KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

[Privateerkev]

There might only be 2 or 3 "houses" but they'll probably be relatively fluid. In KotR, the Houses were fairly static until he started using RBG's, got new players, or used OOC methods (like moving the von Mahrens). We were bound by the game's whacky reproduction mechanic and when we stopped spreading our Empire, the family member mechanic stalled.

I predict things will fluctuate wildly for the beginning. We'll stabalize as the characters get fleshed out and we get used to the rules. Then, there will be periods of fluctuation again when new players join, players leave, avatars die, ect...

The House structure will be really up to us. We could all agree IC and just form 1 mega House for awhile. We could all split up. There might be a big house and a couple littles ones. It's pretty much whatever we can think of.

One thought though. We might want to consider making civil wars even harder. If their too easy to start, we might just resort to them all the time and swallow up the smaller groups. Of course that might be balanced out by a relative lack of people willing to implement them. Like KotR, I'd prefer if civil wars were a last resort to stave off massive player boredom. But I see them having the possibility of being used as a basic policy tool. Like it might be used to settle everything.

Or maybe keep civil wars easy to do and we should just get used to being nicer to each-other IC.

Maybe I'm having a hard time switching gears from focusing on the AI to focusing on internal struggle. Well, that's why we have these breaks in between games I guess. ^_^

[gibsonsg91921]

Maybe it's just me, and that I should probably have no say, but I would wonder if it could be a follower tree instead of a follower chain. I wonder how that would be implemented, though, and I don't want to get rid of any ranks.

[AussieGiant]

Thinking out load again.

Good points PK on the Civil War topic. I certainly would like that to be a relatively unusual thing...but I guess that would have to be handled IC.

Another thing I was thinking about was how the titles are given and revoked. In medieval times when a title was given...and it was given by the FL in most instances, OR inherited through a family (with the FL permitting the continuation of the title and privileges), it wasn't removed due to the structure we have recommended here.

I certainly agree with the general concept but something just a little more rigid would be more accurate and provide a little more of a 'base' for role playing with. Maybe rank allocations are given based on structure but can't be revoked unless by the FL or death (or exile).

To me the main characteristic of feudalism was a series of Oath contracts given from top to bottom in the hierarchy. I know the FL is the only thing we can't really control, and I don't think anyone wants us to control it...but the only linear Oath contract that IS not controlled by us in the one between the Dukes/Grand Dukes and the FL in this example...everything under that is fluid and up to IC situations.

I do believe we should replicate this as best as possible to give the feeling of feudalism.

[Privateerkev]

To me the main characteristic of feudalism was a series of Oath contracts given from top to bottom in the hierarchy. I know the FL is the only thing we can't really control, and I don't think anyone wants us to control it...but the only linear Oath contract that IS not controlled by us in the one between the Dukes/Grand Dukes and the FL in this example...everything under that is fluid and up to IC situations.

I do believe we should replicate this as best as possible to give the feeling of feudalism.

I guess it's a balancing act. If it's too rigid, you'll have instances where it won't be very fun. If it's too fluid, then it isn't feudal.

We're a funny lot. We want power structures. And we want them to be at least somewhat rigid and hereditary. But we want flexibility.

Maybe the new rules replicate that "middle ground" we're looking for and it's just up to us to implement it IC. The fact that civil war is an option when a vassel breaks from a lord is a powerful tool.

I'm starting to wish that we find some easier way to actually implement civil wars. Because the idea of slogging the game to a standstill for a week or two every time someone gets pissed at their Duke makes me want to have civil wars be rare. That's why I said in my last post that I wanted them to be harder to start.

But, if they were resolved in some sort of "quick and dirty" fashion, I wouldn't mind them being more frequent or easier to start. So, it's actually an OOC concern that is making me cautious using an IC tool.

The method Econ came up with for doing civil wars is awesome. But, it is also very time consuming and tedious. One or two of those per game is fine. But a long series of small "Battle of Flemish Crossroads" type battles will make me quite bored.

Now, I don't know what that method would be. But, if the civil wars could be figured out faster, then they would become a powerful IC check on the feudal structure.

*edit*

I know TC has a "voting option" so we get to decide which of 3 ways to work a civil war. I wish there was an even quicker way than the 3 we have. If the power difference between the two parties is too large, just roll dice or something.

[AussieGiant]

I guess it's a balancing act. If it's too rigid, you'll have instances where it won't be very fun. If it's too fluid, then it isn't feudal.

We're a funny lot. We want power structures. And we want them to be at least somewhat rigid and hereditary. But we want flexibility.

Maybe the new rules replicate that "middle ground" we're looking for and it's just up to us to implement it IC. The fact that civil war is an option when a vassel breaks from a lord is a powerful tool.

I'm starting to wish that we find some easier way to actually implement civil wars. Because the idea of slogging the game to a standstill for a week or two every time someone gets pissed at their Duke makes me want to have civil wars be rare. That's why I said in my last post that I wanted them to be harder to start.

But, if they were resolved in some sort of "quick and dirty" fashion, I wouldn't mind them being more frequent or easier to start. So, it's actually an OOC concern that is making me cautious using an IC tool.

The method Econ came up with for doing civil wars is awesome. But, it is also very time consuming and tedious. One or two of those per game is fine. But a long series of small "Battle of Flemish Crossroads" type battles will make me quite bored.

Now, I don't know what that method would be. But, if the civil wars could be figured out faster, then they would become a powerful IC check on the feudal structure.

I also agree PK. Some middle ground would be good. What that is, I have no idea.

Likewise after reading GH's very open and honest recounting of how much time is required to umpire one of those battles made me really wonder if we can deal with it very well.

[Privateerkev]

I also agree PK. Some middle ground would be good. What that is, I have no idea.

Likewise after reading GH's very open and honest recounting of how much time is required to umpire one of those battles made me really wonder if we can deal with it very well.

Re-reading TC's rule on PvP, it looks like us, the players, get to decide OOC how tedious we want these things to be. Maybe I'm just trying to figure out how to refine the idea.

I guess my point was, that OOC anxieties about the game crawling were making me cautious about using IC tools. Those IC tools can help keep the feudal structure rigid enough to address the concerns you have.

So, I'm just trying to wrap my brain around the new rules. (with no coffee, no less)

[AussieGiant]

Re-reading TC's rule on PvP, it looks like us, the players, get to decide OOC how tedious we want these things to be. Maybe I'm just trying to figure out how to refine the idea.

I guess my point was, that OOC anxieties about the game crawling were making me cautious about using IC tools. Those IC tools can help keep the feudal structure rigid enough to address the concerns you have.

So, I'm just trying to wrap my brain around the new rules. (with no coffee, no less)

I also see those points PK.

TC's put a lot of thought into this and it's a lot more subtle than I expected, especially now that I've re-read everything. It seems his understanding of the roleplaying aspect is making somethings "seem" missing, while in fact I'd say he's thought about it but chosen to let IC stuff create the framework we want.

Personally I need some structure. And the feudal aspect is where I'd be looking for it in this game.

Of course I am a true proponent of less OOC rules as the IC stuff will "blow out" the regulations we are talking about here.


I need to get a coffee and have another think.

[TinCow]

Yes, the entire group of players gets to decide how a Civil War is fought. If they pick AI Battles, the game shouldn't slow down much at all. I do still hope that people will come up with different ideas on how to fight these things, though. There's got to be an easier system out there somewhere.

At the same time, I don't expect Civil Wars to be common. They are allowed by the rules because we need them to be possible, but possible is a big step away from frequent. Entering a Civil War is a major gamble for avatars, because it's almost certainly going to end with one of the two sides losing everything they have, possibly including their avatars. As we've seen, PvP combat is far, far more lethal than normal battles against the AI. Unless you're willing to risk your character's death, you're probably going to look for a political solution. Any Civil Wars that do erupt will probably be well-planned strikes designed to overwhelm an enemy quickly before the Chancellor can interfere. I could be wrong, but that's my feeling at least. As a group of players, I don't think we really want to massacre each other all the time. We just want to have the option of using military power as a last resort.

Regarding Houses, the concern over 2-3 large houses is important. It is my personal feeling, though, that we're more likely to see a lot of small Houses rather than a few large ones. We're going to be RPing our characters just like before. A chivalrous avatar concerned with spreading Catholicism in North Africa will not ally himself with a Dread House concerned with conquering England. I expect to see people ally based on geography (mutual defense) and RPing (similar motivation). It will be very, very difficult to keep 5-7 people happy and all working towards the same goal.

At the same time, you only need 3 players to get a Private Army, which is the point at which a House gains the ability to ignore the Chancellor if they want to. It should be pretty easy to get 3 people working together. I would thus expect people to cluster together into groups, which then evolve into political coalitions during Diet Sessions, because no single House has enough votes to get their man elected Chancellor. So, there will be political pandering towards the interests of some of the smaller Houses to secure their votes.

I could be wrong, though. I've been imagining how this system would work in my head for a long time now and I may have convinced myself of things that aren't realistic.

[Ramses II CP]

Regarding the Houses, I don't think we'll know for sure unless we run a test game. It seems to me that the system TC put together is flexible enough to allow for houses of all sizes and numbers. If we ended up with the 25 or so players TC wants I'd see at least 5 houses and several more minor factions.

Anyway, I don't want a more rigid, realistic tree system because I think it would be less fun. Having a 'ladder' style system allows for every link in the chain to play a critical role, so being at the top is a constant balancing act. Yes, even that lowly Baronet has a significant influence on his Grand Duke, and if the two don't get along who knows how far down the ladder will unravel. It'll be very interesting, and probably very unstable.