Successor game rules, draft one.

I can say my opinion about that retinue matter..

If you start roleplaying a pious character and all of the sudden you receive a pagan magician then I guess you really want him to be removed because this would affect your RP. The game shouldn't control our RP that way.

Edit: I'll get back to other points soon..

Seizing armies: 5(b) "A Noble may not move his avatar onto an army owned by a Noble from outside his feudal chain unless both Nobles agree to the move beforehand."

I do like the option of seizing Captain led armies though.

fleets: fleets that do not start a turn in a port or with a noble are there for chancellor to move around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun

If you start roleplaying a pious character and all of the sudden you receive a pagan magician then I guess you really want him to be removed because this would affect your RP. The game shouldn't control our RP that way.

---

Well, I can you see your point but personally I like trying using the traits and retinue as some of the fixed points that you have to RP around - kind of like an actor being given a script. Your example puts me in mind of TCs first character in KotR who was a lecherous sob (Lothar mkI) who then got a holy woman character as a retinue - he then had an epiphany and became a holy warrior. He was one of the most memorable characters in the game because he got an "odd" retinue. Also, I had great fun with my King Henry getting a pagan magician - Overknight ended up sticking him (in the leg).

But I guess we can keep our retinue if we choose, so allowing others to dispose of them is ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

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:

---

You have a strangely high amount of questions - next time, don't disappear ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

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

---

As Gamemaster, I thought this was a given?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

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?

---

The King has 4 children - one son and daughter of age, and two sons coming of age. I think that immediately replacing each Duke once a son of the King comes to age simply does not make sense - the House does not belong to them, it belongs to the RBG Duke. They may inherit it, but that is all. One Royal House, led by the Prince, is more then enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

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.

---

Marrying the Princess simple gets you a free ticket for a House, bypassing the 2/3rds requirement otherwise needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

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).

---

To limit expansion, without being forced to give it up, which leaves it in the players hands. This allows player freedom at the cost of becoming bogged down y their own success, most likely doing more harm then good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

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?

---

If I have Ornate Armor, I'm not going to ride with into battle. I would also not wear ornate armor period, if it went against my characters type which has already been established. Title Retinues are provincial titles that came with SS4.1, and were vastly annoying to keep track of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

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?

---

Units are owned by whomever controls them - so if they are in a players stack, or settlement, or fort, then they belong to him. Prioritization has nothing to do with whom controls the units, it is simply players asking for units to be train at X location - for instance, player A could use his unit prioritizations in city B, which belongs to player C. The Units, once trained, belong to player C, not A.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

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.

---

You are allowed to seize armies led by another noble of lower rank then you inside your feudal chain, and avatarless stacks as well. The King, Chancellor, or Prince must find someone they trust to lead said army, otherwise it becomes fair game. That is the only way to protect your soldiers and fleets from being taken.

The Chancellor cannot get what he wants done, then he must deal with it - you can have an ineffectual Chancellor afterall. We are already giving the Chancellor position significant power, he does not need to suddenly take control of someones army unless explicitly allowed to.

Fleets belong to the owner of the port they are in, until they are moved out, at which point they are now the Chancellors. If at anytime an avatar would to be onboard, that avatar controls those ships instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

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.

---

I completely agree. LotR had total freedom on PvP, and people were still very wary of engaging in it. I think there's too much thought going into when and why it should occur. Just let it occur as it will, the risks involved themselves are enough to keep it from getting out of hand. Most players are not interested in upsetting the system in this manner, which results in a powerful collective security system where aggressors quickly find themselves opposed by a large number of people. PvP is thus more of a risk for the attacker, not the defender. Let those who want to take the risk do so when they feel like it. It's mainly their own necks on the line and it makes the game more interesting for everyone.

YLC actually has everything pretty much as my answers, with just a few small differences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

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.”

---

To be honest I kind of thought of that as a given, but I can add it to the rules.

Quote:

---

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?

---

Starting RGB Dukes (2 or however many we need to get 4 houses) are real dukes and exempt from any of the special rules regarding joining the House of any adopted parents. Adding stewards as in KOTR is easy enough but I didn't see any reason to...having all four Houses going to the King's first 4 male children doesn't sit well with me. :clown:

Quote:

---

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.

---

That part is pretty confusing, and likely didn't need put in the rules. I just meant that if you marry into the royal family in such a way you're exempt of the requirement to join your new parent's house, so you've started a new line of sorts that hasn't been placed by default into the House structure. It probably didn't need to be added since King's aren't member's of a House any way so becoming one's son-in-law wouldn't force you into one.

Quote:

---

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).

---

Mostly I wanted to make it tough on a player who decided to go along with the option to refuse to hand over a settlement. Until things are resolved and the settlement ratified he gets no use out of it. Otherwise a friendly Chancellor could just treat it as if it belonged to the squatter.

Quote:

---

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?

---

Title revenues were some from the mod we used for SS. The purpose of being able to move retinues was to allow avatars to make gifts of say a crusader relic or fine sword, and to allow the removal of pagan magicians, which were a huge pain in LOTR, at least in the early days.

One player (Tristan) rolled with it but most found them an annoyance and out of character. And they threatened to drop players out of the crusader House in LOTR as there was a minimum piety requirement.

Quote:

---

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?

---

Players can only recruit prioritized units from their own settlements. If they have no castles, then they have no castle units unless they make an agreement with some other House.

They're only immune to seizure if in a settlement owned by the player or led by him or an ally.

That was one thing that worked very well in LOTR with no problems that I recall...

Quote:

---

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.

---

If armies are sent led by captain they can be seized by any noble. That's a risk players need to consider (as is the fact the Chancellor has to move them for you).

Quote:

---

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).

---

He has command of all captain led stacks. If people are seizing them he has to figure something out, but in LOTR this was never a huge issue. Nobles move their own armies.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Fleets outside of port with no noble leading them can be moved or disbanded at the will of the Chancellor, as in LOTR... We can make them House (or King) owned, but that will remove some of the Chancellor's power to manage the affairs of the Kingdom, while adding comparatively little to the game, in my opinion.

On the king's four bloodlines automatically becoming Dukes, the key point is that this will lead to the four starter Houses being visible as the four branches of the family tree. I think that is really neat. It will also encourage more "familial" role-playing if Houses each have a core group sof blood relations (I am thinking here of the von Kastiliens, the Steffens). With Houses led by starter RBGs, there will be no inheritance by blood unless RBGs marry into the King's family tree. Duchies will just be political collections of players rather than family-based groupings - that may be what people want but I prefer the more organic KotR model. There will be enough starting RBGs that the "political collection" feature of Houses will still be there.

A Steward Duke mechanic would tide us over nicely until the four branches are established on the map. It is not complex and worked pretty well in KotR.

EDIT: On another matter, what are the rules about converting cities to castles and vice versa? Owner's discretion?

I'm not too worried about having stewards making the rules too complex but am not sure doing so will add much. Several players will end up playing in an almost Duke sort of position for a lengthy amount of time while the King's young children come of age. I suppose it looks neat and orderly on the family tree page, but it rubs me the wrong way to have all four Houses run by the King's children. It seems at odds with the decentralized feudal feel I believe we're going for. Never mind that since Dukes can name anyone they want their heir the neat 4 branched tree could break down.

I suppose the fact that I played an RGB for the majority of my time in KOTR and didn't pay much attention to the family tree in LOTR (beyond the immediate Imperial family) colors my perspective...

All in all I think it's a fairly minor point so I'll make the change if most players prefer it.

As far as changing castles to cities and the reverse, I think that would fall under the rules for players setting the build queue for their settlement. It did happen once or twice in LOTR but wasn't much of an issue. All Houses were able to obtain at least one castle early on.

Just to clarify a couple of points where YLC and Zim's answers may differ.

On marrying into royalty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

Marrying the Princess simple gets you a free ticket for a House, bypassing the 2/3rds requirement otherwise needed.

---

Versus:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

That part is pretty confusing, and likely didn't need put in the rules. I just meant that if you marry into the royal family in such a way you're exempt of the requirement to join your new parent's house, so you've started a new line of sorts that hasn't been placed by default into the House structure. It probably didn't need to be added since King's aren't member's of a House any way so becoming one's son-in-law wouldn't force you into one.

---

I am still a little lost, can we reword or delete the relevant part of 2a to clarify this? The passage as it stands is:

2a ....Should a recruitable general become married to any of the daughters of the current King, he is considered to have started a new noble line and is free to attempt to create his own House or have his family join an existing one as he sees fit.

On prioritisation:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

Units are owned by whomever controls them - so if they are in a players stack, or settlement, or fort, then they belong to him. Prioritization has nothing to do with whom controls the units, it is simply players asking for units to be train at X location - for instance, player A could use his unit prioritizations in city B, which belongs to player C. The Units, once trained, belong to player C, not A.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

Players can only recruit prioritized units from their own settlements. If they have no castles, then they have no castle units unless they make an agreement with some other House.

---

How about letting players "give" their prioritsation to another player? So if they have no castle, they can let a friend with one recruit for them. Of course, the recruited units belong to the friend unless and until he honours the deal. Saying you can only prioritise units in your own settlements seems to make agreements with other Houses too difficult, if that other House has to give up their quota to implement it.

I am suggesting rewording item 3 under the rules for the Chancellor:

"Except for the King, the Location is restricted to any settlement owned by the Noble requesting the units or owned by a vassal in his feudal chain."

to by adding:

"or owned by another Noble who consents to it."

The point about the consenting Noble still owning the prioritised unit is implicit in the rest of the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

On prioritisation:





How about letting players "give" their prioritsation to another player? So if they have no castle, they can let a friend with one recruit for them. Of course, the recruited units belong to the friend unless and until he honours the deal. Saying you can only prioritise units in your own settlements seems to make agreements with other Houses too difficult, if that other House has to give up their quota to implement it.

I am suggesting rewording item 3 under the rules for the Chancellor:

"Except for the King, the Location is restricted to any settlement owned by the Noble requesting the units or owned by a vassal in his feudal chain."

to by adding:

"or owned by another Noble who consents to it."

The point about the consenting Noble still owning the prioritised unit is implicit in the rest of the rules.

---

This is the sort of rule we should not include as it lends little to the game, but rather makes things more confusing or complex. Yes, a player can build a unit and give it to another. Nuff ced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KnightnDay

This is the sort of rule we should not include as it lends little to the game, but rather makes things more confusing or complex. Yes, a player can build a unit and give it to another. Nuff ced.

---

Why not just have it that your ability to prioritize units can target any province owned by your faction? Simple, and flexible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

Why not just have it that your ability to prioritize units can target any province owned by your faction? Simple, and flexible.

---

I'd prefer things to stay as they are. If you want to acquire the best units without asking for outside help, make sure you own the settlements where they are produced!

I rather like the recruitment rules as they are as well. It worked very well in the last game without complaints...

Truthfully very little recruitment seemed to be done with prioritization in LOTR, mostly it helped out Houses who may not be friendly with the Megas, who would otherwise tend to recruit more troops than could be prioritized for everyone anyway.

I'll delete that one line on marrying the princess that seems confusing, Econ.

Just in case anyone missed it in the rules I wanted to announce that TheFlax is the cowriter for events in the game, although I would need to implement them due to some troubles with his version and the console. Also once the game starts, should some emergency take me away from my computer for any great length of time, all questions and disputes that require gm assistance can be referred to him. :bow:

Whoa! I'm way out of the loop here. See what happens when you go away for 5 days...

I agree with econ with regarding the four houses. I think having the four Duchies controlled by the king's children is fine. Remember that many of the major nobility had blood-ties to the ruling king, and one of the houses won't be controlled by a blood heir, because it will be the princess' husband.

Regarding civil wars, I hope that we can engineer more petty disputes, which result in a quick battle and then a political settlement. But they shouldn't occur too often.

I kind of wonder if duels will take the place of the more petty conflicts. It could be one beneficial side effect of adding in that option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

Remember that many of the major nobility had blood-ties to the ruling king, and one of the houses won't be controlled by a blood heir, because it will be the princess' husband.

---

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, shall we? :clown:

One must plan ahead...

Ok, two people have spoken out in favor of the Steward holding rule for the young starting FMs side, with none (that I see, might be missing a post...) against.

Given that we're closing in on the end of the planning stage and may be starting when we get the minimod worked out, and this is a fairly minor issue in the very long run (albeit one with quite some importance in the short run) I'd like to get it out of the way.

Having stewards does spread the chance to play a House leader a bit in the early game (since first the Stewards get quite some time as a leader, then the newly come of age princes), and does make the Princess very important in game, so I think I will take accepting that suggestion as the default decision. Does anyone have any major worries about such a system. It may seem to add some complexity but wasn't an issue in KOTR, so we know it works.

Bah, beaten to it by a poll.

I have an objection! What about new houses? Are they going to be subsumed by the Royal House as well? Honestly, leave it up to the Dukes on whether or not to pass on their Ducal title to a member of the Royal Family.

We have Noble Houses, and it doesn't make sense to me to hand it over to some twerp who has no idea how to govern a House just because the rules say so - that's an immediate civil war brewing. If I had contorl of a House, I would not, under any circumstances, surrender my title to the royal line.

And if a RBG wishes to make his House hereditary, he has to marry into the family or be adopted, which already takes care of keeping the Houses in the family.

Houses wouldn't be hereditary beyond Duke #1, and RGBs that fight their way to attaining a Dukeship would have nothing to fear about being replaced by some royal brat. :clown:

It's part of the reason I didn't think the neatened family tree would matter in choosing a system, since it may or may not last long. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

Houses wouldn't be hereditary beyond Duke #1, and RGBs that fight their way to attaining a Dukeship would have nothing to fear about being replaced by some royal brat. :clown:

It's part of the reason I didn't think the neatened family tree would matter in choosing a system, since it may or may not last long. :yes:

---

So just let it be and stop trying to clutter the rules :wall::smash::laugh4:

Hey I didn't suggest it. :clown:

At any rate it would all climax (or not, if the handover goes smoothly) with the coming of age of the two young Princes. One fairly short paragraph in the rules and the effects would end in under 16 years into the game.

Funny idea, say people vote for the Stewards. Well, unlike KOTR all rules are changable, so a very, very powerful steward could not only refuse to hand over the title, but have the rules changed so noone could do anything about it. :laugh4:

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but there seems to be a contradiction in the rules on the rank of Count:

Quote:

---

Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one landowning vassal. Must be a member of a House.
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per Council Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can rename any settlement under their control at any time.
(3) If this rank is held during a Normal Council Session, can Prioritize a total of 3 units per full 10 turn Chancellor term.
Penalties:
(1) Loses control of all provinces if they fail to vote in two consecutive Normal Senate Sessions. All provinces lost in this way are given to the Count's Duke. If the Count is not in a House, the provinces are given to the King.

---

By definition, a Count is in a House, so the "if the Count is not in a House" seems contradictory.

Picking up something from the PvP movement thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

(Note to econ21: Be aware that the whole * marked rule system has been abolished. Rule Changes can now change any aspect of the rules at any point. Rule Changes are also now completely divorced from IC business and are passed by unweighted votes, with the GM having a veto over any Rule Change proposal before it even goes to the vote. Edicts and Amendments are now wholly IC in nature, and are considered temporary IC laws and permanent IC laws respectively. Rules can still require OOC enforcement of the unpleasant kind, which you are familiar with, but Edict and Amendments are now enforced only IC. If someone breaks an Edict or Amendment, they are perfectly free to get away with it unless the players make moves to enforce a punishment.)

---

Thanks - I confess I am almost completely ignorant of the LotR experience and I did miss the above from reading the KotF rules. To clarify, does this imply that everything in the rules can only be changed OOC by rules changes? Or can some/all of it be changed by amendments?

I am just thinking that some rules are about what you could regard as "physics" (e.g. how far can an army move); others are more about political rules (e.g. a Count must be in a House). It would seem inappropriate to vote IC on the former, but appropriate on the latter. If so, is it worth labelling some rules as IC and some as OOC?

Quote:

---

House/Rank changes are still major works in progress

---

I've probably asked you this before, but are there any issues with the draft rules on House/Rank that we should give a little more thought to before we start? Are they unchanged from LotR? Andres has picked up one point, but there are probably others - the rules are quite complex.

Finally, some comments about House/Rank not specifically directed to TC:

I wondered about the rule that RBGs cannot inherit Duchies. This implies that - once the three starter generals are dead - the four starter Houses must all become "Royal" in some way. And RBGs who aspire to be Dukes must start their own House (and then ultimately bequeath it Given the vote on Steward Dukes, is this intended?

Related to Andres' question, on the same quoted rules for Count - I wonder if we could substitute "Baron" for "landowning vassal" under requirements? Presumably, you can only be a vassal to someone of higher rank and only Barons are lower than Counts and can hold land.

I wonder, do we need Counts to be part of Houses? If we remove that requirement, then new Houses may be able to be formed more "organically".

The rules on requirements for a Duke don't see to include the possibility of becoming a Duke via a 2/3 vote (2c).

A somewhat unrelated point - is there a reason for not allowing players to state which unit to prioritise? The quotas are not that generous, so I don't think the Kingdom would suffer too much from letting them pick (and presumably get the best available). If it is just economics, bear in mind that unit upkeep - which in the long run dwarfs purchase cost - seems pretty unrelated to combat power. (For example, armoured spearmen and sergeant spearmen have the same upkeep.) And I think most of us, in SP games, would try to recruit the best available units. At the very least, I think there should be a clause about not recruiting militia or peasant units if there are superior ones available. (It would be frustrating to ask for infantry and be given peasants, when armoured spears were available).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Thanks - I confess I am almost completely ignorant of the LotR experience and I did miss the above from reading the KotF rules. To clarify, does this imply that everything in the rules can only be changed OOC by rules changes? Or can some/all of it be changed by amendments?

---

Nothing in the rules can be changed by Edicts or Amendments, nor can Edicts or Amendments contradict the game rules. If it's written in the rules, you have to use a Rule Change to alter it. For a long time now I've thought of it like a D&D rule set. The rules are the mechanics that define the world we roleplay in, and thus they cannot be altered by the characters within that world. I see what you mean about Counts having to be in Houses, and that is a bit more of an IC intrusion into the rule system than LotR had, however it's one of the only ones and it isn't too bad. In any case, my experience from LotR was that people were extremely good at differentiating IC and OOC when it came to tweaking the rules. When a problem became apparent with the rule system, or an improved method was proposed, people very often voted for it even if it went against their interests. As such, if it becomes a problem to have House membership requirements for Counts (or anything similar) I would be very, very surprised if it was difficult to pass a Rule Change to modify this.

This whole shift was the result of some... difficulties... with players taking IC issues OOC and vice versa. A lot of that was due to the added tension caused by the built-in PvP mechanics. With the potential stakes upped, people got more passionate about things that occurred to their avatars. Attempts on my part to fix the problems with a combination of Moderator/GM powers did not satisfy everyone. If you hadn't noticed, Privateerkev has not logged onto the forums since last September. That is directly related to the problems we had. After the new system was introduced, we never had a single problem like this again.

Quote:

---

I've probably asked you this before, but are there any issues with the draft rules on House/Rank that we should give a little more thought to before we start? Are they unchanged from LotR?

---

They are significantly simplified from LotR, which is a good thing and is an improvement in itself. The current draft of the system is experimental in its own way, but the entire rank structure is very modular and easy to tweak as the game goes along. In LotR, several ranks and many rank powers were added or altered in mid-game without it causing any problems. I think we'll be fine, because the current system leans more towards the basic than the complex. From experience in these games, it's pretty easy to add in more detail mid-game, but it's very hard to strip it out. Best to keep it simple and build than go the other direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I wondered about the rule that RBGs cannot inherit Duchies. This implies that - once the three starter generals are dead - the four starter Houses must all become "Royal" in some way. And RBGs who aspire to be Dukes must start their own House (and then ultimately bequeath it Given the vote on Steward Dukes, is this intended?

---

This is new in KotF, best if Zim or someone else answered that one. In LotR, RBGs were not handled any differently from family members except to the limits imposed on them by the game engine (can't become Heir, Faction Leader, etc).

Quote:

---

Related to Andres' question, on the same quoted rules for Count - I wonder if we could substitute "Baron" for "landowning vassal" under requirements? Presumably, you can only be a vassal to someone of higher rank and only Barons are lower than Counts and can hold land.

---

Sounds sensible to me.

Quote:

---

I wonder, do we need Counts to be part of Houses? If we remove that requirement, then new Houses may be able to be formed more "organically".

---

This is a change from LotR, which allowed "organic" House formation. After the game was over, the consensus was that LotR allowed too much freedom in this area and a desire was expressed to return to the more structured KotR system. I personally am still fond of the free-form LotR system, but I think I'm in the minority.

Quote:

---

The rules on requirements for a Duke don't see to include the possibility of becoming a Duke via a 2/3 vote (2c).

---

This needs to be fixed. It appears to be an inconsistency due to modifications to the LotR rules that haven't been uniformly implemented throughout the set.

Quote:

---

A somewhat unrelated point - is there a reason for not allowing players to state which unit to prioritise? The quotas are not that generous, so I don't think the Kingdom would suffer too much from letting them pick (and presumably get the best available). If it is just economics, bear in mind that unit upkeep - which in the long run dwarfs purchase cost - seems pretty unrelated to combat power. (For example, armoured spearmen and sergeant spearmen have the same upkeep.) And I think most of us, in SP games, would try to recruit the best available units. At the very least, I think there should be a clause about not recruiting militia or peasant units if there are superior ones available. (It would be frustrating to ask for infantry and be given peasants, when armoured spears were available).

---

In LotR, it was to allow the Megas (Chancellor) to 'stiff' his opponents and to keep the emphasis on the Megas being a powerful friend and a dangerous enemy. Given that we're backing away from that now, this can probably be changed without having an impact on rule complexity. If you're curious, here is the formal discussion that was had on the changes to the army rules. It was a group effort and massively simplified the system, which was becoming extremely difficult to deal with because of the large number of 'Royal Armies' and 'Private Armies' roaming around. The old army rules were actually the area of the rules that caused the OOC/IC conflicts I mentioned earlier.

Thanks, TC, - the thread on army ownership was very insightful. Some others unfamiliar with LotR might want to read it to better understand how this game will work. I don't think I have fully got my head around the army ownership and rank rules yet, but I am getting there.

Ironically, the reason for not specifying the prioritised unit(s) - to allow for getting stiffed by the Chancellor - was the reason I queried it. I was seeing the whole point of prioritisation as a protection against being stiffed by the Chancellor.

The "rules change" procedure is very sensible. We muddled through the IC/OOC ammendments in KotR well enough, but the mish-mash was ungainly.

I used "landowning vassal" to more easily allow for the creation of any new ranks between Count and Baron without having to both make a rule change adding the new one and changing language in the old one. There is also the issue of counts swearing to eachother, likely to happen with larger Houses (at least if their dukes try to keep them very hierarchical, you could also just have multiple branches down from the Duke).

With prioritized units the Chancellor loses some of his power. I'm not sure we should take away his power to control what exact units are recruited. If the position gets too weak people might be less inclined to run for it. It's a lot of work as is...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

There is also the issue of counts swearing to eachother, likely to happen with larger Houses (at least if their dukes try to keep them very hierarchical, you could also just have multiple branches down from the Duke).

---

So oaths of fealty can be between players of the same rank? I thought the whole point about different feudal ranks was to identify where you stood on the vassalage chain. It might be better to restrict oaths of fealty to be to players of higher rank on the KISS principle. New ranks can always be introduced by rules changes, but what we have seems ample to me.

Quote:

---

With prioritized units the Chancellor loses some of his power. I'm not sure we should take away his power to control what exact units are recruited. If the position gets too weak people might be less inclined to run for it. It's a lot of work as is...

---

From a rules design point of view, priorisation just seems meaningless if you ask for infantry and are given peasants. And from a historical plausibility point of view, it does not seem to fit the decentralised feudal vibe we are going for. With about 25 players signed up, at the moment, I would not worry too much about a lack of candidates for Chancellor yet.

In medieval France feudal chains could be quite confusing, with two equals holding land as "vassals" of eachother...

If I change it we still won't have a neat hierarchy, and Houses over 3 or so people will likely end up with the Duke and several different branches (in fact, they would have to). Not neccessarily a bad thing, but for something like the Order from LOTR, which was a House set up as a military order, it might make sense to keep the chain as a neat line rather than a little tree like the family one.

Re: Prioritization I'm reluctant to change something that worked fine in LOTR and received no complaints. It gives the Chancellor a way to passive aggressively retaliate against a House he dislikes, without going to outright war (and with the way our pvp rules are shaping up, he has almost no role during a civil war). It was never a heavily used power, not even that strong of one, and using it likely makes you a permanant enemy.

Do we want to change the FM requirement for heirs of Dukes? I didn't anticipate so many people. Not sure how long it will take to get adoptions, and we're going to have starting permanant RGB Dukes anyway...

I think it would be a good idea to allow a Duke to name anyone as his successor - nothing like a Mini-Siegfried event to stir things up :beam::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

From a rules design point of view, priorisation just seems meaningless if you ask for infantry and are given peasants. And from a historical plausibility point of view, it does not seem to fit the decentralised feudal vibe we are going for. With about 25 players signed up, at the moment, I would not worry too much about a lack of candidates for Chancellor yet.

---

I don't know if I argued this very strongly back when we were deciding it (or at all, man that seems like a long time ago), or even at all, but I agree completely. Since no player can prioritize a large number of units quickly, you're still pretty vulnerable if the Chancellor isn't spending any money on your armies and provinces. Even a King only gets 5 units per term, which averages to 1 regiment every two turns. And most avatars will probably be Barons, who only get 2 units per Chancellor's Term. That works out to getting one unit every 5 turns! That may be all right for FH with his lancers, or Ramses with his HA, but for the most of us that's not enough to get by on even if we could choose what we got!

Currently, you can specify whether you're prioritizing infantry, cavalry, or archers right? That means at most the chancellor just has to give you is units of peasants, peasant archers or mounted sergeants. I'm guessing mounted sergeants are the most useful, but still. You can hardly call that insurance against a hostile chancellor, especially if he's pumping money in to the armies and provinces of your enemies while your getting nothing. (Sound familar, Zim? :beam:)

I would propose that we alter the rule to allow players to prioritze units, but give them the option to choose what units they want, providing that those units can be recruited from settlements they control. If you have a good castle or the like, it should help your ability to prioritize.

No matter who strong you are, you're at a big disadvantage if you're not getting any money. That's still true under this proposed change, with the bonus that players and houses that have a Chancellor who's their determined enemy can still maintain a reduced, but not impotent power base. In my opinion, this is the change that is most essential to KotF.

And as econ said, this is more in line with the fuedal feel we're going for. :knight:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

In medieval France feudal chains could be quite confusing, with two equals holding land as "vassals" of eachother...

---

I can imagine. It's common in developing countries for people to loan each other money (simultaneously), essentially to establish a relationship of mutual support. But please, Zim, trying to simulate something that was "quite confusing" at the time is not always a virtue. I guess it's because I missed LotR, but I am struggling to understand our House/Rank rules and I doubt I am the only one. We surely don't want to allow two Barons to promote themselves both to Counts just by swearing allegiance to each other? It's starting to do my head in.

Quote:

---

If I change it we still won't have a neat hierarchy, and Houses over 3 or so people will likely end up with the Duke and several different branches (in fact, they would have to). Not neccessarily a bad thing, but for something like the Order from LOTR, which was a House set up as a military order, it might make sense to keep the chain as a neat line rather than a little tree like the family one.

---

I think a military order could work out their own seniority rule informally, we don't need to have it in the game rules. In every military, there is a tree like structure of ranks (multiple sergeants, captains etc) but then additional rules to establish chain of command. At least, that's what I remember from innumberable viewings of the film Zulu, when the two British lieutenants at the start establish who's in charge by date of commission.

Quote:

---

Do we want to change the FM requirement for heirs of Dukes? I didn't anticipate so many people. Not sure how long it will take to get adoptions, and we're going to have starting permanant RGBs anyway...

---

I'm tempted to go for KISS again and drop all distinctions between FM and RGBs except those created by the game engine. I like the idea of Dukes being FMs, as then the game engine will allow them to start dynasties. But I think you are right and the number of players could put a strain on such a requirement.

Quote:

---

with the way our pvp rules are shaping up, he has almost no role during a civil war.

---

To be honest, we have not got very far with the PvP rules yet. But if prioritisation is left as it is, then the case for introducing some mechanic for non-Chancellor recruitment in a civil war seems overwhelming.

Two barons can't swear fealty to eachother...

I don't like the idea of forcing a certain type of feudal chain structure. If changed, imagine a four person House, with a Duke, Count, Baron, and Knight, all sworn in that order. The Knight literally cannot gain land by the rules before breaking his oath, because that would result in two Counts, one sworn to the other...

I just fear turning the Chancellor position more and more into busy work. It was hard to get them late in LOTR and the more powers we take, the weaker he becomes.

I"m a little tired and I just found out I was hired for a new job. I'm going to celebrate with my wife and come back to this tonight or tomorrow. I'll just go with whatever everyone wants...

Another option for the prioritization issue: Keep the rules as is, but allow a person to spend two prioritizations to get a specific unit instead of leaving it up to the Chancellor's whims. Also, specifically exclude Peasants from being recruited as infantry units for prioritization purposes. A minimum level of Town Militia, Peasant Archers, and Mounted Sergeants for the three respective categories isn't really that bad. We regularly beat up the AI with stuff like that.

I suppose that would be better, but I still prefer my proposal. And I've thought of another reason: A sense of ownership.

Prioritized units, under my system, would be choosen entirely by the avatar at rare intervals. This would give those units a sentimental value to players that we have not seen. I think that would be good for immersion, by providing a connection with regular soldiers.

Banning peasant recruitment would definately be needed.

If we did allow them to recruit any unit from a settlement they owned does everyone think the nmber of prioritized units is small enough that wouldn't cause problems if, say, every picked high end, expensive units?

And would Dukes be able to recruit from anywhere in their House? If so should they be able to get around the fact that units belong to the owner of their settlement upon spawning?

Regarding House chains, why don't we try something like this?

Dukes can have unlimited number of Counts swear fealty to them, Counts can have unlimited number of Barons swear fealty to them, Barons can have unlimited number of Knights swear fealty to them.

That way, only Counts can swear to Dukes, Barons to Counts, and Knights to Barons.

Regarding the prioritised units, I reckon that each player should be able to prioritise a specific unit once per term. Maybe 2 for dukes, 2 for a prince, and 3 for a king?

Try and keep in mind the Chancellor position when coming up with all these ideas and concepts that need to be tracked and managed.

We've gone through this before.

I have to agree. While for immersion purposes it would be awesome to give higher ranks more power to choose their prioritized units, for simplicity we will probably have to go all the way one direction or the other...

It's kind of like the House names, I've love to have Houses named after families, but it would be impossible to keep the DUcal lines to those families, so regions work well as a second option.

The House chain idea seems fine to me. From the looks of the recent posts having the branching House trees seems popular so I might as well give in. :clown:

I wanted oath breaking to be rare but it may be needed for organizational purposes early on as the Houses are worked out...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

If we did allow them to recruit any unit from a settlement they owned does everyone think the nmber of prioritized units is small enough that wouldn't cause problems if, say, every picked high end, expensive units?

---

You mean a problem like bankrupting the nation? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

And would Dukes be able to recruit from anywhere in their House? If so should they be able to get around the fact that units belong to the owner of their settlement upon spawning?

---

That would make things very complex. Dukes should only be able to recruit from the provinces they actually own, just like everyone else. No reason the Duke can't use his authority over his vassals to get them to give him military units when he wants them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

You mean a problem like bankrupting the nation?

---

Unit upkeep is not really tied to unit quality (for "realism" reason, I guess: a knight is just a knight, whatever the armour etc). So in the long run, I don't think recruiting the best in class would cause a big economic problem and indeed probably would be most cost-effective for the faction.

In the short term, there is an issue as purchase price is closely tied to unit quality (for MP reasons, I guess). However, the Seneschal can sequence and authorise prioritisations as he sees fit, so I don't think it would be a big deal.

Being able to choose your unit may be important if you want spears rather than swords or 2-handers etc.

Being unable to choose may also give players incentives to request cavalry, which is more expensive. Any cavalry can get the job done as flankers and router chasers vs the AI while early infantry units become obsolete as you move down the tech tree.

I think he's just making a joke about how my last character brought the Empire into debt out of fear of a Chancellor hostile to his Lord being elected...

Yes, that was just a dig at Zim for his actions in LotR. I actually have no problems with cost of any kind, including bankrupting the faction. I didn't do anything to intervene when LotR plunged into 60k+ of debt. That's an IC issue and should be resolved as such. If people are prioritizing too many expensive units and it is causing financial problems, deal with it IC.

On reflection, I also have no problems with prioritization allowing specific unit selection from any province a player owns. It's no more difficult for the Chancellor to implement than the current system and would indeed give players slightly more independence from a hostile Chancellor, which I am increasingly tending to see as a likely improvement in game mechanics.

I have a question about Impeaching a Seneschal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

4. - Government(i) - Impeachment: The Chancellor can be impeached and removed from office by a two-thirds majority vote of the Council. Impeachment takes effect immediately after the vote is passed. After impeachment, a fresh election is held to elect a new Chancellor, although the King may also exercise his power to become Chancellor at that point. The Noble replacing the impeached Chancellor serves out the remainder of the impeached Chancellor's term. All Edicts passed in the Council session that elected the impeached Chancellor remain valid, unless overturned by new Edicts at the Emergency Session that impeached him.

---

So, if I get this, an Emergency Session has to be called to conduct an Impeachment vote?

Also an Emergency Session may only be opened by the King or a Duke with the second of another Duke?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OverKnight

So, if I get this, an Emergency Session has to be called to conduct an Impeachment vote?

Also an Emergency Session may only be opened by the King or a Duke with the second of another Duke?

---

That's how I understand it. I don't see how we would have a "constitutional" IC vote without either a regular or emergency session. The Council is just a talking shop out of session.

As we are nearing the beginning of the game, we should do some final checks on the rules to make sure we fix any small tweaks that need to be made. I encourage everyone to look over what is currently posted and comment on anything they think needs to be altered.

One I have already noticed is King's power #12:

Quote:

---

(12) Can adjudicate on rule disputes. However, if a rule dispute directly involves the King or the Prince, the Chancellor will be the adjudicator.

---

This is inherited from the original version of the LotR rules, where it was itself a holdover from KotR. Since that time, we have split the rules apart from IC legislation. I no longer think it is appropriate for the King to adjudicate on rule disputes, since the rules are now inherently OOC in nature. The King should adjudicate all IC disputes, especially conflicts over interpretation of Edicts and Amendments, however I think the GM should be the only person adjudicating disputes about the actual OOC rules themselves.

Should we create a rule on allowing the AI a few turns to develop? I’m in favor of taking five settlements in five turns but wonder if other players want to give the game more time to develop. Should this be handled IC or out?

Has a determination been made on which avatar gets what starting settlement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

As we are nearing the beginning of the game, we should do some final checks on the rules to make sure we fix any small tweaks that need to be made. I encourage everyone to look over what is currently posted and comment on anything they think needs to be altered.

One I have already noticed is King's power #12:



This is inherited from the original version of the LotR rules, where it was itself a holdover from KotR. Since that time, we have split the rules apart from IC legislation. I no longer think it is appropriate for the King to adjudicate on rule disputes, since the rules are now inherently OOC in nature. The King should adjudicate all IC disputes, especially conflicts over interpretation of Edicts and Amendments, however I think the GM should be the only person adjudicating disputes about the actual OOC rules themselves.

---

Agreed. All those in favour say "aye".

Aye.

Aye to TinCow, let's change the wording from "rule dispute" to "edicts and proclamations" (I think that is the French coloured term Tristan suggested for amendments)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Should we create a rule on allowing the AI a few turns to develop? I’m in favor of taking five settlements in five turns but wonder if other players want to give the game more time to develop. Should this be handled IC or out?

---

I suspect we will handle this IC, but I would put the case again to Zim for buffing up the AI forces on our borders, as it is hard to make a convincing IC argument for letting your enemy develop.

Quote:

---

Has a determination been made on which avatar gets what starting settlement?

---

I assume this will just be by avatar starting location. King gets Paris, Dauphin gets Toulouse as capital of his Duchy; 3 starter generals get their starter settlements by virtue of being its Duke.

The rules do need a little rewording to allow for the French specific information and colour.

Econ's on point now about expansion.

Keep it IC and make sure the GM does more than enough in game console work to ensure we deal with it as an IC topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I suspect we will handle this IC, but I would put the case again to Zim for buffing up the AI forces on our borders, as it is hard to make a convincing IC argument for letting your enemy develop.



I assume this will just be by avatar starting location. King gets Paris, Dauphin gets Toulouse as capital of his Duchy; 3 starter generals get their starter settlements by virtue of being its Duke.

The rules do need a little rewording to allow for the French specific information and colour.

---

As much as I like to have every advantage possible, I agree that buffing AI (i.e. English) settlements would add a challenge. What do you think Zim?

Also: Are there some settlements which start out without a general? I suppose settlements should go to the more experienced players, however, I've always wanted to go to southern France. :cool:

Rewording of the rules is necessary before we agree on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Are there some settlements which start out without a general?

---

It's 5 provinces and 5 generals (inc King and Dauphin) at the start, so it's nice and balanced.

Quote:

---

I suppose settlements should go to the more experienced players, however, I've always wanted to go to southern France.

---

Yes, Dukes are very important for driving IC politics, so giving them to players with a track record makes sense. What we've tried to do in the past is favour the long stayers who did not make it to positions of influence in the predecessor game. For the rest of us, I think Zim will create some RBGs and then when we have picked, use the teleport to place them in the provinces that people want to be placed in. I guess we need to allow some real time interval for Houses to try to recruit RBGs before location is finalised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

For the rest of us, I think Zim will create some RBGs and then when we have picked, use the teleport to place them in the provinces that people want to be placed in. I guess we need to allow some real time interval for Houses to try to recruit RBGs before location is finalised.

---

Yep, I think that's the best method. In LotR, I allowed all players to pick any settlement owned by the faction as the starting point for a new avatar and simply teleported them to whatever place they chose. Beyond the obvious benefits to roleplaying of being able to start in a particular spot instead of having to cross half the empire to get there, this also allows the RBG recruitment to be done in any sleepy, backwater settlement so that it doesn't risk interfering with normal recruitment that might otherwise be going on at the chosen destination.

In addition it might be worth waiting until the suggested tournment is over.

Everyone can congregate IC at the tournament and feel each other out and then declare allegiances.

Then mass teleportation can begin. :balloon2:

That's a very good point, the tournament might be an excellent opportunity for Houses to recruit. So...

1) RBG spawning/selection
2) Tournament
3) Teleportation of avatars to chosen starting spot
4) First Council session

That's easily the most interesting method of starting one of these games that I've ever seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

That's a very good point, the tournament might be an excellent opportunity for Houses to recruit. So...

1) RBG spawning/selection
2) Tournament
3) Teleportation of avatars to chosen starting spot
4) First Council session

That's easily the most interesting method of starting one of these games that I've ever seen.

---

Yeah Baby...that's going to be just very very entertaining.

i hope you realize how difficult you are making it for me not to join up right this second. if i wait until the game progresses, i miss out on tournament mayehm and fun...what good is that...conundrums...gah...:clown:

Thank the French for their sense of fun ... :france: FTW :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Should we create a rule on allowing the AI a few turns to develop? I’m in favor of taking five settlements in five turns but wonder if other players want to give the game more time to develop. Should this be handled IC or out?

Has a determination been made on which avatar gets what starting settlement?

---

I took a look at what AI England does with their first five turns, and it's, uhm, dumb. In my run at least they withdrew most of their forces back to the island (Hey, at least they used one of their ships for some troops) and did very little development. Bordeaux and Anger would be considerably easier to capture on turn 5 than on turn 1, while Caen was about the same.

I'm sure if we started a war on turn 1 and could skip to turn five things would be different, but that makes little sense. :thumbsdown:

:egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramses II CP

I took a look at what AI England does with their first five turns, and it's, uhm, dumb. In my run at least they withdrew most of their forces back to the island (Hey, at least they used one of their ships for some troops) and did very little development. Bordeaux and Anger would be considerably easier to capture on turn 5 than on turn 1, while Caen was about the same.

---

So then, to begin, we ATTACK! :charge:

I was in the process of assembling an updated rule set to account for the changes made since the current draft was posted. However, I have noticed more issues while doing this.

In Rule 2(c) - New Houses, it is worded that an edict needs to pass, but requires a 2/3 majority. Since a 2/3 majority is required and presumably the new house would be permanent (as opposed to lasting 10 turns, like an Edict does), why not just say it requires a Codex Amendment and leave it at that?

In Rule 3(a), the word "Knight" in the second and third sentences should probably read "Noble." As it currently reads, Barons and Counts cannot be promoted, and no one except Knights can ever be demoted (and Knights can't go any lower).

Rule 3(b) has a few issues. First, the ratification bit as worded requires that taxes be jacked up to the maximum immediately on conquest, even if the Council hasn't had an opportunity to ratify the conquest because a Council session hasn't occurred yet. Is this intentional? Who owns the province before it is ratified, in the time period between its conquest and the next Council session?

Quote:

---

(b). - Gaining and Losing Provinces: All conquered provinces must be ratified by an edict, which can be passed at the session before the conquest or be applied retroactively at the first session after. If a province is not ratified in this manner by the end of the very next session after it was made, it must be given away or abandoned. While a province is not ratified taxes must be set to the highest level possible and no recruitment can be made in that settlement.

---

Second, the line about the King's ability to give provinces away seems redundant:

Quote:

---

Any province conquered and ratified becomes part of the King's Demesne. At any point he may give a province to any House (in which case the Duke decides to allocate it to himself or another member of his House) or to any individual noble he favors. At the time of conquest, the conquering Noble can refuse to hand the province over to the King, but this puts him in a state of Civil War with the King.

---

First, the second bit about an individual noble makes the first bit about the Duke pointless, as 'any individual noble' includes all Dukes. In addition, the ability to give away provinces to other people is already covered later in the rule with this:

Quote:

---

Nobles lose control of one of their provinces if they voluntarily give it to another Noble...

---

As such, I think that line can be completely eliminated without any impact whatsoever, unless it was not intended that the King be able to give his Demesne to whoever he wants.

Also in Rule 3(b), there is the following bit:

Quote:

---

The King's choice of who to give the province can be blocked by a two-thirds majority of the Council (excluding the King himself, except as a tiebreaker). For this to happen a Duke must declare an emergency session to have the matter voted on.

---

In re: the above, the tie-breaker bit is unnecessary, as it's impossible to need a tiebreaker with a 2/3 vote. Either 2/3 agree to it, or they don't. A simpler wording of the above would be: "The King can be prevented from giving away a province by a two-thirds majority vote of the Council."

For Rule 3(c) - Retinue, does LTC include province titles as retinue? If not, the rule can be simplified by stripping out that language (which was added for SS 4.1 in LotR).

For Rule 3(d), it appears Wills are now pointless, as all inheritance issues are automatic. Was this intentional? If so, the last line can be stripped out and the word Wills should be removed from the title of the rule:

Quote:

---

(d) - Wills & Inheritance: Upon the death of a noble his land goes to the highest ranking member of his feudal chain. If he is independent the land goes to the King. All land in the King's Demesne is passed to the new King. Dukes can pass on their rank to a House member of their choosing. Otherwise, the second in charge in their House's feudal chain takes their place as Duke. Wills must be deposited with Zim before the character's death to be considered valid.

---

For Rule 3(e) - Oaths of Fealty, the rule was changed from its LotR wording to read "Any Independent Noble may swear an oath of fealty to any Duke whenever he wishes." There are no provisions for a Noble swearing to anyone but a Duke, but a Count cannot exist unless someone has sworn an Oath to him. Under the current rules, it is thus impossible to become a Count.

Rule 6(a) will likely need some extra editing because the proposed changes to PvP campaign movement make the bit about who moves first obsolete.

Rule 6(b), IMHO, could be better adapted to KotF. I think it would be nice to do more to force House warfare. If you declare war on someone in another House, you declare war with the entire House. In addition, I don't think vassals should be able to 'peace out' without the permission of the Duke of their House.


---

[edit] A few other questions:

(1) Why was the Prioritized Construction system removed? That worked fine and seemed popular in LotR and was one of the effective methods of avoiding a totally partisan Chancellor.

(2) Is it intentional that pretty much every player gets prioritized units? In LotR, the system allowed only the 'top dog' in a feudal chain to get prioritized units, though he could prioritize them in his vassals settlements. This was designed to make Houses more cohesive and create a more important relationship between the top-most lord and his vassals. By giving EVERYONE prioritized units, you are actually making the Houses more decentralized and less reliant on the Duke, which I think is the opposite of what people wanted. In addition, we're going to be bleeding Prioritized Units out our eyeballs once the initial expansion is over and everyone has a province. You're looking at upwards of 80 prioritizations per term!

That's a lot of questions, TC. :sweatdrop: To be honest, I suspect Zim and most of us would be happy for you to present your preferred rewording as in most cases it sounds like its a question of tidying up and logic.

A number of the questions are substantive and should be discussed. Of those you mentioned, I would offer an opinion on two - wills and unit prioritisations.

Personally, I prefer Dukes wills over automatic inheritance. Wills are "realistic" and also fun, as they create Edward the Confessor type conflicts where people vie for the inheritance and don't know who has it till the Duke croaks. I asked for extra text to cover depositing wills with the GM as in KotR I was very leery of dead Dukes declaring heirs. I confess I missed the rule on automatic inheritance. I think this may have originated in the idea of very heirarchical House structure in which there was a clear number 2. However, I have pushed for a more "family tree" like House structure, so there may be more than one person on the second rung of the House ladder (more than one Count). I thought we had gone with that kind of structure and made it so that a Count cannot be a vassal of a Count, in which case I think the automatic inheritance idea falls by the wayside. Anyway, Zim and others can chime in, but that's just my explanation of the confusion.

On unit prioritisations, I personally would like to keep the current rules so that the lower ranks are be able to prioritise their own men. One unit per settlement per 10 turns does not seem excessive for the lowest landed noble (Baron). If you are worried about 80 units in a term being a lot, I am tempted to do an AG and say let's sort it out IC. I hope it will be a while before we get so many provinces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

That's a lot of questions, TC. :sweatdrop: To be honest, I suspect Zim and most of us would be happy for you to present your preferred rewording as in most cases it sounds like its a question of tidying up and logic.

---

I'd be more than happy to. Indeed, I started to do so while consolidating them, but realized I was changing things without approval and I didn't want to do that. Thus the above list. I want to give people some time to chime in on things before I whip out the editing pen on the actual draft.

Quote:

---

Personally, I prefer Dukes wills over automatic inheritance. Wills are "realistic" and also fun, as they create Edward the Confessor type conflicts where people vie for the inheritance and don't know who has it till the Duke croaks. I asked for extra text to cover depositing wills with the GM as in KotR I was very leery of dead Dukes declaring heirs. I confess I missed the rule on automatic inheritance. I think this may have originated in the idea of very heirarchical House structure in which there was a clear number 2. However, I have pushed for a more "family tree" like House structure, so there may be more than one person on the second rung of the House ladder (more than one Count). I thought we had gone with that kind of structure and made it so that a Count cannot be a vassal of a Count, in which case I think the automatic inheritance idea falls by the wayside. Anyway, Zim and others can chime in, but that's just my explanation of the confusion.

---

For your edification only, here's the Wills rule from LotR:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

2.4 – Wills & Inheritance: On his death, all of a Senator’s provinces and retinue are distributed according to the most recent valid Will. In order for a Will to be valid, it must have been posted in a public thread or PMed to econ21 or TinCow prior to the Senator’s death. Except as noted below, a Will provision is only valid to the extent that it names a living, of-age avatar that is controlled by another player as the inheritor of the province or retinue stated. A player's next avatar may only inherit a single province and a single retinue. A Will may name multiple Senators as inheritors, so long as each province and/or retinue is only bequeathed to a single Senator. Any provisions of the Will that do not meet these requirements will be invalid. Valid provisions of a Will will not be negated due to the existence of invalid provisions in the same Will. If there is no valid Will provision for an owned province, the Senator’s immediate Lord gains possession of the province. If the Senator also has no Lord, the Basileus gains possession of the province.

Quote:

---

On unit prioritisations, I personally would like to keep the current rules so that the lower ranks are be able to prioritise their own men. One unit per settlement per 10 turns does not seem excessive for the lowest landed noble (Baron). If you are worried about 80 units in a term being a lot, I am tempted to do an AG and say let's sort it out IC. I hope it will be a while before we get so many provinces.

---

That's fine, I'm comfortable handling this IC, I just want to make sure people are aware of just how many prioritizations there are going to be in this game. For the record, the lowest rank gets TWO prioritizations, not one. As I understand it (we start with 5 provinces, right?) on the very first turn of the game, there will be 26 (8 for King, 4 each for 4 Dukes, +2 for one Prince) prioritiziations available. Quick expansion to 10 provinces is likely, and that would potentially increase the number of prioritizations to 41. That's more than we ever had in LotR, and, with few exceptions, you're essentially going to keep adding 2 every time you conquer a province, until you hit the player limit.

Don't forget that any estimates of expansion have to take into account the Pope. We're under his tender mercy again.

Speaking as the first Megas in LotR, I think it would be vastly easier to track recruitment and prioritisation if it remains confined to Royalty and the House leaders. I think that units will trickle down to the Counts and Barons, but that will be a task for the Dukes as a sort of middle mangement. This will alleviate some of the bookkeeping and organizational duties of the Seneschal.

I don't remember any complaints about recruitment from LotR. So if it's a satisfactory system, I don't think we should alter it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

That's fine, I'm comfortable handling this IC, I just want to make sure people are aware of just how many prioritizations there are going to be in this game. For the record, the lowest rank gets TWO prioritizations, not one. As I understand it (we start with 5 provinces, right?) on the very first turn of the game, there will be 26 (8 for King, 4 each for 4 Dukes, +2 for one Prince) prioritiziations available. ... Quick expansion to 10 provinces is likely, and that would potentially increase the number of prioritizations to 41.

---

Um, good point. I think the King is 5, but still, it is a lot. I guess it may lead to a situation of excess demand - the Seneschal can't afford to or does not want to give everyone their prioritisations. That will mean no "national" army that the Seneschal can give himself above and beyond what he gets from his title. And it would mean prioritisations are more like bids than entitlements - you are trying to get the troops, not sure to get them. How the Seneschal juggles those demands will be quite an interesting political issue.

To ease the situation, we could subtract 1 from all numbers:
Baron: 1
Count: 2
Duke: 3
King: 4
Prince +1

So at start, it would be 17 prioritisations. 17 units over 10 turns from 5 settlements does not sound excessive. Then if we expand to 10 provinces, perhaps we would have 5 new Barons, giving us 22 prioritisations.

Compeletely disenfranchising those below the Dukes would not help at the outset, as there are no landowners below Duke.

On reflection, I think I would advocate the -1 across the board, as I would prefer prioritisations to be closer to entitlements than to bids. (You can bid anyway, regardless of prioritisations).

Looking at the numbers, I second econ's proposed reduction.

Perhaps that also makes people more amenable to having nobles choose what units they get with their prioritization? Or was that already agreed to? I'm starting to have trouble following the discussions here and in the PVP thread. :confused:

Yes, I think we've agreed to allow specific unit selection via prioritization as a method of making Houses more resistant to a hostile Seneshal.

The above reduction does fit better and I will accept it, though I still think that having the Duke be responsible for his entire House's priortizations (as in LotR) would be better for RPing and for organization.

I'm a bit busy for the next day or so as the Sheriff's Department is doing a gun auction... I'll give the rules a good look and editting tomorrow evening.

To answer those last few questions real quick:

"(1) Why was the Prioritized Construction system removed? That worked fine and seemed popular in LotR and was one of the effective methods of avoiding a totally partisan Chancellor."

Was it popular? During the time I played (with a big chunk missing in the middle fo the game when I didn't have internet access) virtually noone used it...

I removed it because I thought almost noone used it and I wanted to simplify the rank powers a little (same reason I took out a few of the other powers).

"(2) Is it intentional that pretty much every player gets prioritized units? In LotR, the system allowed only the 'top dog' in a feudal chain to get prioritized units, though he could prioritize them in his vassals settlements. This was designed to make Houses more cohesive and create a more important relationship between the top-most lord and his vassals. By giving EVERYONE prioritized units, you are actually making the Houses more decentralized and less reliant on the Duke, which I think is the opposite of what people wanted. In addition, we're going to be bleeding Prioritized Units out our eyeballs once the initial expansion is over and everyone has a province. You're looking at upwards of 80 prioritizations per term! "

I liked the idea of decentralizing it a bit and giving lower ranks a chance to prioritize a small number of movements. I did mention it and ask if anyone had concerns, quite some time ago, which would have been a nice time to raise them. :clown: However, I did not do the number crunching needed to forsee if it would be a problem...

It might be worth noting that I had exactly one request for something like 3 prioritized units during my term as Megas, even though many, many more could have been made. Seeing the low use rate for that power, I guess I didn't think too much about the ramifications if everyone used it.

At any point anyone is free to put up their own rule system or volunteer to take over gm duties. I put my own efforts towards doing so because nooone else seemed willing to at the time and I've found these games to be a big part of the fun I've had since coming to the Org. I'm not a lawyer and I've never written rules for a complex game before. I'm just doing the best I can...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

At any point anyone is free to put up their own rule system or volunteer to take over gm duties.

---

I think I speak for everyone when I say we very much appreciate your volunteering to be the GM. It's big undertaking and I don't think anyone expects the GM to write all the rules - you just get to have the last say if you want it. I appreciate your consensual approach and your giving us time to brainstorm even at this late hour. :bow:

I am trying to avoid going to bed, so I can make a contribution on some of TCs other queries. One or two do raise issues that might merit more discussion, but most seem straightforward:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

In Rule 2(c) - New Houses, ... why not just say it requires a Codex Amendment and leave it at that?

---

Yes, BTW, are we - as per Tristan's suggestion, going to call Codex Amendments, Proclamations?

Quote:

---

In Rule 3(a), the word "Knight" in the second and third sentences should probably read "Noble."

---

Indubitably.

Quote:

---

Rule 3(b) has a few issues. First, the ratification bit as worded requires that taxes be jacked up to the maximum immediately on conquest, even if the Council hasn't had an opportunity to ratify the conquest because a Council session hasn't occurred yet. Is this intentional? Who owns the province before it is ratified, in the time period between its conquest and the next Council session?

---

I queried this earlier and apparently it is intended. I think the VH taxes are partly to slow expansion. I am inferring ownership lies with the conqueror, but because he can't recruit, it's not a very juicy prize. I think the wording was the result of some to and fro, though, so if you want to propose one or more alternatives, that might be helpful.

The other queries you raise on 3b look like sensible cleaning up.

Quote:

---

For Rule 3(c) - Retinue, does LTC include province titles as retinue? If not, the rule can be simplified by stripping out that language (which was added for SS 4.1 in LotR).

---

No and yes.

Quote:

---

For Rule 3(d), it appears Wills are now pointless, as all inheritance issues are automatic. Was this intentional? If so, the last line can be stripped out and the word Wills should be removed from the title of the rule:

---

I suggest:

(d) - Wills & Inheritance: A landowning noble can bequeath his land if he deposits a will with the GM before his death. If there is no will, all land goes to his House or, if he has no House, to the King. All land in the King's Demesne is passed to the new King. A Duke can name his successor in his will; the King will choose one if he does not.

You could use the LotR clause, but it just fried half my brain, so caveat emptor, dear readers.

Quote:

---

For Rule 3(e) - Oaths of Fealty, the rule was changed from its LotR wording to read "Any Independent Noble may swear an oath of fealty to any Duke whenever he wishes." There are no provisions for a Noble swearing to anyone but a Duke, but a Count cannot exist unless someone has sworn an Oath to him. Under the current rules, it is thus impossible to become a Count.

---

I wonder if you could redraft that to allow nobles to swear oaths to nobles of higher rank (only)? Also, could you clarify where the King stands in relation to oaths, as I recall - with some pique - Lothar saying he did not recognise the King as his liege; is that the official KotF position on Duke-King relations?

Quote:

---

Rule 6(a) will likely need some extra editing because the proposed changes to PvP campaign movement make the bit about who moves first obsolete.

---

Yes, pls do include PvP movement Risk-style.

Quote:

---

Rule 6(b), IMHO, could be better adapted to KotF. I think it would be nice to do more to force House warfare. If you declare war on someone in another House, you declare war with the entire House. In addition, I don't think vassals should be able to 'peace out' without the permission of the Duke of their House.

---

I thought 6(a) gets close to House warfare - all those below in the House are targets. Personally, I would rather make states of war totally free: you can declare war on anyone and that is it. If your vassal does not declare war on the person who is attacking you, that should be regarded as breaking an oath, but they should have that option IMO and if you are willing to let it go, so be it. (Presumably, a coup will start with one person declaring then some of the rats deserting the sinking ship).

Quote:

---

(1) Why was the Prioritized Construction system removed? That worked fine and seemed popular in LotR and was one of the effective methods of avoiding a totally partisan Chancellor.

---

I have not heard of this system - sounds interesting.

Don't worry about it Zim, we're happy to have you as our GM. As for construction prioritization, didn't PK use that to construct the Huge Walls at Antiokheia? Or was that when he was Megas Logothetes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

At any point anyone is free to put up their own rule system or volunteer to take over gm duties. I put my own efforts towards doing so because nooone else seemed willing to at the time and I've found these games to be a big part of the fun I've had since coming to the Org. I'm not a lawyer and I've never written rules for a complex game before. I'm just doing the best I can...

---

I didn't mean to cause offense, I was just trying to spot potential problems before they occurred. I can tell you for a fact I wouldn't touch the GM spot with a 10 foot pole. I spent a year doing that for LotR, and for this game I just want to be a player. It is definitely a rewarding and fun job, particularly with the event system, but it does cause fatigue and I am currently fatigued.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I queried this earlier and apparently it is intended. I think the VH taxes are partly to slow expansion. I am inferring ownership lies with the conqueror, but because he can't recruit, it's not a very juicy prize. I think the wording was the result of some to and fro, though, so if you want to propose one or more alternatives, that might be helpful.

---

No, it's fine, I just wanted to make sure the wording was doing what it was intended to do. As it stands, it will certainly slow expansion. Towards the end, LotR instituted a rule system for full-on independence movements that split off sections of the Empire from the rest and gave them an element of autonomy. Part of that included jacking up taxes to VH, and that resulted in serious unrest and rebellions in any province without a major garrison. This will will probably have a greater impact on slowing expansion than anything else proposed, simply because after we've expanded beyond the most immediate territories, the conquering army will have to remain as a garrison until the next Council session due to the unrest level. It will be a very effective method of expansion control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I wonder if you could redraft that to allow nobles to swear oaths to nobles of higher rank (only)? Also, could you clarify where the King stands in relation to oaths, as I recall - with some pique - Lothar saying he did not recognise the King as his liege; is that the official KotF position on Duke-King relations?

---

In LotR, no one could swear fealty to the Emperor, because nominally everyone was supposed to be a vassal of the Emperor. I think it would work the same way here. By allowing oaths to the King, you essentially imply that anyone who doesn't swear the oath isn't subordinate to the King, which just isn't true in our game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I didn't mean to cause offense, I was just trying to spot potential problems before they occurred. I can tell you for a fact I wouldn't touch the GM spot with a 10 foot pole. I spent a year doing that for LotR, and for this game I just want to be a player. It is definitely a rewarding and fun job, particularly with the event system, but it does cause fatigue and I am currently fatigued.

---

It's not a matter of being offended, more becoming weary. It seems I come home to ever growing lists of where I messed up. Rules changes are being proposed at a dizzying rate, and I've had trouble keeping up with edits, which have to be made hastily and then contain even more mistakes and contradictions. I'm just tired... I'm sure much of it is that now far more people are much more interested in the game, so more are sharing their input on problems.

I'll try to compile a list of changes tomorrow evening after work

Quote:

---

"For Rule 3(d), it appears Wills are now pointless, as all inheritance issues are automatic. Was this intentional? If so, the last line can be stripped out and the word Wills should be removed from the title of the rule:"

---

The last line about wills was meant to refer to Duke's passing on their titles. There was a lot of discussion in the pregame thread about making the game more like KOTR. I had thought land in KOTR tended to stick with houses, so wrote up the rules to make it go straight to the Duke of the noble's House. I also thought this might avoid the issue of someone leaving their land to another House with no perceptible reason, which their new character then immediately joins.

Changing it to allow anyone to leave their land to whomever they wish is easy enough, but creates the chance of making the Houses a huge jumble landwise if players go crazy with their wills. It's certainly not a big risk, but from past experience neither is abuse of prioritizations, which we're discussing changing the rules to prevent.

Since we're apparently now going away from the linear feudal chain system of LOTR, the part about Dukes without wills having their House go to the second in charge will no longer work. I intended it to be in case we end up with an inactive Duke who doesn't leave a will...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

Don't worry about it Zim, we're happy to have you as our GM. As for construction prioritization, didn't PK use that to construct the Huge Walls at Jerusalem? Or was that when he was Megas Logothetes?

---

Was PK Megas for a term? It probably happened that two months I was away...

Were there other instances of building prioritizations being used?

Edit: Made some revisions to rules. There's still a lot to catch up on, though, which I'll work on tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

As much as I like to have every advantage possible, I agree that buffing AI (i.e. English) settlements would add a challenge. What do you think Zim?

---

I think it was suggested some time ago an addition be made to the rules allowing me to create armies for AI factions if need be. Not sure which post number, though.

At the least I could add some troops to Normandy to make it tougher to take, and maybe eventually some to England as well if it's invaded, although I'll be adjusting the King's Purse of AI factions as well, so hopefully they'll be building enough already.

Don't worry Zim, you're doing a great job. We're nearly at the end of the rules phase, and then the fun will begin!

I am a bit worried about the possibility of Nobles being able to switch houses. One of the great things about KOTR was the factional squabbling between the houses. It was great! In LOTR, however, houses were too fluid, and it killed any real friction, because as soon as someone got sick of the house leader, they just formed their own house.

On reading the rules, it doesn't look too worrying, as long as it's not abused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

At the least I could add some troops to Normandy to make it tougher to take, and maybe eventually some to England as well if it's invaded, although I'll be adjusting the King's Purse of AI factions as well, so hopefully they'll be building enough already.

---

My recommendation would be to at least give every faction some starting troops equivalent to the RBGs we spawn for ourselves - remembering they have 2hps. Afterall that is what each of us would insist on, if we were each asked to play one non-French faction competitively. I guess it would equate to about a couple of balanced, good quality stacks per faction. I would be happy to spawn the stacks myself if it was approved - putting them next to capitals or some such - as I worked out the composition of those stacks for most factions while running KotR. I suspect players might prefer the stacks be there at the beginning, so they can make strategic choices, rather than spawned at the last minute and breaking immersion & scuppering a strategic ploy. I would also be willing to playtest the change to see what the world looked like after 10 or 20 turns compared to without the stacks.

I think it was mentioned that we treat bodyguards as heavy cavalry for the stack composition rule for a number of turns (30?). That would be good and should be written up in 5d. But I don't think it is enough, as the AI factions don't start with any heavy cavalry at all, except their generals. We should at least give them what we are giving ourselves, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

I am a bit worried about the possibility of Nobles being able to switch houses. One of the great things about KOTR was the factional squabbling between the houses. It was great! In LOTR, however, houses were too fluid, and it killed any real friction, because as soon as someone got sick of the house leader, they just formed their own house.

---

That's an important issue to consider - especially if the noble leaving, leaves with their lands, as presumably they will. I did not play LotR so I am not sure how this will all play out. Under the current rules, as I understand them, the person leaving the House will take their land? The Duke will have the right to declare war on the departing noble on the grounds that he is oath-breaker and if so all the Dukes other vassals will also be at war (at least in name, I cant see we can force them to fight or switch sides). The Duke will presumably have a military edge, so any conflict would presumably depend on the attitude of the other Houses. If they support the breakaway noble, then I imagine he could get away with it.

If all of the above is true, it sounds reasonably ok to me - the penalties are very politically dependent, with some weight in favour of the Duke but not insurmountable. If a Duke alienates all his vassals, he could be deposed - which again seems ok. We could hardwire more support for the Duke into the rules, but I think governing (by Dukes etc) does require some consent.

Is the above how other people see things? How does it relate to what happened in LotR? Were the same rules in play there, but there was too much fluidity between houses?

I agree. Also, we will consistently have around 20-30 units of heavy cavalry due to RBG and family members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

That's an important issue to consider - especially if the noble leaving, leaves with their lands, as presumably they will. I did not play LotR so I am not sure how this will all play out. Under the current rules, as I understand them, the person leaving the House will take their land? The Duke will have the right to declare war on the departing noble on the grounds that he is oath-breaker and if so all the Dukes other vassals will also be at war (at least in name, I cant see we can force them to fight or switch sides). The Duke will presumably have a military edge, so any conflict would presumably depend on the attitude of the other Houses. If they support the breakaway noble, then I imagine he could get away with it.

If all of the above is true, it sounds reasonably ok to me - the penalties are very politically dependent, with some weight in favour of the Duke but not insurmountable. If a Duke alienates all his vassals, he could be deposed - which again seems ok. We could hardwire more support for the Duke into the rules, but I think governing (by Dukes etc) does require some consent.

Is the above how other people see things? How does it relate to what happened in LotR? Were the same rules in play there, but there was too much fluidity between houses?

---

In LotR, I think it was the same, but it was really hard for house leaders to stomp on rebellious vassals. The large distances involved really added to this problem. When I was Emperor, trying to attack rebellious players was impossible, due to the large distances. In KotF, we shouldn't have as big a problem.

My main concern is that without players being really committed to a particular house, things can sometimes get disorganised and it's hard to find something to fight for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

Changing it to allow anyone to leave their land to whomever they wish is easy enough, but creates the chance of making the Houses a huge jumble landwise if players go crazy with their wills. It's certainly not a big risk, but from past experience neither is abuse of prioritizations, which we're discussing changing the rules to prevent.

---

Good point, I withdraw that suggestion. How about:

(d) - Wills & Inheritance: Upon the death of a noble his land goes to the highest member of his feudal chain. If he is independent the land goes to the King. All land in the King's Demesne is passed to the new King. Duke's can pass on their rank to a House member of their choosing, including by naming a successor in their will. Wills must be deposited with Zim before the character's death to be considered valid. If a Duke dies without naming a successor, the King picks the successor from among the highest ranked in their House.

Changes in italics.

Excellent. I would just add a clause allowing a noble to leave a province to his natural son. I think we had this in KotR.