player can also specify tactical moves to end their movement on a hill, hidden in forests, and etc. The presence of a spy in an army should allow it to avoid ambushes, choose favorable terrain, and etc.

Maybe I’m thinking of a merger between (1) and (4). A hostile army shouldn’t be able to move freely through a hostile province. Simple turn-based movement doesn’t account for the use of watchtowers, spies, and scout reports that allow the defending army to react to the threat in real time. The defender should have the advantage, say, in a weighted dice role with the above sensors figured in.

Concerning the RGBs, I am in agreement, although I thought having a choice was nice.

As for the Civil War system I like option 4 the best. It seems to be a good compromise between strategy and efficiency.

I remember that at the beginning of LOTR Tincow had the swell idea of having the players vote on what type of PVP battle would be fought, with the idea of keeping things moving. Could we do something like this here?

At the start of each PVP war, there could be a poll of the choices Tincow listed, minus whatever Zim doesn't want to do. Perhaps restrict the voting just to the combatants, since they'd presumably want to get it done quickly while still caring deeply about the outcome. Zim could cast the tiebraker.

This could allow for a trial-and-error process to see which of the five systems work best, and would also allow us to adjust to the fact that some wars are more suited to the more interactive methods due to closer proximity. For example, a war between Bohemia and Austria would be resolved fairly quickly even in option one since Prague and Vienna are so close.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

I remember that at the beginning of LOTR Tincow had the swell idea of having the players vote on what type of PVP battle would be fought, with the idea of keeping things moving. Could we do something like this here?

At the start of each PVP war, there could be a poll of the choice Tincow listed, minus whatever Zim doesn't want to do. Perhaps restrict the voting just to the combatants, since they'd presumably want to get it done quickly while still caring deeply about the outcome? Zim could cast the tiebraker.

This could allow for a trial-and-error process to see which of the five systems work best, as well as the fact that some wars are more suited to the more interactive methods due to closer proximity. For example, a war between Bohemia and Austria would be resolved fairly quickly in option one since Prague and Vienna are so close.

---

That actually seems like wonderful compromise, and I'll support it! I also like 1 and 4 from the list, but 4 only if we can have the ability to specify strategic movement.

Can independent knights be given forts at strategic locations to simulate the feudal system? Successful defense of those areas should allow the knight to gain status or join a house.

I'm not sure about giving them special legal status but it would be nice to see forts being used. Does LTC add the stone forts from Kingdoms or two free upkeep slots?

I think I'll have the rules done tonight.

I like TinCow's idea about a respawn rate for RGBs and only 1 at a time being recruited.

I assume for the start of the game we're recruiting enough RGBs to go around? Should this happen before or after Council session number 1?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

I assume for the start of the game we're recruiting enough RGBs to go around? Should this happen before or after Council session number 1?

---

IIRC, the first turn in LotR (1080) was used specifically to recruit all the RBGs, so it would be easier to RP and such for the initial Magnaura session, which happened the turn after. Your call, but if we are doing an RBG blitz then it would probably be best to get it out of the way ASAP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

I'm not sure about giving them special legal status but it would be nice to see forts being used. Does LTC add the stone forts from Kingdoms or two free upkeep slots?

I think I'll have the rules done tonight.

I like TinCow's idea about a respawn rate for RGBs and only 1 at a time being recruited.

I assume for the start of the game we're recruiting enough RGBs to go around? Should this happen before or after Council session number 1?

---

I see no reason we can't do the same for this game as we did for LotR: spawn a large number of RBGs and then put them up with the pre-existing family members for selection by lottery. Even if we choose not to allow selection from multiple RBGs later, this is just the easiest method of distributing a large number at once. It does require that the game be advanced one turn before we start though, so that the RBGs can be spawned.

One idea that might be worth considering is developing a system for resolving "duels" between characters. There are some situations in which verbal blows escalate to the point where some physical combat is fitting, but a full blown "civil war" is not - mainly because it is a matter of personal "honor" rather than rebellion per se. In KotR, I remember the Arnold/Jan feud raising this kind of issue - also I think Lothar made some duel type challenge at one point.

Duels would require mutual consent (I don't think we want to go down the road of allowing our characters to murder others). To resolve a duel, I think I could put together some kind of quick umpired system. To make it involving, players could give the umpire some kind of basic order each "round" and the outcome be resolved depending on chance and relevant character stats, traits and experience etc. The possible outcomes could involve death, wounding and new traits (dread for killers, chivalry for merciful victors etc).

Ideally, I would base it on some workable existing skirmish type rule set. (Anyone want to recommend one?) If not, I daresay I could come up with some passable system - e.g. based on some rock-paper-scissors gameplay. Move orders could perhaps include posture: defensive/cautious attack/all out attack; perhaps direction (strike left/right/high/low); and perhaps some "special moves" - e.g. disarm, immobilise.

While in real life, duels might depend heavily on personal skill, in game, I'd be inclined to make it fairly random (you lose either because you rolled low or because you played paper to your opponent's scissors) as the character stats are not focused on physical attributes and anyway the game would suffer if one player emerged as an uber duellist who could slay all others STW geisha style.

I'd also be inclined to allow champions to be nominated as combatants - either NPCs or players - although the rewards would be reduced in line with the risks and players may take a dim view of knights hiding behind their NPC champions. The quality of the NPC champion could vary with rank - it would be a bold man who duelled the king's champion (and an equally bold king who personally duelled rather than relied on such a champion).

Any interest?

We don't need to sort this out in advance of the game as hopefully no one will emerge newborn with a deadly vendetta. Indeed like the table top battle rules, the duel system need not be part of the core rules anyway. But it should not take too long to devise and would be useful to get finalised before any particular duel arises (so the system is not biased towards a particular combatant).

While I'd like for such a system to exist, I fear there's too little in MIITW for a basis, and since duels are decided more by physicality than battles I'm not sure any system would recognize who is the best duelist.

Nevertheless, just having the option would be a great boon to roleplaying. I don't know if you've read about it yet econ, but Tincow came up with a marvelous system for simulating chariot races for LotR. I think if it can be done for one, it can be done for the other. I'd say it's definitely worth a try. To iron out kinks, how about the first few duels in the game can't be to the death, and/or we do some test duels first?

That could certainly be fun. In LotR I developed a rule set to run chariot races with random results but with enough detail to produce interesting and unique outcomes each time. I posted the rules here. A similar system could be used for dueling if you do it in a 'fencing' system, a lot like boarding ships in Sid Meier's Pirates (if you ever played that). The basic idea being that you've got a game board of 7 squares in a single row. Both duelists start in the middle, on square 4. Die rolls are used to determine what happens. For instance, on a roll of 1, duelist A pushes his oppenent back a square, or on a roll of 6, duelist B pushes his oppenent back 2 squares. For flavor, there can be other effects, like an injury which reduces someone's chances in future rolls, or perhaps someone owns an excellent sword which gives them an advantage on a roll once or twice in a duel. When a person is pushed off their last square, they lose. There is then a roll to determine whether they were injured or killed in the process.

Tincow's use of the word 'fencing' made me wonder: How exactly did duels work in the middle ages, particularly the 11th-13th centuries that will likely make up most, if not all of KotF. Does anybody know what weapons, equipment etc. were used. I wouldn't want realism to detract from the fun and functionality of the dueling system, but I'd rather avoid us fighting with rapiers and epees and smallswords.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

One idea that might be worth considering is developing a system for resolving "duels" between characters. There are some situations in which verbal blows escalate to the point where some physical combat is fitting, but a full blown "civil war" is not - mainly because it is a matter of personal "honor" rather than rebellion per se. In KotR, I remember the Arnold/Jan feud raising this kind of issue - also I think Lothar made some duel type challenge at one point.

---

Seconded - my first character Iakovos in LotR tried to get this done multiple times with at least Elite Ferrets character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

would require mutual consent (I don't think we want to go down the road of allowing our characters to murder others). To resolve a duel, I think I could put together some kind of quick umpired system. To make it involving, players could give the umpire some kind of basic order each "round" and the outcome be resolved depending on chance and relevant character stats, traits and experience etc. The possible outcomes could involve death, wounding and new traits (dread for killers, chivalry for merciful victors etc).


Ideally, I would base it on some workable existing skirmish type rule set. (Anyone want to recommend one?) If not, I daresay I could come up with some passable system - e.g. based on some rock-paper-scissors gameplay. Move orders could perhaps include posture: defensive/cautious attack/all out attack; perhaps direction (strike left/right/high/low); and perhaps some "special moves" - e.g. disarm, immobilise.

---

Brainstorm - we could resolve it similarly to Swords in the Moon, using Command as a rating for their duel score, with other stats such as chivalry, dread, and piety coming into factor.

Command - Basic stat? Command could be both number of hitpoints, with each turn could be alternating rounds of offense and defense, and represent number of dice rolled - 1 die for every 2 command stars, minimum 1 maximum 5.
Chivalry - defense bonuses? So whoever has higher chivalry gets a +1 bonus when defending from an attack.
Dread - offense bonuses? So whoever has higher dread gets a +1 bonus when attacking?
Piety - increase die size? Who ever has the most piety gets a bump in their die size, from a standard 1d6 to a 1d8?
Loyalty - Comes into play only when one is a champion? Gives a +1 offense and defense bonus, if the champions loyalty is higher?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

While in real life, duels might depend heavily on personal skill, in game, I'd be inclined to make it fairly random (you lose either because you rolled low or because you played paper to your opponent's scissors) as the character stats are not focused on physical attributes and anyway the game would suffer if one player emerged as an uber duellist who could slay all others STW geisha style.

I'd also be inclined to allow champions to be nominated as combatants - either NPCs or players - although the rewards would be reduced in line with the risks and players may take a dim view of knights hiding behind their NPC champions. The quality of the NPC champion could vary with rank - it would be a bold man who duelled the king's champion (and an equally bold king who personally duelled rather than relied on such a champion).

Any interest?

We don't need to sort this out in advance of the game as hopefully no one will emerge newborn with a deadly vendetta. Indeed like the table top battle rules, the duel system need not be part of the core rules anyway. But it should not take too long to devise and would be useful to get finalised before any particular duel arises (so the system is not biased towards a particular combatant).

---

Aye!

I don't know a whole lot about medieval duels, but they definitely were not like fencing. I just used that term because it has a similar physical setup, with both fighters starting in the middle, and people spar forward and backward without variation to either side. That's easy to keep track of in a numerical system.

An alternative to dueling that might get used a bit more would be drinking challenges. Have an argument? Settle it by drinking your opponent under the table.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

Brainstorm - we could resolve it similarly to Swords in the Moon, using Command as a rating for their duel score, with other stats such as chivalry, dread, and piety coming into factor.

Command - Basic stat? Command could be both number of hitpoints, with each turn could be alternating rounds of offense and defense, and represent number of dice rolled - 1 die for every 2 command stars, minimum 1 maximum 5.
Chivalry - defense bonuses? So whoever has higher chivalry gets a +1 bonus when defending from an attack.
Dread - offense bonuses? So whoever has higher dread gets a +1 bonus when attacking?
Piety - increase die size? Who ever has the most piety gets a bump in their die size, from a standard 1d6 to a 1d8?
Loyalty - Comes into play only when one is a champion? Gives a +1 offense and defense bonus, if the champions loyalty is higher?

---

I like most of these, and would definitely prefer to see our character sheets matter as much as possible so the duel seems more 'real'. I'm not sure if it makes much sense for command to give a bonus to duels, wouldn't valor be better? I also can't see any logic in having piety affect battles, except maybe morale? One thing to consider is traits that give a bonus to hitpoints, that translates from battles to duels the easiest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

While in real life, duels might depend heavily on personal skill, in game, I'd be inclined to make it fairly random (you lose either because you rolled low or because you played paper to your opponent's scissors) as the character stats are not focused on physical attributes and anyway the game would suffer if one player emerged as an uber duellist who could slay all others STW geisha style.

---

I would prefer the opposite. Unlike the geisha (shudder), you can simply choose not to engage in a duel. I also don't think it would get used much, who'd be willing to risk their character/empower their opponent by placing things mostly in the hands of fate? Characters would need to be largely in control, like they are in the tabletop battles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

I like most of these, and would definitely prefer to see our character sheets matter as much as possible so the duel seems more 'real'. I'm not sure if it makes much sense for command to give a bonus to duels, wouldn't valor be better? I also can't see any logic in having piety affect battles, except maybe morale? One thing to consider is traits that give a bonus to hitpoints, that translates from battles to duels the easiest.



I would prefer the opposite. Unlike the geisha (shudder), you can simply choose not to engage in a duel. I also don't think it would get used much, who'd be willing to risk their character/empower their opponent by placing things mostly in the hands of fate? Characters would need to be largely in control, like they are in the tabletop battles.

---

Makes sense - Valor then, with every 3 Valor giving a single die, from 1-4 dice.

Piety is a representation of intellect as well in M2TW, so expanding on that idea, an intelligent persons ability to quickly think would open up a greater chance for them to react to new situations - but would not guarantee any hard advantage, hence why the die is still entirely random. This would also only apply for one die.

I think I'll make a list of a all traits that would be relevant in a duel from the vnv.text and post it with it's ingame modifier and possible duel modifier, should be fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

Piety is a representation of intellect as well in M2TW, so expanding on that idea, an intelligent persons ability to quickly think would open up a greater chance for them to react to new situations - but would not guarantee any hard advantage, hence why the die is still entirely random. This would also only apply for one die.

I think I'll make a list of a all traits that would be relevant in a duel from the vnv.text and post it with it's ingame modifier and possible duel modifier, should be fun.

---

Is it? Not to get into a philosophical debate of course, I just haven't noticed that. If anything I remember traits that suggest the opposite, although maybe that was only in the first MTW. Regardless, I like your explanation very much and would gladly read your report on the relevancy of the traits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

Is it? Not to get into a philosophical debate of course, I just haven't noticed that. If anything I remember traits that suggest the opposite, although maybe that was only in the first MTW. Regardless, I like your explanation very much and would gladly read your report on the relevancy of the traits.

---

Ingame, an increase in piety equivilates into an increase in the ability to generate tax revenue, and it appears the two via stats are not mutually exclusive ingame.

Getting on that report, give me an hour or 2

In Lady Frog's story, there was a part where the Scottish king held a tournament between Fulk and some random noble. Basically, each side hand picked ten knights and then they fought a mini-skirmish with blunted weapons. If a knight got captured he had to pay off a set "ransom price" to whoever captured him. The skirmish was fought until one side captured all the knights on the other side. This could also give the chance for other players to get involved to increase their own standing by fighting in the tournament for one of the two fighting parties.

Or else we could just do jousting. Everybody likes jousting.

Edit: I'd be totally happy with the other ideas discussed so far. I'm just throwing in my :2cents:

Trait list, and my take on them. Warning - very long.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

GoodCommander/BadCommander

Traits that effect command shouldn't be added - why? Because command is far different then actually fighting. Not everyone who was a brilliant commander was a brillaint fighter, and not all brilliant fighters were good commanders - in short, it's far to situational to give any defintive ground as to why it gives a bonus.

Drinker

It's possible this one could give a penalty - fighting drunk is likely to get you killed, and alcohol thins the blood, meaning you will bleed more easily.

Feck

Besides the humor interjected in a fight description, I am not sure how well smack talk translated during a duel, so...

Arse

Definitive penalty to combat, possibly increasing the chance of failing an attack or defense

Girls

I honestly can't see this becoming involved in a duel at all...

Sobriety

A Bonus to dueling, for keeping a clear and level head?

GoodAmbusher/BadAmbusher

This may or may not give some form of slight of hand bonus, enabling you to "cheat" in a duel, or suffer from not understanding how to cheat in the case of badambusher.

Disciplinarian/BadDisciplinarian

Could possibly give an excellent bonus to insure that your actions almost never fail, since the character has trained very, very hard. An opposite effect for being a bad one.

Good/Bad Seiger

Same issue with the GoodCommander/BadCommander traits

Brave/Coward

Bonus/penalty to attack, or simply a similar bonus to Disciplinarian? Nonetheless, an important trait in a duel.

Slothful/Energetic

Changes in priority when attacking and defending, possibly allowing energetic avatars to be able to reroll a die, with slothful being forced to reroll their highest die. It could also translate into a loss of a die or an increase in number of dice. powerful, and usually rare trait.

Berserker

Definite bonus to attack and penalty to defense

Xenophobia/Xenophilia

No effect in a duel, except some smack talk...

PublicFaith/Atheism

I'm not sure this would ever factor into a duel, besides how the avatar ended up in it.

Good/BadAdministrator

Unless it's a duel to see who can transcribe the bible faster...no bonus or penalty.

Inspiring/BoringSpeaker

A possibility for morale, if it's involved - otherwise, no effect

RhetoricSkill

Bonus only if we can bore our opponent to death

StrategicSkill

Possibly a larger die size as a benefit.

TacticalSkill

Allows you to reroll those dice if they are not to your liking - limited by your level in this trait. Possibly being able to reroll one die per round, per level in the trait.

MathematicsSkill

Again, no effect in a duel

PoliticsSkill

Isn't that why we are fighting the first place? Because you have none?

LogisticalSkill

No effect

Rabblerouser

Great way to get the crowd on yourside, otherwise not sure this would help.

VictorVirtue

Same as Rabblerouser, although it may give some kind of intimidation factor

Epicurean/Stoic

Have no clue how this would work out, both only effecting loyalty and the ability to be bribed.

Austere/Aesthetic

Similar issue to Epicurean/Stoic

Ignorance

Lower success rates, but with a bonus to morale?

Gambling

Reroll everything, but only once per duel

SpyMaster

No foreseeable benefit, except for trying to cheat or be able to negate cheats

AssassinMaster

Understanding how to kill someone is of a great benefit - possible attack bonus, or ability to ignore your opponent highest die roll.

CounterSpy

This would probably work better for being able to catch cheaters then SpyMaster

AssassinCatcher

Possible defense bonuses with the ability to ignore your opponents highest attack roll?

High/LaxPersonalSecurity

Defensive penalty/bonus?

Trusting/Paranoia

Same as above

Liar

Increased ability to "cheat"?

Embezzler

This isn't so much a good trait for dueling, as a good way to end up dueling

DeceiverVirtue

High potential to be a good "cheat" trait

Upright

Good anti-cheat trait potential

Corrupt

Another good cheating trait, although this one could have the possibility of backfiring compared to DecieverVirtue

Authoritarian/Nonauthoritarian

I don't see this coming into play ina duel very much as a deciding factor

Disloyal/Loyal

Again, not sure

Cuckhold

Your not fighting with THAT sword...so, no effect

GoodFarmer

Trimming a plant is a bit different then trimming a bush - no effect

GoodMiner

No idea how on earth this could help...

Good/BadEngineer

Catapults and Seige Towers are bit of a no go in dueling...

Good/BadTrader

This would never come into play in a duel

Just/Unjust

No bonus beyond what each trait gives, although this may count if we also include regular jousting for a morale bonus

Harsh/LenientJustice

Same as above

Harsh/KindRuler

Same as above

Good/BadBuilder

Not important during a duel, unless you designed the arena in which your fighting

Generous/Miserly

If we involve a crowd, this is a definite morale bonus

Noctophobia/philia

A time of day bonus/penalty? only if your opponent is foolish enough to challenge you when you have advantage

Perverted

This, should, never come up. If it does, then...I think we will have far greater issues then deciding who is the winner of the duel...

Scout

Gives an opening duel bonus to attack and defense

BattleScarred

Possibly a trait which reduces the randomness of your own rolls? And adds a Hp bonus?

Good/BadInfantryGeneral

You understand the dynamics of an infantryman and the tactics inherent in dismounted combat in the medieval era - I say a signifigant dueling bonus, or penalty

Good/BadCavalryGeneral

Same as above, but only for Jousting.

Fears and Hates "InsertFaction"

No effect

Inbred

Your momma jokes may be taken to a whole new level, but your comabt skills won't be - no effect.

Handsome

A pretty face isn't going to duel for you, but may get the crowd on your side

Ugly

If you have a third arm or second head, this may help. otherwise, I see no effect

Fertile

Nope, not going there...

Infertile

No effect in dueling

Good/BadTaxman

No effect

Divorced

Lots of openings for humor, little openings for actually effecting who is going to win - no effect

Good/BadRiskyAttacker

Should give a hefty bonus/penalty to attacking, with the penalty of making it more random.

Good/BadRiskyDefender

Same as above, but gives a bonus/penalty to defense, and a morale bonus/penalty instead of making it more random

Pragmatic/Superstitious

Not sure what this would do...

ExpensiveTastes/Cheapskate

Same as above...

Hypochondriac/HaleAndHearty

Modifies Hp? and Morale?

TouchedByTheGods

No clue

Sane/Insane

Not sure

Deranged

This is probably one to leave alone, since it's very subjective

Bloodthirsty

Attack Bonus?

Haemophobic

Attack Penalty?

Anger

This could grant a bonus to damage - where once you did only 1 damage (to morale or HP) per success, you now do 2, at the cost of making your attacks and defenses more erratic.

Lewd

No effect

Prim

Anti-cheating effect?

IndecisiveAttacker

Attack penalty?

Intelligent

A small, but general bonus to everything

Despoiler

Unless your fighting a Venetian or playing American Football, there really is no need to sack your opponent...

Genocide

This shouldn't effect the outcome of a duel

NaturalMilitarySkill

Unsure, but possibly a similar effect to having "Intelligent"

ForcedReligious

No effect

CrusaderHistory

Hmmm...a morale bonus?

BattleDread

Enhanced ability to cheat? Ability to reduce your opponents morale?

BattleChivalry

Exact opposite of BattleDread?

StrategyDread/Chivalry

Same as above?

CaptorDread/Chivalry

Same as above, or not involved at all?

RansomChivalry/Dread

Same as above?

Good/BadArtilleryCommander

Again with the catapults! No means no!

Good/BadGunpowderCommander

Cannons included!

Cursed

The dice usually decide this anyway, so - no effect

StrickenSilly/Serious

Possibly allowing you to use a Champion with no penalty?

Gregarious/Introvert

Another crowd pleasing trait, possible morale bonus

Dis/ContentGeneral

No effect

WifeIs "etc"

No effect

FactionKiller

No effect

Good/Bad Diplomacy

Obviously didn't work before you ended up in a duel...

Legacy traits

No effect

TourneyKnight

Good for Jousting, and for morale

AcademyTrained

Maybe reduce the randomness of your dice?

GloriousFool

Unsure - most likely no effect

TooOldtoFight

Ability to use a champion without penalty

Senile

Same as above

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

Trait list, and my take on them. Warning - very long.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

GoodCommander/BadCommander

Traits that effect command shouldn't be added - why? Because command is far different then actually fighting. Not everyone who was a brilliant commander was a brillaint fighter, and not all brilliant fighters were good commanders - in short, it's far to situational to give any defintive ground as to why it gives a bonus.

Drinker

It's possible this one could give a penalty - fighting drunk is likely to get you killed, and alcohol thins the blood, meaning you will bleed more easily.

Feck

Besides the humor interjected in a fight description, I am not sure how well smack talk translated during a duel, so...

Arse

Definitive penalty to combat, possibly increasing the chance of failing an attack or defense

Girls

I honestly can't see this becoming involved in a duel at all...

Sobriety

A Bonus to dueling, for keeping a clear and level head?

GoodAmbusher/BadAmbusher

This may or may not give some form of slight of hand bonus, enabling you to "cheat" in a duel, or suffer from not understanding how to cheat in the case of badambusher.

Disciplinarian/BadDisciplinarian

Could possibly give an excellent bonus to insure that your actions almost never fail, since the character has trained very, very hard. An opposite effect for being a bad one.

Good/Bad Seiger

Same issue with the GoodCommander/BadCommander traits

Brave/Coward

Bonus/penalty to attack, or simply a similar bonus to Disciplinarian? Nonetheless, an important trait in a duel.

Slothful/Energetic

Changes in priority when attacking and defending, possibly allowing energetic avatars to be able to reroll a die, with slothful being forced to reroll their highest die. It could also translate into a loss of a die or an increase in number of dice. powerful, and usually rare trait.

Berserker

Definite bonus to attack and penalty to defense

Xenophobia/Xenophilia

No effect in a duel, except some smack talk...

PublicFaith/Atheism

I'm not sure this would ever factor into a duel, besides how the avatar ended up in it.

Good/BadAdministrator

Unless it's a duel to see who can transcribe the bible faster...no bonus or penalty.

Inspiring/BoringSpeaker

A possibility for morale, if it's involved - otherwise, no effect

RhetoricSkill

Bonus only if we can bore our opponent to death

StrategicSkill

Possibly a larger die size as a benefit.

TacticalSkill

Allows you to reroll those dice if they are not to your liking - limited by your level in this trait. Possibly being able to reroll one die per round, per level in the trait.

MathematicsSkill

Again, no effect in a duel

PoliticsSkill

Isn't that why we are fighting the first place? Because you have none?

LogisticalSkill

No effect

Rabblerouser

Great way to get the crowd on yourside, otherwise not sure this would help.

VictorVirtue

Same as Rabblerouser, although it may give some kind of intimidation factor

Epicurean/Stoic

Have no clue how this would work out, both only effecting loyalty and the ability to be bribed.

Austere/Aesthetic

Similar issue to Epicurean/Stoic

Ignorance

Lower success rates, but with a bonus to morale?

Gambling

Reroll everything, but only once per duel

SpyMaster

No foreseeable benefit, except for trying to cheat or be able to negate cheats

AssassinMaster

Understanding how to kill someone is of a great benefit - possible attack bonus, or ability to ignore your opponent highest die roll.

CounterSpy

This would probably work better for being able to catch cheaters then SpyMaster

AssassinCatcher

Possible defense bonuses with the ability to ignore your opponents highest attack roll?

High/LaxPersonalSecurity

Defensive penalty/bonus?

Trusting/Paranoia

Same as above

Liar

Increased ability to "cheat"?

Embezzler

This isn't so much a good trait for dueling, as a good way to end up dueling

DeceiverVirtue

High potential to be a good "cheat" trait

Upright

Good anti-cheat trait potential

Corrupt

Another good cheating trait, although this one could have the possibility of backfiring compared to DecieverVirtue

Authoritarian/Nonauthoritarian

I don't see this coming into play ina duel very much as a deciding factor

Disloyal/Loyal

Again, not sure

Cuckhold

Your not fighting with THAT sword...so, no effect

GoodFarmer

Trimming a plant is a bit different then trimming a bush - no effect

GoodMiner

No idea how on earth this could help...

Good/BadEngineer

Catapults and Seige Towers are bit of a no go in dueling...

Good/BadTrader

This would never come into play in a duel

Just/Unjust

No bonus beyond what each trait gives, although this may count if we also include regular jousting for a morale bonus

Harsh/LenientJustice

Same as above

Harsh/KindRuler

Same as above

Good/BadBuilder

Not important during a duel, unless you designed the arena in which your fighting

Generous/Miserly

If we involve a crowd, this is a definite morale bonus

Noctophobia/philia

A time of day bonus/penalty? only if your opponent is foolish enough to challenge you when you have advantage

Perverted

This, should, never come up. If it does, then...I think we will have far greater issues then deciding who is the winner of the duel...

Scout

Gives an opening duel bonus to attack and defense

BattleScarred

Possibly a trait which reduces the randomness of your own rolls? And adds a Hp bonus?

Good/BadInfantryGeneral

You understand the dynamics of an infantryman and the tactics inherent in dismounted combat in the medieval era - I say a signifigant dueling bonus, or penalty

Good/BadCavalryGeneral

Same as above, but only for Jousting.

Fears and Hates "InsertFaction"

No effect

Inbred

Your momma jokes may be taken to a whole new level, but your comabt skills won't be - no effect.

Handsome

A pretty face isn't going to duel for you, but may get the crowd on your side

Ugly

If you have a third arm or second head, this may help. otherwise, I see no effect

Fertile

Nope, not going there...

Infertile

No effect in dueling

Good/BadTaxman

No effect

Divorced

Lots of openings for humor, little openings for actually effecting who is going to win - no effect

Good/BadRiskyAttacker

Should give a hefty bonus/penalty to attacking, with the penalty of making it more random.

Good/BadRiskyDefender

Same as above, but gives a bonus/penalty to defense, and a morale bonus/penalty instead of making it more random

Pragmatic/Superstitious

Not sure what this would do...

ExpensiveTastes/Cheapskate

Same as above...

Hypochondriac/HaleAndHearty

Modifies Hp? and Morale?

TouchedByTheGods

No clue

Sane/Insane

Not sure

Deranged

This is probably one to leave alone, since it's very subjective

Bloodthirsty

Attack Bonus?

Haemophobic

Attack Penalty?

Anger

This could grant a bonus to damage - where once you did only 1 damage (to morale or HP) per success, you now do 2, at the cost of making your attacks and defenses more erratic.

Lewd

No effect

Prim

Anti-cheating effect?

IndecisiveAttacker

Attack penalty?

Intelligent

A small, but general bonus to everything

Despoiler

Unless your fighting a Venetian or playing American Football, there really is no need to sack your opponent...

Genocide

This shouldn't effect the outcome of a duel

NaturalMilitarySkill

Unsure, but possibly a similar effect to having "Intelligent"

ForcedReligious

No effect

CrusaderHistory

Hmmm...a morale bonus?

BattleDread

Enhanced ability to cheat? Ability to reduce your opponents morale?

BattleChivalry

Exact opposite of BattleDread?

StrategyDread/Chivalry

Same as above?

CaptorDread/Chivalry

Same as above, or not involved at all?

RansomChivalry/Dread

Same as above?

Good/BadArtilleryCommander

Again with the catapults! No means no!

Good/BadGunpowderCommander

Cannons included!

Cursed

The dice usually decide this anyway, so - no effect

StrickenSilly/Serious

Possibly allowing you to use a Champion with no penalty?

Gregarious/Introvert

Another crowd pleasing trait, possible morale bonus

Dis/ContentGeneral

No effect

WifeIs "etc"

No effect

FactionKiller

No effect

Good/Bad Diplomacy

Obviously didn't work before you ended up in a duel...

Legacy traits

No effect

TourneyKnight

Good for Jousting, and for morale

AcademyTrained

Maybe reduce the randomness of your dice?

GloriousFool

Unsure - most likely no effect

TooOldtoFight

Ability to use a champion without penalty

Senile

Same as above

---

Generally speaking, I agree with your comments. It's very helpful to have all these traits compiled.

I think haleandhearty/hypochondriac should definitely be included, since hp is the one stat the translates directly into dueling. I think it would be best if characters in duels had the same HP that they did in battles, since continuity between in-game mechanics and PBEM rules is usually for the best.

EDIT: I think I'll do the file for ancillaries myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

Generally speaking, I agree with your comments. It's very helpful to have all these traits compiled.

I think haleandhearty/hypochondriac should definitely be included, since hp is the one stat the translates directly into dueling. I think it would be best if characters in duels had the same HP that they did in battles, since continuity between in-game mechanics and PBEM rules is usually for the best.

---

Hence, never challenge the guy with Hale and Hearty, Battle Scarred, and Fine Plate Armor to a duel - ever.

Personally, I would rather see a system like econ proposed, detached from M2TW and with tactical options during the fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

Hence, never challenge the guy with Hale and Hearty, Battle Scarred, and Fine Plate Armor to a duel - ever.

---

Indeed. In otherwords, you need to be an irresistable force in order to have a chance against an immovable object.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFlax

Personally, I would rather see a system like econ proposed, detached from M2TW and with tactical options during the fight.

---

Certainly it's a matter of opinion. Mine is that since MII:TW is the reality upon which we build the rest of the game, we should stay as true to it as possible. I do want to include tactical options regardless though, as I wouldn't want be able to tell who's going to win before the fight even starts!

Its obvious both of you have put some thought into this and I have to commend YLC's dedication in writing out all those traits with a comment attached. I agree with Cecil about M2TW being the reality our characters live in, but its a pretty flawed and limited reality.

My two biggest qualms about this idea is firstly its complexity. That's a lot of date to take into account and I've always been a proponent of simple game systems. (When they are handled by humans) Secondly, when does adding data like traits, ancillaries and stats stops? For example, what of age? Surely experience isn't everything and a 20 years old has an advantage over a 60 years old in the physical department. I'm sure others could come up with a few other things like that which aren't represented in M2TW.

Indeed, there have to be limits. I wouldn't want to speak for YLC, but I think it's important to determine every possible factor we could implement, and from there narrow the focus down to what's feasible. I think we're just giving whoever creates the rules material he can choose to work with, not everything has to be included.

For a moment there I had a vision of horror; a system with about 50 to 60 modifiers for each characters. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFlax

For a moment there I had a vision of horror; a system with about 50 to 60 modifiers for each characters. :laugh4:

---

Hey now, better watch it - I'm starting to have fun organizing the system and choosing which stats to incorporate - no more then 20 will be in, and I am awaiting Cecil's ancillary list (and Save my Senator!).

I think in creating any dueling system it might be best to err on the side of simplicity... very few
MTW2 stats relate to personal combat anyway. Bonuses for special weapons and armor might be interesting, though.

Woad That's pretty much how tournements were done through most of the Middle Ages, I believe. :yes:

From what I know of French history, dueling per se didn't appear until the 16th century when swords got lighter.

What we had before was the "Jugement de Dieu" (God' s Judgment) in which the aggrieved party met its opponent on the field to settle their dispute before God, the will of God being expressed by the gift of victory.

Most times, this judgment was first conducted on horseback with lances and if necessary was prolonged with whatever weapons were chosen, axes, swords, maces...

I fully agree that implementing such a system could be a great addition to the game.

All right, here's what I got for ancillaries. This analysis doesn't include the ancillaries effects on the four basic stats or valor, if those stats end up mattering. I didn't include unique ancillaries like religious artifacts for historical persona, they can be dealt with as they occur. Since there's a limit to how many ancillaries a character can have, unlike with traits, it may be practicle to factor in them all. If nothing else, this could serve as an RP guide for people who want to write stories about the run-up to a duel.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

• academic_advisor - Unless he can find you some 'fighting manuals', he won't be very useful.
• actor - Could help you get the audience on your side, otherwise useless.
• adultress/foreign/she-male - Could affect the audience, but that's it.
• alchemist - HP bonus is definitely applicable, and if we allow dueling with pistols later he'd help you get high-quality weapons.
• apothecary - HP bonus is helpful, perhaps he gives a stat boost via ye olde energy drink?
• architect - Only way this would help is if you were fighting in an arena built by this guy, and he included
  trap doors and giant blades coming from the ceiling.
• armour_custom - This is probably the most obviously beneficial ancillary in the game. Armor is important, right?
• armour_ornate - Worse than your average noble's armor, but could help get the crowd on your side. I suppose you could choose not to wear it, but then you can't choose in a real battle.
• artist - I can't see this guy being helpful at all during the battle, but if he immortalizes your victory afterward that could increase certain rewards.
• astrologer - I suppose if you believe this guy, his predictions could affect your performance.
• bard - This guy would be a real crowd pleaser, if that matters. And like the artist, it's always nice to have someone immortalizing your past victories, right?
• biographer - Again, this guy could only be helpful after the duel; always will to write of battle in the best terms.
• black_stallion - Helpful in a joust, useless outside of one.
• bodyguard - A sparing partner for better practice, or perhaps an above average champion should you choose to decline.
• brilliant_inventor - Conceivably he could invent some fancy do-hicky to surprise your opponent with.
• caravan_driver - He could bring you something useful from a distant land, if that isn't streching things.
• crooked_judge - He could do something cheesy like have your opponent arrested, but I doubt that'd be allowed in the rules.
• doctor - Having the best available personnel to give you care and a good once-over after a duel has obvious benefits, what those are depends on the rules.
• drillmaster - Undergoing an intense physical regimen is a good way to train body and mind to operate calmly and effectively in a fight.
• evil_mother-in-law - Having her in the audience, cheering on your opponent, could either be a real downer or a keen way to focus your anger.
• foodtaster - If your opponent tries to poison you before the duel, this guy could be really helpful.
• fool_brilliant - Perhaps this idiot savant has noticed something about your opponent in a moment of clarity...
• fool_usual - A warm-up act for the audience, if nothing else.
• harsh_judge - Probably not the best time to remind the audience who this man's patron is...
• herald - The closest thing you can get to entering the field of honor with your own theme song playing.
• intrepid_explorer - If you chose to join this man on his expeditions through rediculous terrain, it is child's play to move deftly through a flat arena.
• knight_beserker - A good champion to fight in your stead, and sparring with this man will definitely help you defend against your opponent's attacks.
• knight_chivalrous - Another fine champion, and a good sparing partner who will get you used to fighting someone *else* who's chivalrous.
• knight_dread - Same as a knight_chivalrous, just with dread instead of chivalry.
• knight_santiago - Again, a fine champion to fight in your stead and a good sparing partner. Perhaps his dedication to the Lord will inspire you as well?
• knight_stjohn - See 'knight_santiago'
• knight_templar - See 'knight_santiago'
• knight_teutonic - See 'knight_santiago'
• lancebearer - If you're jousting, it's good to know someone who can get the best lances.
• librarian - Perhaps some ancient sword treatise could ensure your victory...
• magician - The audience is sure to support a noble who employs a miracle worker...
• magician_pagan - But not someone who defies the word of god.
• master_mason - See 'architect'
• master_of_archers - Unless duels involve bows or crossbows in some way, this guy isn't going to be very useful.
• master_of_assassins - This is someone who can definitely teach you how to end a fight quickly. Perhaps he knows a way to disable someone without killing them?
• master_of_horse - A good horse is of great benefit in a joust, but only their.
• master_smith - Making sure your weapons and armor are of good quality is quite a boon.
• mathematician - If only he could calculate kinetic energy and the pressure at the tip of an opponent's weapon fast enough to be of help..
• mentor - Old men with experience can have all kinds of useful information.
• mercenary_captain - This guy can set you up with some sparing partners, and even find a top-class warrior to fight in your stead.
• military_engineer - Unfortunately, this guy's engineering is useless for personal combat.
• money_counter - Unless you need help getting enough money for arms and armor, this guy can sit on the sidelines.
• musician - A good choice to warm up the audience. And people will remember who his employer is!
• nosy_mother - This is not a distraction you want when you're preparing for a fight, but at least she stands between you and your enemies.
• ordinance_master - If only, if only...
• overseer - Good management can't help you in the heat of battle, not unless you're in need of a quick mob.
• pet_guarddog - Restrained or not, if he sees your opponent going for the coup-de-grace...
• physician - See 'doctor'
• priest - Having a man of god on hand can help your peace of mind. At least he can quickly administer last rites.
• quartermaster - Perhaps this man can quickly acquire high-quality arms & armor for you?
• royal_escort - Stand in, sparing partner and someone you can keep an eye out for fishy business. It's good to royalty.
• runner - Athletics are a good way to prepare for battle.
• scout - A man who's used to scouting out the enemy in preperation for battle, where ever the field lies.
• scribe_ancillary - Not much use for writing in battle, unless he can find you a book on techniques.
• shieldbearer - When your shield stand between you and the enemy's blade, you'll be glad you had a man who could get you the best shield.
• siege_engineer - See 'ordinance_master'
• soothsayer - See 'astrologer'
• spymaster - The perfect choice to find your opponent's weaknesses, as well as safeguard your own.
• swift_steed - A good horse is invaluable in a joust.
• swordbearer - The more swords you have access to, the more you can have faith in the best of the bunch.
• tax_farmer - If you need money for bribes, this guy's your man. But would you?
• torturer - No matter how badly you beat your opponent, you can't sick this guy on him. Still, he can teach you a few tricks on how to cause pain your opponent can only imagine.
• treasurer - See 'tax_farmer'
• trusty_steed - To you and your horse, a joust is just another battle.
• tutor - See 'mentor'
• veteran_warrior - Perhaps the best champion and sparring partner a nobleman could ask for.

I was actually thinking of narrowing down the list, and basing it off of TC's Chariot Race Rules, but allow the players to influence it in a RPS fashion, and then rolling dice based upon valor.

Thus, in the following fight, we have two knights

Knight Cecil has 2 HP, as dictated by his avatar, and 6 valor (3 silver chevrons), which would give him 3 dice per phase.

Knight Flax has 4 HP, as dictated by his avatar, Fine Armor, and Hypochondria, with 4 valor (1 silver chevron), giving him 2 dice per phase.

Knight Cecil has the trait "Scout", giving him the opening move - he chooses attack, and his stance type - High, Mid, and Low - Mid.

Knight Flax chooses his stance type - High, Mid, Low - Low

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Low>High>Mid>Low for reference, with the superior stance gaining a +1 bonus to all it's rolls

Knight Cecil rolls 4, 1, and 5, and each die gets +1 due to his superior stance, giving him rolls of 5, 2, and 6

Knight Flax rolls a 4 and 3 - not enough to beat either of Knight Cecil scores. Knight Flax is soundly beaten this phase, losing 2 HP.

Knight Flax then goes on attack, rolling 4 and 3 yet again, this time with Mid as his stance.

Knight Cecil defends with 4, 6 and 1 with his stance set to High, giving him advantage, with 5, 7, and 2.

Knight Flax is unable to damage Cecil, who is fighting superbly and easily countering everything being thrown at him.

Knight Cecil then launches into his own string of attacks - 5, 4, and 5 - with his stance set to Mid.

Knight Flax flounders under the withering series of blows - rolling 1 and 1 - and even screws up his stance, having it set at Low, giving Cecil +1 to his attack (6, 5 and 6). Knight Flax loses 2 HP, is on his knees, and is at the mercy of Knight Cecil's masterful handling of combat.

Okay, yes, a bit cheesy, BUT, this was all decided by random.org, so blame chaos if you so wish. This is the very basic setup, and the only current changes I am thinking of is "expanding" upon the idea of chivalry and knavery actions, and having every 3 chevrons add another die and hitpoint.

Yes so why don't we just play AD&D on line?

You guy's are going rule mad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Yes so why don't we just play AD&D on line?

You guy's are going rule mad.

---

Thats where I thought this dueling thing was going, although in a far and away simpler format. Suddenly I am tempted to duel everyone from KotR against each other :laugh4:

It's fun though, and it will most likely happen rarely. Most extremely simple systems have to much random chance in them.

And this will mostly be a write up of how everything plays out, with me or whomever as arbiter.

You know what, I'm going to go do that - pit the old electors against their hated rivals and see who wins :laugh4:. It's just to tempting to pass up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Yes so why don't we just play AD&D on line?

You guy's are going rule mad.

---

I thought you would be interested in the idea of rules for duels, as it was the memory of Arnold impotently pursuing Jan that made me suggest the idea. I agree there is a risk of over-complexity, although with duels requiring mutual consent, it will be easy for a player to opt out if the rules just do their head in. Let's ponder on it for a few days and then when we have one or two specific proposals, we can decide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng

Most times, this judgment was first conducted on horseback with lances and if necessary was prolonged with whatever weapons were chosen, axes, swords, maces...

---

That's exactly what I had in mind - I like grounding rules in history, otherwise everything risks seeming arbitrary. My thinking is that the opening jousting would be relatively bloodless and with few modifiers (they would primarily relate to experience, age and any traits relating specificallly to riding). The fun - risk of death and rules compexity - would really start if it got to combat on foot, although I take AGs point that we don't want to go overboard.

I like TCs and YLCs ideas. I'll do some research on the history and possible rules, then come back in a couple of days with a proposed system that steals draws from them. Once we have exhausted discussion, we can put any specific proposals to Zim for approval and if they receive it, organise a poll if there is a choice or disagreement among other players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I thought you would be interested in the idea of rules for duels, as it was the memory of Arnold impotently pursuing Jan that made me suggest the idea. I agree there is a risk of over-complexity, although with duels requiring mutual consent, it will be easy for a player to opt out if the rules just do their head in. Let's ponder on it for a few days and then when we have one or two specific proposals, we can decide.

---

One of the biggest problems in LotR was a sort of rule overload in which the complexity and sheer volume of things we had to familiar with was bogging down the game. Midway through the PBM, TinCow called a time-out and a group of us worked together to streamline things. Since then, there's been a kind of spoken and unspoken consent to make it as KISS as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

One of the biggest problems in LotR was a sort of rule overload in which the complexity and sheer volume of things we had to familiar with was bogging down the game. Midway through the PBM, TinCow called a time-out and a group of us worked together to streamline things. Since then, there's been a kind of spoken and unspoken consent to make it as KISS as possible.

---

I'm hoping that I can do a KISS for the participants, and handle the rules complexity on my side - this way, the participants would only need to play a rock paper scissors game, and try to focus on the psychology of their opponent. It's proven that you can consistently win at RPS, through strategy :laugh4:

If any duel system is picked, I'd say the easiest thing to do would be to place it outside the official KOTF rules, rather like TinCow's race in the Hippodrome. A "tournament field" thread could be created to act as both an IC thread and site for duels. Anyone wanting to fight one would then have to agree to go by the ruleset presented, or do it all as a story or whatever they prefer. I could implement any in-game changes they agreed on (say one character died, or they were betting a province or something).

That way the main rules don't get cluttered up, and if certain things worked or didn't it would be much easier play around with the duel rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

If any duel system is picked, I'd say the easiest thing to do would be to place it outside the official KOTF rules, rather like TinCow's race in the Hippodrome. A "tournament field" thread could be created to act as both an IC thread and site for duels. Anyone wanting to fight one would then have to agree to go by the ruleset presented, or do it all as a story or whatever they prefer. I could implement any in-game changes they agreed on (say one character died, or they were betting a province or something).

That way the main rules don't get cluttered up, and if certain things worked or didn't it would be much easier play around with the duel rules.

---

I'm already adapting my rules to take this into account, which will centralize each characters stats for the duel system and will allow fair creation of Champions. We could go one step further and create full tourneys with the system, both for mounted and unmounted combat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

If any duel system is picked, I'd say the easiest thing to do would be to place it outside the official KOTF rules, rather like TinCow's race in the Hippodrome. ...

That way the main rules don't get cluttered up,...

---

In that spirit, it's probably best to split off discussion of tournament rules into a separate thread, so it does not crowd out or over-shadow consideratin of the core game rules. I'll start a new thread for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

One of the biggest problems in LotR was a sort of rule overload in which the complexity and sheer volume of things we had to familiar with was bogging down the game. Midway through the PBM, TinCow called a time-out and a group of us worked together to streamline things. Since then, there's been a kind of spoken and unspoken consent to make it as KISS as possible.

---

QFT, though I don't generally think this applies to ancillary rule systems like the chariot races. The biggest problem I see with the duels is not that they will be too complex (only one person really needs to understand them anyway) but that they won't be used. I originally imagined the chariot races as a way for people to gamble their possessions with others and to resolve disputes by seeing whose team won a race. It was never used for that.

If there is a serious risk of death from dueling, I doubt we'll see it used too much. I don't know about you, but I'm not likely to risk my avatar's life on a roll of the dice. If I'm going to get myself killed, it will be in a PvP battle. This is the reason I suggest drinking challenges instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

QFT, though I don't generally think this applies to ancillary rule systems like the chariot races. The biggest problem I see with the duels is not that they will be too complex (only one person really needs to understand them anyway) but that they won't be used. I originally imagined the chariot races as a way for people to gamble their possessions with others and to resolve disputes by seeing whose team won a race. It was never used for that.

If there is a serious risk of death from dueling, I doubt we'll see it used too much. I don't know about you, but I'm not likely to risk my avatar's life on a roll of the dice. If I'm going to get myself killed, it will be in a PvP battle. This is the reason I suggest drinking challenges instead.

---

Oh, I see how it is - exclude those who can't or won't drink. And what if I dislike the alcohol in question?How fair of you :laugh4:

The new thread is covering this gents.

And I make the same issue TC just did. It's a nice threat to have, which maybe all it needs to be as if someone in the Diet session has enough steam up he can use it as a leverage point.

Can you imagine Arnold with good duelling characteristics in a Diet session....sweat lord, it could have been a blood bath...literally.

Having said that...it's a hell of a risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I originally imagined the chariot races as a way for people to gamble their possessions with others and to resolve disputes by seeing whose team won a race. It was never used for that.

---

I hate to contradict but I can remember at least one instance of this : settling the dispute between Methodios (myself) and Nikiphoros (Warmaster Horus) over Scopia of all provinces (:laugh4:).

And I must admit that I rather like the idea of non-lethal (but shameful, for the loser) "trial by god".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng

I hate to contradict but I can remember at least one instance of this : settling the dispute between Methodios (myself) and Nikiphoros (Warmaster Horus) over Scopia of all provinces (:laugh4:).

And I must admit that I rather like the idea of non-lethal (but shameful, for the loser) "trial by god".

---

So you like my rule set? Anything you'd like to see, amended, added, removed? Posted in the correct thread of course

See my post in said thread :yes:

we can always add that in later...

let's just get the game main rules out of the way so we can get started ;p

I am about done with my proposal on a system for duelling - we can see if rival systems are proposed and decide on how to go forward on the duelling "mini-game" in due course. It looks like we have some time before all the players have Kingdoms, so it might be good to review the core rules, which are much more important than any mini-game. I was struck by what TC said recently in another thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

... how I feel about LotR in general: many improvements that made the game better, but lots of flaws with the system that prevented it from really coming into its own. Fortunately, a lot of those problems were ironed out along the way so we don't have to deal with them anymore. The 'Royal Army' system that was pioneered in KotR has transformed into an excellent and very efficient system for private ownership of military units, as have the rules for IC legislation and OOC rule changes. The built-in ability for the GM to launch 'events' at will also helps a great deal. However, the House structure and the PvP mechanics were never properly polished up during the game and we're still trying to resolve the problems with them now.

---

Maybe I am reading this wrong, but I wonder if this implies we need to do more work on House structure and PvP mechanics? Reading this thread, I can see the point about the latter, at least. Do other people think there are problems? Are there solutions? I'm coming late to this discussion and without the benefit of following LotR, so forgive me if I am asking to go over old ground.


EDIT:


On other matters, a few minor points on the rules:

3 (d) Wills and inheritance: insert Wills must be deposited with Zim before the character's death to be considered valid.
Ducal succession was an issue in KotR and personally I don't like players making key decisions after their avatar is dead. Do we explicitly allow Dukes to resign? If not, I think we should.

3 )(f) Rules disputes : maybe state that Zim's ruling can over turn that of the King/Prince/Chancellor? this is to avoid a player who really abuses this power in an OOC way. Also, I am leery of giving the Chancellor sole power over the disputes involving the King/Prince. Wouldn't a council of Dukes plus the Chancellor be better?

3(f) Emergency sessions I am leery about allowing Dukes to call these. They really slow the game down and I would rather not let one partisan player do this. Maybe require a second Duke to agree? Two Dukes shouting stop sounds like an emergency - one not so much.

On impeachment, presumably it requires an emergency session, if it is to be done out of full session?

5 (b) army ownership: what's a garrison? any pre-existing stack in a settlement? or just free upkeep militia?

French terminology - now we have selected our faction, does that mean we should change some terminology to fit the context? e.g. do we need titles for some of our concepts, e.g. should it be Senate or Parliament or Assembly or what? What are our 4 Houses going to be called and which provinces will be in which? My preference is for something regional, roughly corresponding to east, west, north, south, but I don't know the details.

The problems with Houses in LotR was that they were so fluid that they didn't have much meaning, pretty much the opposite of what the problem was in KotR. Since the system in KotR seemed to work a bit better, the current version of KotF's rules are mixed between the two, but leaning towards KotR. I think we're satisfied with that, right?

As for PVP, the issue there was that in LotR most of the civil wars ocurred across distances so great that you could spend a whole Chancellor's term marching without getting to your enemy. That hasn't been fully resolved, although I think part of the problem was that we never got around to building paved roads through Anatolia. Also, we used Stainless Steel for LotR, which might have different movement rates than LTC. Perhaps LTC will be better?

In any case, my prefered solution is this: At the beginning of a civil war, either the combatants or all players will vote on the movement system to use that's most suitable for the war to be fought. The options are those Tincow outlines here:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

1) Basic LotR system, as the rules are currently written. Players move normally on the map and battles occur when they encounter one another. This allows total freedom of movement in the game and is thus the most strategic, but as we saw in LotR in-game movement speeds often result in 'phony' wars with no fighting whatsoever. This system thus makes civil war almost completely harmless to an enemy whose lands are not near your own, which reduces their impact and makes them less serious. This system has the advantage of allowing gameplay to continue relatively normally while the maneuvering is in progress.

2) Phased Movement system, as was used in the LotR War of the Four Basileis. Essentially, players submit movement orders by PM to the GM or battle Umpire, who then makes all the moves simultaneously, using the console to allow multiple movement phases without advancing the game year. Only combatants submit orders, with all neutrals remaining frozen while the war takes place. This is faster than (1), more likely to result in battles due to the ability to allow increased movement ranges, and still allows moderate strategic movements, such as occupying bridges or defending certain settlements. However, players can still run away from one another or otherwise refrain from fighting if they want to. This also makes everyone else sit around and twiddle their fingers waiting for it all to be over, which can be a pain if it lasts a long time.

3) Phased Movement system, as was used in the KotR Cataclysm. Pretty much the same as (2), but everyone submits movement orders, even neutrals, and the game year keeps advancing. Has the advantages of (2) without making people twiddle their fingers. However, it's a lot more work for the GM/Umpire and it risks exploitation if the neutrals use this period of time to beat up the AI with their bonus movement.

4) MTW/Risk-style system. Similar to phased movement, but players submit orders to move based on province proximity. For instance, any player can move their army up to two (or one, or three, or whatever) consecutive provinces per phased turn. When players enter a province with a hostile force, a battle occurs. Battles are treated as they are in MTW, namely that if one army is moving into a province with the enemy, but the enemy was stationary that turn, the moving army is the attacker and the stationary army is the defender and may get a terrain/settlement advantage. If both armies were moving, it is a meeting engagement and occurs on an open battlefield without one side getting a terrain advantage. This is even faster than (2) and (3) and very likely to result in a battle, since people don't need to move close to each other in a province, they just need to be in the same province. However, this doesn't allow for the same level of strategic detail as (1) through (3) and generally limits people to deciding whether to attack or defend. This also will make the neutrals sit around watching for a while, though for not as long as (2).

5) Instant battle system. As soon as a civil war is declared, all players declare who they support or whether they are neutral. When this is completed, a battle instantly occurs with all participants on both sides showing up. When the battle is over, the war is over. This is the fastest method possible and will ALWAYS result in a battle, making civil wars very serious things. However, it allows for pretty much no pre-battle strategy beyond politically recruiting allies.

---

To use KotR as an example, this would allow us to use a different rule set for a war between Austria and Franconia than Austria and Outremer, where distance and time could really harm things. I think deciding on a system on a case-by-case basis really helps keep things flowing well.

Thanks, Cecil. I agree we have probably solved most of these issues. I am still wondering about unit recruitment in a civil war though. This goes back to my view about tabletop battles which is that it is the pre-battle army strength rather than the battle itself which determines the outcome. What we seem to have now is that the Chancellor can decide to pick which priority recruitments to make - so having the Chancellor on your side in the war seems crucial. I might be ok with that [1] but I just want to check that is intended.

[1] It seems to imply rebels will need to have mustered their men before declaring war, or planted a compliant chancellor. I guess the rule requiring all prioritised units to be recruited before any others is some constraint on the chancellor - as is the threat of impeachment - but still. One reason why it may be ok is just the logistical hassle of decentralising unit recruitment and the associated economic model. We trialled such a thing in a co-operative concept before Kotr, but it was just spreadsheet hell.

On choosing the system for resolving PvP strategic movement, my preference would be for Zim to make the call rather than have a vote. Particular systems are likely to favour one side more than another (e.g. the strong initial faction will want a quick resolution, the underdogs may want a guerilla war). We can't expect players to vote impartially in that situation. I would rather Zim decide what is best from the point of view of a realistic simulation and from the point of view of keeping the game moving in a fun manner. He could change things mid-stream too, if the guerilla was just stalling and it was a war of words etc.

I would like to comment on the issue of PvP, more specifically the battles:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

(d) - PvP Battles: Whenever two hostile armies enter adjacent squares, a PvP Battle will occur, even if the armies have movement points remaining. If both players agree, the battle will be fought via multiplayer, with Zim or anyone he chooses acting as umpire. The umpire will determine the map and the precise composition of the armies. If the battle is not fought via multiplayer, there will be a 24 hour voting period to determine how the battle will be fought. The voting options will be (a) Tabletop Battle (b) Abbreviated Tabletop Battle and (c) AI Battle. All players may vote, even those not involved in the battle, all votes will be unweighted, and the option that receives the most votes will be chosen. Tabletop Battles will be in the style of the The Battle of the Iron Bridge and the Battle of the Basileis and will be umpired by Zim or anyone he chooses. Abbreviated Tabletop Battles will be identical to a Tabletop Battle, but will be 1 turn in length. Players will determine their starting positions and outline a general strategy for the battle. The umpire will then play out the battle and determine the victor. The umpire may allow a maximum of 1 or 2 additional turns beyond the starting turn if they so choose. The Abbreviated Tabletop Battle will be run by Zim or anyone he chooses. AI Battles will be custom battles in the TW engine in which the AI will control all units on both sides. AI battles will be umpired by Zim or anyone he choose. The umpire will determine all settings to be used in the battle, including the map and the precise composition of the armies. Regardless of the type of battle chosen, the umpire must attempt to have the battle replicate the in-game state of affairs to the best of his ability. Regardless of the type of battle chosen, the umpire will determine the results, including, but not limited to, units to be disbanded as casualties, avatars to be killed off as casualties, and changes in the control of provinces. Console commands may be used to implement the results.

---

I think that we may have to rework how we choose exactly what style of battle we fight. In LotR, I count a total of six battles being fought, if we divide the Battle of the Basileis into three separate engagements. Four were tabletop and two were MP. As the umpire for all of the tabletop battles (even though I had help thanks to Zim and TinCow), I was pretty blown out by the end of the PBM.

Now, we do have, by my reckoning, four players that have experience umpiring battles: Myself, Zim, TinCow, and econ21. That *should* be enough to cover everything. But in the case of, say, a Franconia/Austria Civil War that doesn't utilize the "everybody load up and throw it in" mechanic, there might be a string of battles at once. If they're all tabletop, that could seriously slow things down and kill the umpires. Naturally, every player is going to want to fight the full-on tabletop, but sometimes I think that shouldn't happen.

Instead, I propose the following:

If the engagement isn't MP, then there is a vote to determine the exact style, as before. However, it is divided three ways:

- 33% of the vote goes to the participants.
- 33% goes to the entire player base.
- 33% goes to the GM.

In my opinion, this would give a fairer representation to the relative weight of the player base and perhaps work to streamline things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I am still wondering about unit recruitment in a civil war though. This goes back to my view about tabletop battles which is that it is the pre-battle army strength rather than the battle itself which determines the outcome. What we seem to have now is that the Chancellor can decide to pick which priority recruitments to make - so having the Chancellor on your side in the war seems crucial. I might be ok with that [1] but I just want to check that is intended.

---

Yes, having the Chancellor be your ally is crucial during a Civil War and it was intentionally created that way. The way I saw it in LotR (and still do) a properly prepared civil war involves political campaigning to put yourself into a position where you can then seize whatever you want with military power. For the same reason, it is also important to stockpile military units when you can get them so that if an enemy comes after you while a hostile Chancellor is in power, you can still survive. I like this kind of system very much, because it forces people to use politics (and thus IC moves) in order to win civil wars. This seems realistic to me and focuses the game towards domestic interaction rather than attacking the AI.

The end of LotR was a direct result of such a situation. Zim was a heavy backer of Ignoramus, who was the son of the previous Emperor, but had not inherited the throne due to game mechanics. Zim and Ignoramus made sure that Zim got elected as Chancellor, and then Zim used his time to build up massive armies for Ignoramus. When the final war started, this resulted in Ignoramus having such a large force at his disposal that he was essentially invulnerable unless all his foes united against him from the start. They did not do this, and thus Ignoramus was the victor... all because he made sure to get an ally elected as Chancellor and that Chancellor specifically used his powers to boost Ignoramus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Yes, having the Chancellor be your ally is crucial during a Civil War and it was intentionally created that way. ...

---

Ok, that's very illuminating. I am a little worried that creating a very powerful strategy like this might distort the game. Now people have seen Ignoramus do it so successfully, there may be a scramble to repeat the trick and make civil war the focus of the game from the outset. I'm not sure that is wise given the problems we have implementing PvP mechanics (not to mention my personal tilt towards cooperative rather than competitive play). I wonder if we should muddy the waters a bit so that "get a Chancellor, then declare civil war" is not guaranteed to be so effective next time? One possibility would be to introduce some kind of "loyalty test" mechanic with units - so that some units may defect or desert from an army. The likelihood of such attrition could depend on the political balance of power. That might make the Chancellor's mega army less likely to conquer all, if he lacks political support.

I guess one basic question to ask is why do we want civil wars in the game? We did not allow for them in the WotS and KotR rules and only really used them to make the bring the game to a conclusion. A good reason for allowing for civil wars is to deal with massive divisive conflicts that get so heated, they can only be resolved by war. The English Civil War and the American Civil War are examples of such things. An additional reason would be for allowing for more minor disputes etc between nobles, but I am not convinced that is the way to go (hence the duelling idea). If we just want civil wars to be "big", we could require some political prerequisite - e.g. only Dukes or higher can declare civil war. That also might be a good way of allowing for some but not all lesser disputes. Personally, I think the competition between players is more fun when done via politicking and jockeying for influence rather than engaging in open warfare.

While talking of declaring war, what are the rules about declaring wars on (edit) civil foreign powers? I see the King can do - is it only the King? Or can the Senate vote for a war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Ok, that's very illuminating. I am a little worried that creating a very powerful strategy like this might distort the game. Now people have seen Ignoramus do it so successfully, there may be a scramble to repeat the trick and make civil war the focus of the game from the outset. I'm not sure that is wise given the problems we have implementing PvP mechanics (not to mention my personal tilt towards cooperative rather than competitive play). I wonder if we should muddy the waters a bit so that "get a Chancellor, then declare civil war" is not guaranteed to be so effective next time? One possibility would be to introduce some kind of "loyalty test" mechanic with units - so that some units may defect or desert from an army. The likelihood of such attrition could depend on the political balance of power. That might make the Chancellor's mega army less likely to conquer all, if he lacks political support.

I guess one basic question to ask is why do we want civil wars in the game? We did not allow for them in the WotS and KotR rules and only really used them to make the bring the game to a conclusion. A good reason for allowing for civil wars is to deal with massive divisive conflicts that get so heated, they can only be resolved by war. The English Civil War and the American Civil War are examples of such things. An additional reason would be for allowing for more minor disputes etc between nobles, but I am not convinced that is the way to go (hence the duelling idea). If we just want civil wars to be "big", we could require some political prerequisite - e.g. only Dukes or higher can declare civil war. That also might be a good way of allowing for some but not all lesser disputes. Personally, I think the competition between players is more fun when done via politicking and jockeying for influence rather than engaging in open warfare.

While talking of declaring war, what are the rules about declaring wars on civil powers? I see the King can do - is it only the King? Or can the Senate vote for a war?

---

I think the chancellor is a little too important in civil wars. While he certainly should be a factor, it seemed like having him on your side was all that mattered. I'm also rather concerned that the results of endgame PVP in KotR and LotR were so obvious in hindsight, rather than closely contested matches. Obviously there's no reason that can't happen some of the time, but if it keeps happening it may indicate a problem.

To answer your question about Civil Wars, we want them for the same reason we want duels. It's odd to not have the option when it makes sense that such things could happen. I like your idea for restrict people's ability to declare though. Perhaps counts can only start civil wars in order to break away from the Houses, either to join another House or to start a new one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

I think the chancellor is a little too important in civil wars. While he certainly should be a factor, it seemed like having him on your side was all that mattered. I'm also rather concerned that the results of endgame PVP in KotR and LotR were so obvious in hindsight, rather than closely contested matches. Obviously there's no reason that can't happen some of the time, but if it keeps happening it may indicate a problem.

To answer your question about Civil Wars, we want them for the same reason we want duels. It's odd to not have the option when it makes sense that such things could happen. I like your idea for restrict people's ability to declare though. Perhaps counts can only start civil wars in order to break away from the Houses, either to join another House or to start a new one.

---

Which is what I saw as an inherent problem of the civil war system as of now, and it was my opinion that we some how balance this, possibly through a militia or mercenary recruitment, for those who had civil war declared upon them - possibly 2 militia of the highest quality from each settlement under the declared's control, be it a House, the Duke himself, or any of his underlings.

Those changes seem reasonable. I hadn't really expected many rules disputes to happen, I think about that one...

2 Dukes to call an emergency session makes sense.

Impeachment does indeed require an emergency session.

A garrison is any units inside of a settlement, at least for the purposes of the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

EDIT:


On other matters, a few minor points on the rules:

3 (d) Wills and inheritance: insert Wills must be deposited with Zim before the character's death to be considered valid.
Ducal succession was an issue in KotR and personally I don't like players making key decisions after their avatar is dead. Do we explicitly allow Dukes to resign? If not, I think we should.

3 )(f) Rules disputes : maybe state that Zim's ruling can over turn that of the King/Prince/Chancellor? this is to avoid a player who really abuses this power in an OOC way. Also, I am leery of giving the Chancellor sole power over the disputes involving the King/Prince. Wouldn't a council of Dukes plus the Chancellor be better?

3(f) Emergency sessions I am leery about allowing Dukes to call these. They really slow the game down and I would rather not let one partisan player do this. Maybe require a second Duke to agree? Two Dukes shouting stop sounds like an emergency - one not so much.

On impeachment, presumably it requires an emergency session, if it is to be done out of full session?

5 (b) army ownership: what's a garrison? any pre-existing stack in a settlement? or just free upkeep militia?

French terminology - now we have selected our faction, does that mean we should change some terminology to fit the context? e.g. do we need titles for some of our concepts, e.g. should it be Senate or Parliament or Assembly or what? What are our 4 Houses going to be called and which provinces will be in which? My preference is for something regional, roughly corresponding to east, west, north, south, but I don't know the details.

---

I think befriending the Chancellor or making careful use of prioritized units before a Civil War should give some advantages. I should note my case in LOTR was somewhat exaggerated. Nobody seemed to pay attention to my gross overspending and recruitment of troops in the middle of the Empire where they weren't needed (or if they did noone objected) and noone but Rossahh called in any prioritized units, which would have made things tougher.

I'm not sure about artificially buffing the defending side... maybe due to civil unrest units can't be recruited in provinces involved in a Civil War? This would have the side benefit of punishing anyone engaged in a long war, and mean that once it began, the advantage of having a Chancellor friend decrease greatly.

GH I fear that might be getting too complicated. I'd like the deciding phase for battles to go quickly, especially since a day or so of voting could easily take longer than many of the pvp battle methods (excepting tabletop of course). It is something to think about though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

I'm not sure about artificially buffing the defending side... maybe due to civil unrest units can't be recruited in provinces involved in a Civil War? This would have the side benefit of punishing anyone engaged in a long war, and mean that once it began, the advantage of having a Chancellor friend decrease greatly.

---

That sounds like a fair compromise, and actually stresses House alliances more, who can give units from their lands, where they can still be recruited. It can also setup another House, such as those who prepared the whole thing, to suddenly be backstabbed and lose another Houses support who had been supplying them with troops.

I just don;t want our civil wars to all be "coups"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

I'm not sure about artificially buffing the defending side... maybe due to civil unrest units can't be recruited in provinces involved in a Civil War? This would have the side benefit of punishing anyone engaged in a long war, and mean that once it began, the advantage of having a Chancellor friend decrease greatly.

---

From what I understood from TC, the issue is not so much what the Chancellor does during the civil war - although that is an issue - but what he has done before. You recruit a big army and then declare civil war, not declare first and then recruit. If anything, freezing recruitment during the civil war could aggravate that, not address it as it makes permanent the initial advantage. (If the attackers were very unpopular, an emergency diet could impeach the Chancellor and the defenders could then use their own Chancellor to start recruiting troops). It would also seem wholly ahistoric - in the ECW, ACW etc, the starting armies were rather pitiful in size and quality. It was during the war that the sides recruited and trained masses to their side.

One step might be to say that Civil Wars are always "events" in which the gamemaster has the right to intervene by conjuring up and moving forces as he sees fit. That would remove the need to have complex rules to cover a tricky area, but by puts a lot of responsibility/pressure on Zim (and potentially turns it into a game of who has Zim's ear).

But I still like the "desert-deflect" mechanic I suggested. The idea would be that, whenever a noble joins a civil war, each of their units are subject to a "loyalty" test, which would be harder if the noble's side lacks political support. It would not be to artificially buff the defending side, but to allow for the fact that not all troops could be relied upon to fight against their brothers - especially if the cause was unpopular. (I am thinking of Russia in 1917 and also in the failed "coup" against Gorbachev amongst countless other examples here). The tricky part would be to gauge the degree of political support. What I would suggest is a secret ballot made at the start of the hostility where people voted for side A, B or abstained. The results would modify the loyalty test. This ballot would be a one shot affair, so it would be in civil warrior's interests to build up the popularity before the war - a good thing, IMO, because it would encourage "big" divisive civil wars as opposed to small coup like grabs for power. It would be secret so that people can declare their true sympathies, even if at the start of the war they are remaining neutral (or even playing a double game).

The test could be something simple - e.g. roll a D6.

0 or less defect
1 desert
2 desert
4+ pass

Modifiers could be:

If you have 75% or more support: +2
If you have 50% or more support: +1
If your opponent has 40% or more support: -1
If your opponent has 60% or more support: -2

Note these are percentages of all votes cast - including neutrals.

So in a balanced civil war, both sides would lose 1/3 of their starting units to desertion - making initially massing of a force a bit less effective. Defection would only occur when your opponent has considerable political support. Desertion would not be a problem if a strong majority rally around you.

This mechanic could either be formally in the rules or just one option open to the gamesmaster when running the civil war event. My preference would be for the former, so people can make informed plays and not be tempted to work behind the scenes to influence game mechanics, but adherents of KISS would prefer the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

From what I understood from TC, the issue is not so much what the Chancellor does during the civil war - although that is an issue - but what he has done before. You recruit a big army and then declare civil war, not declare first and then recruit. If anything, freezing recruitment during the civil war could aggravate that, not address it as it makes permanent the initial advantage. (If the attackers were very unpopular, an emergency diet could impeach the Chancellor and the defenders could then use their own Chancellor to start recruiting troops). It would also seem wholly ahistoric - in the ECW, ACW etc, the starting armies were rather pitiful in size and quality. It was during the war that the sides recruited and trained masses to their side.

One step might be to say that Civil Wars are always "events" in which the gamemaster has the right to intervene by conjuring up and moving forces as he sees fit. That would remove the need to have complex rules to cover a tricky area, but by puts a lot of responsibility/pressure on Zim (and potentially turns it into a game of who has Zim's ear).

But I still like the "desert-deflect" mechanic I suggested. The idea would be that, whenever a noble joins a civil war, each of their units are subject to a "loyalty" test, which would be harder if the noble's side lacks political support. It would not be to artificially buff the defending side, but to allow for the fact that not all troops could be relied upon to fight against their brothers - especially if the cause was unpopular. (I am thinking of Russia in 1917 and also in the failed "coup" against Gorbachev amongst countless other examples here). The tricky part would be to gauge the degree of political support. What I would suggest is a secret ballot made at the start of the hostility where people voted for side A, B or abstained. The results would modify the loyalty test. This ballot would be a one shot affair, so it would be in civil warrior's interests to build up the popularity before the war - a good thing, IMO, because it would encourage "big" divisive civil wars as opposed to small coup like grabs for power. It would be secret so that people can declare their true sympathies, even if at the start of the war they are remaining neutral (or even playing a double game).

The test could be something simple - e.g. roll a D6.

0 or less defect
1 desert
2 desert
4+ pass

Modifiers could be:

If you have 75% or more support: +2
If you have 50% or more support: +1
If your opponent has 40% or more support: -1
If your opponent has 60% or more support: -2

Note these are percentages of all votes cast - including neutrals.

So in a balanced civil war, both sides would lose 1/3 of their starting units to desertion - making initially massing of a force a bit less effective. Defection would only occur when your opponent has considerable political support. Desertion would not be a problem if a strong majority rally around you.

This mechanic could either be formally in the rules or just one option open to the gamesmaster when running the civil war event. My preference would be for the former, so people can make informed plays and not be tempted to work behind the scenes to influence game mechanics, but adherents of KISS would prefer the latter.

---

Yes, but the system is comparativly complex compared to ceasing all unit production within the provinces directly controlled by those involved in the civil war.

I swear, there is a non-complex way to solve this, without overburdening the GM, without overpowering the Chancellor, and I will find it!

Wait! What if we allow for the possibility of having those whom war is being declared upon be able to call an emergency session?

*reaction to Econ's last post, YLC hadn't posted yet when I wrote this...

I guess I'm a little confused. Given that the Chancellor is the guy who can recruit soldiers (true in KOTR and LOTR, although the former didn't have a regular civil war system) it makes sense that getting him to recruit troops for you before declaring war is a good idea.

If after the war the winner succeeded because he managed to ensure he had more troops at the outset...well, that also makes sense to me.

I suppose there are a lot of conditions that maybe should effect how loyal the instigator's troops are. Whether he's seen as a legitimate authority figure, the popularity and perceived righteousness of his cause, his personal charisma and likelihood of attracting supporters... heck, I spent a good time in college studying civil wars and what affects their perceived legitimacy, it's part of earning a degree in Political Science, but I can't see representing those accurately without making things too complicated.

If such a system as suggested were put in place and it was up to me to decide I'd likely make the chances of desertion equal on both sides. If left to the players....well, I'm not sure whether or not that would be a good measure of the popularity of noble x's cause among the common people, who are the majority of the army, not the nobles voting (not to mention that more votes means more time with the game frozen, something I'm trying to avoid in deciding in both this and choosing the Civil War method...).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

Wait! What if we allow for the possibility of having those whom war is being declared upon be able to call an emergency session?

---

To say, try to impeach or get forced support for troops?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

From what I understood from TC, the issue is not so much what the Chancellor does during the civil war - although that is an issue - but what he has done before. You recruit a big army and then declare civil war, not declare first and then recruit. If anything, freezing recruitment during the civil war could aggravate that, not address it as it makes permanent the initial advantage. (If the attackers were very unpopular, an emergency diet could impeach the Chancellor and the defenders could then use their own Chancellor to start recruiting troops). It would also seem wholly ahistoric - in the ECW, ACW etc, the starting armies were rather pitiful in size and quality. It was during the war that the sides recruited and trained masses to their side.

---

I have no better response to the first bit except Sun Tzu:

"The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory."

As for the second part, what you say is true about historical accuracy. However, it is also historically inaccurate during these time periods to have standing armies of any kind. I have no ideas about how to solve this problem that do not make the game too complex. After LotR, I am very wary of complicated rule systems.

Couldn't agree more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

"The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory."

---

That's very true, but to me seeking battle after victory is really boring. Perhaps I'm the only one who thinks that way, but since this is first and foremost a game what's boring or not is a concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

I guess I'm a little confused. Given that the Chancellor is the guy who can recruit soldiers (true in KOTR and LOTR, although the former didn't have a regular civil war system) it makes sense that getting him to recruit troops for you before declaring war is a good idea.

If after the war the winner succeeded because he managed to ensure he had more troops at the outset...well, that also makes sense to me.

---

It makes sense from the point of view of rational player behaviour given our rules. I am just questioning whether the game played by those rules is the most fun. "Get a Chancellor elected; recruit; win civil war" sounds a less interesting game than "Get a lot of powerful players on your side; win civil war." But that's just my opinion.

One thing I would like to explore is what we want the PvP system to be for. What kinds of conflicts do we want to lead to PvP action? Then we can review what rules would make them play out the best. Perhaps we could brainstorm on that question and see where it leaves?

Let's start with a few possibilities:

EDIT: 0. War of secession: one party wages war to break away from the faction. This is very historical, but does not really fit M2TW. We don't have a good way to split up the finances etc of a single faction. So I think we should allow this only if it marks the end of the game, ie is of the next type...

1. Terminal civil war: a climactic struggle to end the game, leaving one side utterly victorious and the other dead or exiled. This is the WotS and KotR civil war. Given that such a conflict will be a one off, I think we don't need to worry too much about it - we could improvise as we have done and it would be pretty ok.

2. A grab for power: maybe to depose a King? or a Chancellor? The difference from the terminal war is that it is expected that the game continue after the war is won. In this case, we might want to work out clear rules as it will happen several times. Also, we might want to consider safeguards so that the losers are willing to play on. Perhaps limits on the fate of their avatars or their lands?

3. A war of principle: to me this would be the most fun kind of war to play, where there is a cause beyond self-advancement. An example might be the American Civil War. I am not sure what the principle might be with us - republicanism is what we fixed on in WotS and KotR, but religion and foreign entanglements were also themes. Functionally, this kind of war would look rather like the grab for power. But it would be different in that the "coup" type mechanics we currently have don't feel very right for it. The war of principle should depend more on the allegiances of the many - hence the loyalty test mechanic etc.

4. A war between Duchies: one or more Duchies wanting to weaken a rival Duchy, by taking their land. This might lead to a lot of neutrals or interesting "semi-neutrals. Personally, I am leery about allowing this kind of war. It seems both too big and too messy. I'd rather a civil war was national or limited wtihin a Duchy. Otherwise, we could end up playing 4 or more factions rather than one, and M2TW is just not set up for such decentralisation.

5. A grab for power within a Duchy: this would be like the Swabian Civil war, where different players fight to be Duke. This might lead to some interesting meddling from outside, like Lothar helping the Swabian rebels. But there might have to be some constraints if we are ruling out wars between Duchies - like no noble from another House can fight.

6. An attempt to break away from a Duchy: like Becker in KotR. Again, this seems interesting but perhaps hard to balance.

7. A war between minor nobles. Personally, I would not want to see this - too much effort OOC for too little gain IC.


Anyone have anything to add to this list?

If we identify what kind of wars we want, we can choose rulesets to deal with them.

For example, my preference would be to have one set of rules for "real" civil wars of type 1-3; rules to deal with intra-Duchy conflicts of type 5-6; and not allow 0, 4 or 7.

With real civil wars, we might consider:
(a) there can only be two sides: you are with us or against us. A three or more sided war would just be complicated and ahistorical. This would imply the war would have to be resolved before any other civil wars and indeed intra-Duchy fights.
(b) the Chancellor should not be the only player recruiting units: it just feels utterly wrong. In the ACW, only Washington DC could recruit units...; or worse, IMO, no one could recruit units.
(c) strategic movement could be of the first type TC listed - using in-game restrictions on movement. The war is big enough and important enough that we can take our time.

With intra-Duchy civil wars, we could consider:
(a) there could be multiple conflicts coexisting and inter-mingling: neutrality would make more sense than in a real civil war, where soldiers would probably end up taking sides.
(b) again, the Chancellor recruiting all units does not feel right to me: we could introduce rules to allow local recruitment based on lands and perhaps mercs.
(c) given that these wars are more local, I still think strategic movement of the first type TC listed would be fine. The distances woudl presumably be short, so there would be less risk of a war of words.

Any thoughts? I think if we clarify what we want to simulate, we will be able to identify suitable rules. I am not terribly sympathetic to the KISS argument here, as I think at the moment it's not a question of rule complexity but us not having any rules to cover some of the issues.

I'm not really sure we need to limit PvP here. Eventually, the concept becomes pretty self-policing. LotR, while an extraordinarily lethal game, was especially so when it came to matters of PvP. As a matter of fact, the climatic Battle of Antioch actually stands out in my mind because, if memory serves, every general was actually able to come out alive, and this was only because the dice were exceptionally kind.

If you get into PvP, avatars *will* die, that's a fact of life. I think that concept alone will prevent people from engaging in a war just because they feel like it and compel them to work in more subtle channels to get what they want.

An interesting categorization of possibilities econ. I actually like the idea of having seperate rule sets for different kinds of conflict, since you'd only have to consider one set of rules at the time it'd still allow us to keep things simple.

Since PVP is the one major issue we have left to resolve, perhaps it should have it's own thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

Since PVP is the one major issue we have left to resolve, perhaps it should have it's own thread?

---

I was thinking about that. When I get a little more feedback, I may try to draft some possible PvP rules that put a little more structure on what we have.

On non-PvP matters, re-reading the rules, I had the following comments/queries/suggestions:


1. (f) The Games master insert ”Can use the console to add money or units to AI factions and to move AI stacks.”

2 a. Starting Houses I think we have three, not two, starting RBGs - see the Frenchifying thread. Can we introduce some concept of Duke as Steward so these initial Dukes are replaced when the King’s sons come of age? Should we ban adoptions until the King has a fourth child?

2 b RBGs: what does it mean about an RBG marrying a King’s daughter being free to “attempt to create his own House”. What is involved in the attempt? Is it just 2c getting a 2/3 majority edict to be a Duke? Is so, why mention the marriage, as all can become Dukes by 2c? Maybe it is better to drop this bit about marriage and instead talk about the missing 4th line on the family tree - it could be filled by a son or a daughter. Anyone marrying said The 4th son or anyone marrying the daughter would automatically become head of the 4th House.

3a Gaining and losing provinces what’s the point of “While a province is not ratified taxes must be set to the highest level possible and no recruitment can be made in that settlement.” Is it to put a break on expansion? Otherwise, it is simpler to say that before the full session, the province is royal and can be taxed/recruit freely. After the full session, if not ratified, you have said it must be abandoned - which means no recruitment (and max taxes if you like).

3 c retinue: why allow people to remove retinue? are we condoning killing mother in laws here? It seems to lose some RPG character if we allow that. Your character has ornate armour, live with it. What is the meaning of the “title” retinues?

Prioritising units: what is to say these units become owned by the player who prioritised them? Suppose player X has Toulouse, the only castle we have. All units in Toulouse are garrisons by definition and so may not be taken by lieges. Should we say explicitly these units belong to the player prioritising them and should be moved by his instruction? And are exempt from seizure even if led by captains?

Seizing armies: perhaps clarify that you can’t seize armies outside of your feudal chain?

Can we “protect” some national armies from seizure or must they always be led in person? What I am thinking of is suppose the King or Chancellor or Prince want to stay at home, for whatever reason, but get a noble to lead “their army”. Can we allow for that somehow? Allow these figures - only - to “lend” their armies to another noble without surrendering ownership? It will require some book keeping I know.

On a related point, I am not seeing any power of the Chancellor to move armies led by nobles. So if he wants anything reliably doing, he must do it himself? This is rather stifling if he is relatively minor and does not have much of a personal army (he must recruit all prioritised units before he can get more men for himself).

fleets what about fleets that don’t start their turn in a port or with a noble? do you mean they are owned by the person owning the last port they were in? I am wondering whether they should owned by Houses, to simplify matters.