KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

AG, maybe I'm reading your proposal wrong but it comes across to me as a little too inflexible for my taste. While it might indeed be more "realistic" I prefer TC's more malleable rank system.

That being said, I like think the ideas presented lately are interesting and might limit the "up and down" instability people fear.

1.) I like the oath of fealty "cool down" and it is similar to what I proposed.

2.) One branch requirement is fine but I would caution against adding two or more.

3.) Time in service is interesting but I wonder if it should be lowered. The upper ranks should be hard to get, not impossible. Either half the time required, or cut out the "consectutive" requirement. Or some hybrid.

As for other ideas presented lately:

1.) I think there should be no "time out" for avatar death. That could lead down the dangerous road of making it quite "unfun" for players. Our inheritance restrictions already limit the possibility for abuse so I think that is enough.

2.) I don't know if banishment will be fun. Outside of a civil war, it seems to be too heavy-handed OOC. In a civil war, it seems it would be moot. In the test game, it wouldn't make much of a difference if my character was "banished" at the moment. He still has an army and he is still marching upon another House with the Chancellor's "permission".

First off, I agree with TinCows arguments against the stuff I mentioned, which he hasn't implemented into the new draft. The explanations sound good and it looks doable to me.

Of course the massive increase of numbers needed to create a Grand Duke now could be subject to debate. In a sense we are back at a point where 9 people in total are needed for a Grand Duke, which led TinCow to create the middle ranks in the first place. I'm not saying it's too much per se, but I wouldn't argue too strongly against someone who was of that opinion.

Apart from that I like the rules proposed. I understand some of AussieGiants worries, but several situations in KotR have shown us that a OOC ruleset is needed. The system you propose just give ranks but not an easy way of attaining them. Thought through to the end all titles would come from the FL then, which while being realistic in some ways isn't too much fun. The creation of new Houses, especially of some renegade House that only has loose ties to the rest of the Empire, for example through geographic separation, becomes close to impossible. I like the open character of the proposed system much more.

I guess some of the rigid structure can be gotten back if we incorporate the family tree again via inheritance laws, as I mentioned previously. I have a rule like the following in mind.

Edit: Or Ammend it to 2.5
2.5 - Wills&Inheritance: [...]. Any heir specified in the Will needs to be approved by the direct lord of owner of the Will. If there is none then the FACTION LEADER has to approve. Members of the family tree that specify one of their natural sons as heir are exempt from this rule.

You could even make a privilege out of it later on. Say Grand Dukes can appoint their heir without peer approval. Something like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ituralde

X.X - Heirs: Any heir specified in the Will needs to be approved by the direct lord of owner of the Will. If ther is none then the FACTION LEADER has to approve. Members of the family tree that specify one of their natural sons as heir are exempt from this rule.

You could even make a privilege out of it later on. Say Grand Dukes can appoint their heir without peer approval. Something like that.

---

I fear that would give far too much power to the FL. If there is a rival House, he can just deny their wills and all land would just revert back to him. The Chancellor is powerful because he is elected from among the players. The FL is just chosen by the game's wonky heir mechanic and I feel uncomfortable giving the FL that much power.

As for giving the family tree more power, we already pick our FL and FH from the tree. Those are two powerful positions based solely on the tree. I feel that is enough. The rest can be decided by us IC.

Well as I said, the remedy for that would be to get on the Family tree and make some heirs. Also you could give the privilege to name your own heir earlier. Make it available from Duke upward or even Marqees. The system is really quite flexible there. I think it just bothers me that it doesn't matter whether you give your land to your son, who is your natural heir, or to some other noble that just happens to be around.

If you lower the rank requirement for the privilege it is also a further incenvtive to form a big house as this gives you more independence from the FL, like it should be.


Edit: I just really liked the jockeying for marriage with one of the Princesses in KotR, this would put a game mechanic reason to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ituralde

First off, I agree with TinCows arguments against the stuff I mentioned, which he hasn't implemented into the new draft.

---

Actually, I did stick them in. The time-in-rank bit is embodied by the "at some point in time" text after the new requirements. The oath cooldown bit is embodied by the "If a Vassal breaks an Oath of Fealty without the permission of his Lord, he cannot swear a new Oath of Fealty until 5 turns have passed." text in Rule 2.5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Actually, I did stick them in. The time-in-rank bit is embodied by the "at some point in time" text after the new requirements. The oath cooldown bit is embodied by the "If a Vassal breaks an Oath of Fealty without the permission of his Lord, he cannot swear a new Oath of Fealty until 5 turns have passed." text in Rule 2.5.

---

Yeah, but I was initially against the cooldown, but you convinced me that it can work. And I was also initially for making the time-in-rank reset, which you didn't put in the rules either and I agree with that decision.
That's all I was trying to say with that paragraph.

Ok, so I'm going to put my clothes back on.

********************

So in the current system what is the impact of the family tree on our game as far as everyone is concerned?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ituralde

Well as I said, the remedy for that would be to get on the Family tree and make some heirs. Also you could give the privilege to name your own heir earlier. Make it available from Duke upward or even Marqees. The system is really quite flexible there. I think it just bothers me that it doesn't matter whether you give your land to your son, who is your natural heir, or to some other noble that just happens to be around.

If you lower the rank requirement for the privilege it is also a further incenvtive to form a big house as this gives you more independence from the FL, like it should be.

Edit: I just really liked the jockeying for marriage with one of the Princesses in KotR, this would put a game mechanic reason to it.

---

I agree with Ituralde on this. I would like to see some mechanism that would at least encourage some form of loyalty to a hereditary family system. While we need to have a system that doesn't require anyone to follow the family tree, that doesn't mean it should be ignored altogether. I would even expand it to allow people to give select son-in-laws as heirs, as long as a natural born son did not exist. This would also mesh well with the 'rental' system that a lot of people seemed to like. While lands would not be rented from a Lord, the Lord could reclaim them from a vassal after his death if the vassal didn't have the proper offspring. We could balance it by requiring the Lord to use his 'veto' of the will before the vassal's death. That would move the vetoing of wills into the political negotiation sphere, adding another layer to the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Ok, so I'm going to put my clothes back on.

********************

So in the current system what is the impact of the family tree on our game as far as everyone is concerned?

---

Well I hope I made my opinion on how to use the family tree clear. And if I understood you correctly this should be along the lines you wanted too. Like TinCow says it's an incentive to follow the traditional hereditary system, much like what Austria did in KotR. And of course it should be expanded to son-in-laws too. I mean he counts as a normal heir in line for faction heir to even if he's only a son-in-law, so we shouldn't treat him differently.

Ironically, I was against RBG's in KotR for a long time. Now, I see their utility. Because of the way we will expand, I fear there will be not much of a family tree for a long time. I do not want to see us punish RBG's too harshly. They already can not become FL's or FH's unless they marry in or get MOH. I don't know if making a complicated inheritance system will solve the balance problem. I like that the wills are flexible. Like TC said in an earlier post, if the Lord wants a vassal to name him in the will, he better treat the vassal well.

The proposed system would severly hamper a House leader that is an RBG. His House could be effectively destroyed upon his death since the FL can just veto the will. I fear that gives the FL far too much power.

I certainly think TC and Ituralde have addressed the issue and I like the idea that following the historical system will be encouraged.

I see your point PK.

As their could be upwards of 15 players at the start there is going to be a boat load of RBG's. That means the computer is not going to have any births at all while the province/avatar balancing mechanism is trying to work in the game itself.

As for the FL or RBG House leader issue then perhaps the RBG needs to be a bit more careful with the FL relationship to ensure the line continues. I like that as it represents the more tenuous relationship between merit based characters and blood line characters.

You can choose your friends, but you can't choose your family.. and vice versa.

I am amused that there seems to be a reversal of the RBG argument in KotR. :D

In KotR I argued that RBG's should have less rights and should not become Duke. I was told that should be an IC decision and that seems to be what we went with for the rest of the game. RBG's got all the rights that FT members got, except that they could not be FL's or FH's.

Now, there is a reverse trend and I am on the opposite side of the argument. I think we should apply the same logic to RBG's that we did in KotR. They can't be FL or FH but the rest is equal. Let any other RBG discrimination come about due to IC legislation.

But, others now want to write RBG discrimination into the legislation just like I wanted to do in KotR.

It seems both parties have convinced each other of the other's former point of view. :beam:

Like I have been saying about a few things, I understand player's desire for more stability but I caution us from taking it too far. If the game became too rigid, I fear it would be less fun for many of us.

You should also consider that should the FL neglect too many Houses in this fashion there could alwas be a CA to further restrict this power or abolish it alltogether. If there are many RBG owned Houses it would be in their best interest too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ituralde

You should also consider that should the FL neglect too many Houses in this fashion there could alwas be a CA to further restrict this power or abolish it alltogether. If there are many RBG owned Houses it would be in their best interest too.

---

I guess I rather see the opposite happen. Start out with RBG/FT equality (except for being FH or FL) and then, if people want, legislate inequality. If the FT people rise in stature and political power, they can then pass laws limiting the powers of RBG's. This is exactly what was argued against me in KotR and I now think they were right. ^_^

I can't remember what I said in the RBG discussion.

What I do know now is that consistent rules, where ever possible should be the aim.

I've already started some political 101 assessments on the current rules and EVERYONE will need to be "up to speed" on the rules of this game or they will be at a severe disadvantage. You wont be able to simply play...that's got to be taken into account with all these discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

I can't remember what I said in the RBG discussion.

What I do know now is that consistent rules, where ever possible should be the aim.

I've already started some political 101 assessments on the current rules and EVERYONE will need to be "up to speed" on the rules of this game or they will be at a severe disadvantage. You wont be able to simply play...that's got to be taken into account with all these discussion.

---

I agree that we seem to be moving towards more complicated rules. It's interesting that the flexible rules seemed more simple. And it's our attempts to add stability that seem to be adding complication. I thought it would end up the opposite. A total Dictatorship would be very very simple. Not very fun but simple. I assumed any move towards stability would simplify things. But its seems to have done the opposite.

Enough players are uncomfortable with the original flexibility and have slowly been chipping away at certain rules in order to make it easier to maintain power once you gain power. This seems to have made the rules more complicated as there are now more exceptions and caveats, all designed to maintain the status quo.

Of course this is just my perception.

As for "playabilty", it seems that a knight or a baronet still leads a relatively simple existence. There is not much to do. You simply find someone and obey them. I think it's a good starting block for figuring the game out.

It's the middle ranks that seem to be getting squeezed out or harder to maintain. Those who rise to the top first will now find it easier to stay there. Those on the bottom, who are happy with it, will find it easy. Those in the middle, seem to have their powers eroded away and will find it harder to rise to the top.

If we erode the middle, we will have a few players at the top who make all the decisions. And we will have the rest on the bottom with few options. It will be very much like KotR pre-cataclysm. We decided OOC to have the cataclysm to "spice things up" a bit. And people took the opportunity to re-arrange the power structure a bit.

It seems many of us like flexibility when we're on the bottom and like stability when were at the top. :clown:

My aim is not to disadvantage RBGs but rathet to give an advantage to being on the family tree. I know this may sound like splitting hairs, but I think it's important to know where my motivation for this is coming from.

With the things TinCow mentioned in addition to the stuff I proposed I'm really convinced that this would open up a whole new layer to the game. The primary goal of most people will be to get power for themselves. When it comes to preserving this power that's where the whole family tree mechanic will kick in.
In my mind I'm still convinced that this could be a fun system and I would miss this added layer. We can't model a feudal society without putting some restraints on the player base. While I agree that you should have pretty even chances I don't want the game to turn too democratic.
When I have the choice between complete even chances and fun and interesting game possibilities that will surely arise from such a system, I would choose the latter. I honestly would not mind playing a RBG in my proposed system.


And while we're touching on the subject of death and inheritance already there are some things that came to my mind. What happens to the requirement regarding time-in-service when you inherit a Ducal title or above? What happens when a character dies and has no valid Will? This would revert the province back to the FL, effectively cutting that Houses power, or did I get the inheritance laws wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ituralde

My aim is not to disadvantage RBGs but rathet to give an advantage to being on the family tree. I know this may sound like splitting hairs, but I think it's important to know where my motivation for this is coming from.

With the things TinCow mentioned in addition to the stuff I proposed I'm really convinced that this would open up a whole new layer to the game. The primary goal of most people will be to get power for themselves. When it comes to preserving this power that's where the whole family tree mechanic will kick in.
In my mind I'm still convinced that this could be a fun system and I would miss this added layer. We can't model a feudal society without putting some restraints on the player base. While I agree that you should have pretty even chances I don't want the game to turn too democratic.
When I have the choice between complete even chances and fun and interesting game possibilities that will surely arise from such a system, I would choose the latter. I honestly would not mind playing a RBG in my proposed system.

---

I think I see where your coming from. Your pretty much using the arguments I used in KotR. If you "advantage" the family tree, you then by default "disadvantage" RBG's.

RBG's will make up the bulk of the early game. You said they should just get on the tree if they want to be more stable but that will not be easy early on. They have exactly two ways of getting on the tree. Being married to a Princess or MOH. Kids and MOH's will probably be very rare until we conquer a ton of territory. So they will not have access to those advancement options until the "middle game".

Quote:

---

And while we're touching on the subject of death and inheritance already there are some things that came to my mind. What happens to the requirement regarding time-in-service when you inherit a Ducal title or above? What happens when a character dies and has no valid Will? This would revert the province back to the FL, effectively cutting that Houses power, or did I get the inheritance laws wrong?

---

As far as I know, you can't inherit the "title". Just the land. You get the title if someone else swears to you and you meet the time requirements.

Currently, if there is no will, lands go to the Lord. If there is no Lord, they go to the FL. If you veto the will of the House leader, that land goes to the FL. Which will hit RBG led Houses rather hard. And with little chance of getting on the tree in the "early game", I think that might be a tad too harsh.

@ PK, I certainly agree that it comes across as trying to maintain power once someone achieves it. My main aim is to try and have something that is more feudal than democratic...given the backdrop.

It seemed to work well in KotR and no one was too overtly unhappy with the way things went. TC's system is great but I'm leaning towards something that is a little more stable...and it does seem strange that this is complicating things rather than simplifying them :yes:

I definitely don't want the middle tier or any tier being unduly disadvantaged, BUT, I would prefer to have a steadily more stable situation as you go up the ladder...that is what I would prefer. The idea of Duke's or Grand Duke's being transitory seems a little mad...sure there should be IC mechanisms in place to resolve some of the inactive or ineffective Duke's seen in KotR, but if it is too much then I don't see the advantage in the role-playing opportunities in a game based around the medieval times. I mean we killed a FL...that's a fairly good indication that change is possible with just the Civil War process.

As someone that went from one extreme to the other in KotR I do understand the issue. For a time there I was also wondering if Leopold would hand the Ducal seat to me so I also played in a period of "middle class" status for want of a better term.

I fully expect to be at the bottom and am interested to see where things lead, so I certainly see these rules applying to me.

Ituralde's definition is very well put.

"The aim is not to disadvantage RBGs but rather to give an advantage to being on the family tree."

I didn't know about the part with the title. Although the rules are pretty clear on that I'm not sure if I like it. I'd rather have titles be inheritable too, it's a feudal structure after all. It just seems strange to me to have this fluctuation in the Houses all of the time. Every time somebody dies really, not to mention what happens if multiple people die in one turn and nobody fulfills the time requirements for the higher ranks anymore. High Ducal House X would suddenly find itself reduced to some Viscounty although every leader provided a valid heir.

And one more time back to the disadvantage and advantage. Like I said I was splitting hairs, but in the end it would suit either side not to think of advantage and disadvantage but just of game depth. Sure right now a Grand Duke has advantages, also a Chancellor, but that of course makes everyone else disadvantaged too. The way I think we all should look at this as an advantage to the game as a whole!

Your main concern seems to be that large Houses could be destroyed by a malevolent FL. Aside from the IC things that have to happen for this, I already said that I see no problem in including immunity from this peer review for higher ranks. Make it available for a Duke or Marquee even and large Houses will not have to worry about this, no matter whether the leader is an RBG or not.
Aside from that since currently no titles are inherited and thus no obligations, you never have the guarantee that the Heir you chose will actually follow the same House again. He will be free to swear an oath of fealty to anyone he wishes!

Also I seem to have neglected the land issue in all of this during my initial plans. But now that I become more and more aware of the consequences I like it more and more. Make large and stable Houses and you're never touched by this. Stay a small House, aggrevate the FL and you're not on the family tree. Tough luck!

I agree though that it would be more ideal if the family tree mechanic was more open to manipulation. I guess the influence from the avatar/land ratio on the family tree births and adoption is hardcoded? This could indeed inconvenience many things. I'd really hate to loose the family tree altogether though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

The idea of Duke's or Grand Duke's being transitory seems a little mad...sure there should be IC mechanisms in place to resolve some of the inactive or ineffective Duke's seen in KotR, but if it is too much then I don't see the advantage in the role-playing opportunities in a game based around the medieval times.

---

That sentence portrays your point of view beautifully. :yes:

And it is where we seem to disagree. We place a different amount of importance in portraying a "feudal" system. I place less importance and you place more importance. That view is what seems to drive our respective ideas for the game.

I do want to point out, that despite the fact that I disagree and raise objections, I really like how this overall discussion has gone. There seem to be two opposite points of view and we seem to be reaching a consensus that is more in the middle. And in my opinion that is good for the "health" of the game. It needs to be the most fun for the most people. A very flexible game or a very strict game would probably only be fun for a few of us. While we are moving slightly away from my "vision" of the game, we are not moving too far from it.

So in general, I like where these rules are heading. But in the meantime, I'll keep giving my opinion and sharing my point of view. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

That sentence portrays your point of view beautifully. :yes:

And it is where we seem to disagree. We place a different amount of importance in portraying "feudal" system. I place less importance and you place more importance. That view is what seems to drive our respective ideas for the game.

I do want to point out, that despite the fact that I disagree and raise objections, I really like how this overall discussion has gone. There seem to be two opposite points of view and we seem to be reaching a consensus that is more in the middle. And in my opinion that is good for the "health" of the game. It needs to be the most fun for the most people. A very flexible game or a very strict game would probably only be fun for a few of us. While we are moving slightly away from my "vision" of the game, we are not moving too far from it.

So in general, I like where these rules are heading. But in the meantime, I'll keep giving my opinion and sharing my point of view. :2thumbsup:

---

I entirely agree. Our basic concepts are coming from different sides and therefore the more detailed operational issues will reflect these concepts in the form of disagreements.

I've thought about where you are envisioning things from, and I was nearly prepared to cast aside the importance I'm attaching to the feudal aspects of the game and essentially align myself with this more democratic fluid point of view...but, I decided against it...I like it before and it really added to KotR IMHO.

That combined with the fact Ituralde started throwing in examples that made me cringe...these two things solidified the choice to try and stick with this approach of a more stable, "feudal" approach.

I will say that Ituralde's comment about limiting the "no will/no inheritance" policy to low ranking RBGs goes a long way towards alleviating my concerns. I agree that if a RBG gains a certain rank, like Marquess, then he should be immune.

I don't mind depth, or even things being slightly unbalanced. I just fear things becoming so stable, that those on the top become untouchable. Which means they don't need to listen those under them as much.

I know the test game is meant to test the civil war mechanics, but it is giving me some insight into the current rank system. And I really like it. Sure I play a Count and have a small measure of power. But I simply can not ignore my vassals. In fact, I need them. Even though it's just a test, it has provided RP oppurtunities that I have already found rich and rewarding.

The funny thing is that especially the inheritance rules are designed to make the game unstable. I mean they don't change that you still need your vassals, but they give another angle from which a House can be attacked or put into disarray and forces you to interact with other people. Be it to get on the family tree or to get your Will ratified by the FL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ituralde

The funny thing is that especially the inheritance rules are designed to make the game unstable. I mean they don't change that you still need your vassals, but they give another angle from which a House can be attacked or put into disarray and forces you to interact with other people. Be it to get on the family tree or to get your Will ratified by the FL.

---

The first will rule was pretty much "anything goes". Then we limited it to current avatars that have a different player so players couldn't send all of their territory to their next avatar.

I admit it does add a large element of instability to the game. The alternative is to limit who you can name in your will. And limiting that seems to funnel territories to the top by default.

One possible exploit of your proposed rule is this:

Say there is an RBG Duke. Under your rule, he is immune to having his will over-ridden. He wants to leave all of his land to his loyal Baronet because everyone else has been a disloyal slimeball.

The FL can bribe everyone in the middle of the chain to break their oath to the Duke. The Duke would plummet in rank to a point where his will can be over-ridden by the FL. The FL can then give the land to the disloyal vassals as payment for breaking their oath. The loyal Baronet gets totally left out. And the former Duke dies with having his will completely ignored.

First of all, I don't think the rules have been made any more complex than they originally were. The only rules changes that have been made to increase stability were the ones I just did. Those changes were composed of exactly one line being added to rule 2.5 and one line added to the requirements of the Marquess, Duke, and Grand Duke. That's all that happened. I really don't see that as any significant increase in complexity when compared to the rest of the rules. If you ask me, this system is far easier to read and understand than KOTR ever was, and we managed to play with that just fine.

Second, I don't think the middle ranks are disadvantaged. The first true 'power' rank is Count, which gives a Private Army and the nice ability to Prioritize a building. It is pretty easy to achieve the rank of Count, since all you need is 3 provinces and 3 players. Every active player should be able to reach that rank at some point. I would expect to see many Count-led Houses, and I don't think that's a bad thing. Three people with adjacent provinces, access to a Private Army, and the ability to Prioritize a building could probably survive solo completely cut off from the rest of the faction without too many problems. If a Knight wants some excitement, he can get two fellow Knights, get a half stack army from the Chancellor, and set sail to a distant corner of the world for fortune and glory. Those three could carve out a small House for themselves and fight for its survival and prosperity, eventually becoming an organized and effective group. If they succeed, it's fun and exciting. If they fail and all die in far away lands, it's also fun and exciting. Sure, in the proposed new system Marquess is hard to achieve, but so what? Why does that make the ranks below it less fun?

Finally, I am very much against inherited titles/ranks. That was exactly the problem that made the KOTR Houses so stagnant. Dukes were all powerful and the lower level ranks just had to deal with it. If you weren't the favorite yes-man of the Duke, you essentially had no chance of advancement in the game. While that might be realistic, it's not fun. We're here to be entertained first, and be historically accurate second.

I agree PK.

Keep in mind your experience is vastly different to mine coming out of KotR.

I didn't ignore any of my vassals, in either "house" I was in, but I did that purely IC and it paid off in the end. Essentially I was involved in two houses as a central organising figure for the most part.

I rarely dictated, I predominately consulted and only occasionally did I pull out the Ducal bat...but always IC which does suit a feudal game.

It worked for me and was a rewarding experience to say the least. In that light I certainly want to allow for players in the top spots to be "removed" IC if they are OOC or IC going too far in any direction. But to me, the Civil War mechanics allow for that now.

Cecil/Becker wanted to separate, because of IC development...I rose to the occasion and did what I had to do to broker an arrangement. But I had the upper hand...and IMO a Duke should have in this situation.

If hypothetically I was to be a Duke again, I certainly don't want to be governing well and then have some character like Igno (and I love the way Igno plays just for the record) was playing as 'Hapsburg' causing the entire house of cards to fall down around my ears with little or no ability to prevent it. That's the side of the coin I'm trying to present to everyone. This is just a little too far the other way in my opinion.

-edit-

Having just now read TC's last post, I'm fairly certain my view will not be implimented and I see where everyone is coming from. I think the next game is going to feel much different than that last and that's "All Good" for me.

For the record, there's no real way for any single player to completely destroy a House. At most, a single player can drop the top dog rank down a level and steal a province or two. In order to do more damage than that, other people would have to work with him. If you've got a multi-person rebellion going on in your House, then it's your own fault. You either didn't keep your vassals happy or you chose unreliable vassals in the first place. Keep in mind, you can simply avoid Igno's volatile characters by refusing to having them in your House. Simple. Pick your vassals well and treat them with care and I highly doubt you'll have any problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

I agree PK.

Keep in mind your experience is vastly different to mine coming out of KotR.

I didn't ignore any of my vassals, in either "house" I was in, but I did that purely IC and it paid off in the end. Essentially I was involved in two houses as a central organising figure for the most part.

I rarely dictated, I predominately consulted and only occasionally did I pull out the Ducal bat...but always IC which does suit a feudal game.

It worked for me and was a rewarding experience to say the least. In that light I certainly want to allow for players in the top spots to be "removed" IC if they are OOC or IC going too far in any direction. But to me, the Civil War mechanics allow for that now.

Cecil/Becker wanted to separate, because of IC development...I rose to the occasion and did what I had to do to broker an arrangement. But I had the upper hand...and IMO a Duke should have in this situation.

If hypothetically I was to be a Duke again, I certainly don't want to be governing well and then have some character like Igno (and I love the way Igno plays just for the record) was playing as 'Hapsburg' causing the entire house of cards to fall down around my ears with little or no ability to prevent it. That's the side of the coin I'm trying to present to everyone. This is just a little too far the other way in my opinion.

---

Our experiences were vastly different. I was in a House where the Duke kept trying to name an unused avatar as heir for OOC reasons. The player bluntly told me both IC and OOC that he did not need to take any of our opinions/wishes into consideration and his rule was simply law. The result led to Fritz being a perfect recruit for the Order, Jan and Dieter being more loyal to Outremer, and Peter and Tancred going off and sacking Constantinople.

There was no hope for advancement. Period. No matter what, your avatar would never be Duke as long as Ansehelm was allowed to pick crazy heirs with no players. And even when we put a stop to that, he only had to keep Peter happy. The rest of us had to suffer at his whims. Sure he made up the "Furst" positions but since they were not written in law, they were discarded at his whim a few times.

This created a very difficult situation to RP in. While Fritz and Jan were able to overcome, it was only because they had help outside of the House. So, I admit that experience colors my judgement and makes me wish for a very very flexible system. And that is so myself and no other player has to go through it again.

But, a very flexible system seems like it would not be fun for a large group of people. So, I try to compromise and find ways to add some stability while trying to caution us against going to far.

Your statement goes a long way towards alleviating that fear:

Quote:

---

In that light I certainly want to allow for players in the top spots to be "removed" IC if they are OOC or IC going too far in any direction. But to me, the Civil War mechanics allow for that now.

---

Your above quote allows for a more stable system that won't be abused like it was in KotR. As long as that basic premise is followed, I don't mind if certain rules are inserted here and there to increase stability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

For the record, there's no real way for any single player to completely destroy a House. At most, a single player can drop the top dog rank down a level and steal a province or two. In order to do more damage than that, other people would have to work with him. If you've got a multi-person rebellion going on in your House, then it's your own fault. You either didn't keep your vassals happy or you chose unreliable vassals in the first place. Keep in mind, you can simply avoid Igno's volatile characters by refusing to having them in your House. Simple. Pick your vassals well and treat them with care and I highly doubt you'll have any problems.

---

That's a 10-4 TC...reading you loud and clear. :beam:

@PK...and that's why something needs to be in. Looking at it from across the other side of the Diet chamber I was always tempted to try and recruit you some of you to Austria, being a small house the possibilities I had running through my head where endless.

Your experience needs to be avoided...the question from my side is...can my experience be had in this system?