KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

[TinCow]

Say I'm a Count and supply a knight with a private army to conquer Provice X. The Knight conquers Province X and it becomes mine. Then, I give Province X to the Knight and he becomes a Baronet. Then, if the Baronet dies, he can just give Province X to anyone in the game? As long as it is in his will? IC, I think I would be very pissed off if that happened. That land would be mine, conquered by my vassel, using my army.

Yes, he could do that. I would be pissed IC as well, but it's no different than hereditary rule. For better or for worse, the Baronet owns the land, the Count does not. The Baronet is the local Lord and his word is law to the local people. He also has the right of hereditary rule. His eldest son will inherit unless disowned, etc. No other nobleman can influence this directly. History is replete with examples of high-ranking nobles and Kings being mightily irked by the heirs of some of their vassals/competitors lands. Inheritance has always been a prickly thing, because it occurs after a person dies and thus puts them beyond the reach of direct influence. Thus it has always been a way for a bitter vassal to get even with a Lord that he disliked, even if he was unwilling to defy him in life.

If you want your vassal to name you the heir to his lands, then you had best make him happy. Either that or march over there and kick him out.

This leads me to a second question. Can you leave things in your will for avatars that do not exist yet? Like when Ansehelm had the convoluted Franconian heir fiasco? I don't think you should be able to. Maybe a rule that says you can only leave things in a will for an avatar currently controlled by another player. Otherwise, you might have people leaving themselves things in wills so their new avatar can get a "leg up".

An interesting question and one we should explore some more. On the one hand, requiring such a thing will simplify the game, which is good. On the other hand, allowing an under-age avatar to be the heir opens up some political possibilities that might be interesting. For instance if Duke Nukem names his son, Nukem Jr, as his heir, but Nukem Jr is only 5 years old when Duke Nukem dies, the Duke's lands will be owned by an avatar that has not yet spawned. This makes them ripe for easy conquest and manipulation by other players, since Nukem Jr. won't appear on the scene to control things directly for some time. Perhaps a Regent would be named to control the province, or perhaps someone else would assume the position by marching his army into the settlement. That would then make an interesting situation when Nukem Jr. came of age and wanted his lands turned over to him.

Of course, that would only be interesting if Nukem Jr. was played by someone. Perhaps allow the Will to name an heir who is underage, but only if they are already assigned to a player.

[Privateerkev]

Yes, he could do that. I would be pissed IC as well, but it's no different than hereditary rule. For better or for worse, the Baronet owns the land, the Count does not. The Baronet is the local Lord and his word is law to the local people. He also has the right of hereditary rule. His eldest son will inherit unless disowned, etc. No other nobleman can influence this directly. History is replete with examples of high-ranking nobles and Kings being mightily irked by the heirs of some of their vassals/competitors lands. Inheritance has always been a prickly thing, because it occurs after a person dies and thus puts them beyond the reach of direct influence. Thus it has always been a way for a bitter vassal to get even with a Lord that he disliked, even if he was unwilling to defy him in life.

If you want your vassal to name you the heir to his lands, then you had best make him happy. Either that or march over there and kick him out.

Yeah, that's why I made clear I would be mad IC, and not OOC. OOC, I understand it is what happened in history. I just wanted to be sure I had the rules clear. Thank you for explaining that further.

An interesting question and one we should explore some more. On the one hand, requiring such a thing will simplify the game, which is good. On the other hand, allowing an under-age avatar to be the heir opens up some political possibilities that might be interesting. For instance if Duke Nukem names his son, Nukem Jr, as his heir, but Nukem Jr is only 5 years old when Duke Nukem dies, the Duke's lands will be owned by an avatar that has not yet spawned. This makes them ripe for easy conquest and manipulation by other players, since Nukem Jr. won't appear on the scene to control things directly for some time. Perhaps a Regent would be named to control the province, or perhaps someone else would assume the position by marching his army into the settlement. That would then make an interesting situation when Nukem Jr. came of age and wanted his lands turned over to him.

Of course, that would only be interesting if Nukem Jr. was played by someone. Perhaps allow the Will to name an heir who is underage, but only if they are already assigned to a player.

I admit my personal exerience with KotR has left a bitter taste in my mouth with regards to this subject.

I believe the game should be about characters accumalating political power. I don't believe that players should accumalate political power. To me, that is missing the point of the game.

In KotR, we saw two instances of a player attempting to "lock in" the Dukeship for his next avatar by naming an heir that had no other player. While I can see FH's point of view regarding having no loyal Swabians to name, it created a lot of resentment among some characters and even some players. And in Franconia, the heir situation was a royal cluster-!@#$.

Ansehelm named an underage avatar as his heir. When that avatar came of age, Econ gave the avatar to his real-life son, Mini-Econ. Stig was visably pissed off OOC. Ansehelm then made one of Siegfried's daughters heir so the person she married would be the next Duke. I can tell you that these moves really caused a lot of frustration both IC and OOC.

Eventually Econ made a rule saying you should name a heir that is currently played by another player. If you name an heir that is under-aged, or of-age but unclaimed, then it would cause a Ducal Council to be called. So, in KotR, you can do it but it will be reviewed by your peers.

I would personally not want to see inheritance passed down to under-age/unmarried females/unclaimed avatars. But if we do, we should at least have some sort of peer-review process to make sure it is rare and not abused. In my opinion, what ever richness could be gained by allowing 5 year old Dukes is far outweighed by the potential IC and OOC trouble it could cause.

Of course, in this game, all of the vassels of Duke Nukem now have another option. While Franconians could only sit and stew over Ansehelm's move, Duke Nukem's vassels could simply leave. Which means a 5 year old Duke would have a bunch of territory but no one to run it. What would happen in that case? Do we pick a "regent" to be a caretaker? How would that work mechancally?

[TinCow]

I believe the game should be about characters accumalating political power. I don't believe that players should accumalate political power. To me, that is missing the point of the game.

In KotR, we saw two instances of a player attempting to "lock in" the Dukeship for his next avatar by naming an heir that had no other player. While I can see FH's point of view regarding having no loyal Swabians to name, it created a lot of resentment among some characters and even some players. And in Franconia, the heir situation was a royal cluster-!@#$.

That's a very good point. There are major OOC reasons for not wanting someone to be able to inherit their own lands. I'm sure we could write an elaborate rule about who can inherit and who cannot, but that would probably be long and confusing. Simplicity is probably what your original suggestion was: only living, of-age avatars that are currently assigned to another player can be made heirs. Perhaps I should make a separate rule about Wills altogether, removing the bits and pieces from the other spots that discuss them.

Here's a draft:

2.X – Wills: On his death, all of a nobleman’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 nobleman’s death. 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 Will may name multiple noblemen as inheritors, so long as each province and/or retinue is only bequeathed to a single nobleman. 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 nobleman’s immediate Lord gains possession of the province. If the nobleman also has no Lord, the FACTION LEADER gains possession of the province.

[Privateerkev]

2.X – Wills: On his death, all of a nobleman’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 nobleman’s death. 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 Will may name multiple noblemen as inheritors, so long as each province and/or retinue is only bequeathed to a single nobleman. 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 nobleman’s immediate Lord gains possession of the province. If the nobleman also has no Lord, the FACTION LEADER gains possession of the province.

I like it. If a lot of people really want the ability to leave things to player-less avatars, I'll help with trying to close the loopholes. But I really really like this better.

This game is a balance of trying to simulate a historically accurate feudal system, while still being the most fun for the most people. That is why I like that the new feudal structure is strong, yet flexible. I know others have advocated for stronger ties between the noble and his vassels, but I like that the vassel can leave. Sure he might be attacked but he has the option.

I see the heir thing along the same lines. While there are many instances throughout history of kids being made the monarch, I fear it will cause for more trouble than it is worth.

If being historically accurate creates a situation where things might be less fun, then I'll vote on the side of "fun". And this is a "historian-in-training" talking.

[AussieGiant]

That rule has to go in.

I'm STRONGLY against people holding a position by using that mechanism.

At the very least if someone near the top kicks the bucket then a different "real" person should get a shot at handling the reins.

It's not historical which is something I would like to see therefore the only "trick" I can see is to make sure the eldest male is allocated as a priority and all male members of the line also.

[FactionHeir]

I think that the new rule may be too stringent in that the natural born sons of the avatar that dies may well go completely empty if they are not player controlled even if of age. That doesn't seem fair nor historical at all.

Example: Grand Duke Nukem dies and has (a) son(s) (that is not taken by another player and of age). All his wealth and provinces and retinue go to his vassals or the leader rather than to his son(s). Doesn't seem to make too much sense unless the son(s) have mental traits.

Maybe limit the rule so that not everything can be bequeathed to the player's next character, but a province or two can, depending on station at time of death. And this to only apply if the next character is already of age and unassigned or nearly of age (14 or higher) and unassigned. Otherwise it will go to the player's nearest bloodrelative, or if there are none, the emperor.

[Privateerkev]

I think that the new rule may be too stringent in that the natural born sons of the avatar that dies may well go completely empty if they are not player controlled even if of age. That doesn't seem fair nor historical at all.

Example: Grand Duke Nukem dies and has (a) son(s) (that is not taken by another player and of age). All his wealth and provinces and retinue go to his vassals or the leader rather than to his son(s). Doesn't seem to make too much sense unless the son(s) have mental traits.

Maybe limit the rule so that not everything can be bequeathed to the player's next character, but a province or two can, depending on station at time of death. And this to only apply if the next character is already of age and unassigned or nearly of age (14 or higher) and unassigned. Otherwise it will go to the player's nearest bloodrelative, or if there are none, the emperor.

The problem I see is that it will be open to abuse. A player could just leave his future avatar land and a title. I rather see it go to a new player, even if it means by-passing the "eldest son".

In KotR, we had players pass along IC information to their new avatars. I know you did it with Ruppel. The Order did it when their players had to take new avatars. And I was going to do it with Andreas von Hamburg. To me, this is ok. If you want to plug your new avatar into well developed storylines, I think you should be able to.

But leaving your new avatar land and titles is different in my opinion. It consolidates the power in the hands of a few players instead of leaving it open. This will create resentment both IC and OOC, as we saw in KotR.

I noticed TC has left out family tree politics entirely in his rules draft. I doubt this was an accident. Instead, it is up to the players to move their characters up the ladder.

Unless we want to add in family tree politics into the rules. But maybe that is something that should be RP'd IC instead of legislated OOC. Just my thoughts...

*edit*

What you could do, if you want to leave things to the eldest son, is this. Leave things to a third party. And then when the eldest son comes of age, the third party can then give everything over. This would keep the issue strictly IC using the mechanics already available. This would of course require a third party who is willing to do it. And he could always change his mind. But such is the risk of politics...