KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

[FactionHeir]

The player would only be able to leave a limited amount depending on his current standing, so whatever abuse there may be will be limited to one or two parcels of land and possibly a retinue. As you can see from my wording, there would only be very few cases where this would even be applicable and the character would also need to be on the tree to begin with for this to occur.

If you are a knight or a baronet, fair enough, you might not be powerful enough to leave your son anything. If you are a Grand Duke's son, you would expect at least something rather than be forced by a rule to give absolutely nothing.

On another note, regarding the new rule draft, there seems to be a lack of change in the lower ranks in terms of knights only being allowed to vote if a vassal and possibly Baronets also being limited in army command somewhat.
Actually, it would be a nice touch if a noble of a higher station in the same private army (that belongs to an even higher lord) could take over command of it. Kind of like a Viscount thinking that he should be the leader of the army rather than a knight.

[Privateerkev]

The player would only be able to leave a limited amount depending on his current standing, so whatever abuse there may be will be limited to one or two parcels of land and possibly a retinue. As you can see from my wording, there would only be very few cases where this would even be applicable and the character would also need to be on the tree to begin with for this to occur.

If you are a knight or a baronet, fair enough, you might not be powerful enough to leave your son anything. If you are a Grand Duke's son, you would expect at least something rather than be forced by a rule to give absolutely nothing.

Interesting. I would be more open to this idea if it was limited to really high ranks. I still don't entirely like it though... Like I said before, my experience with this was not a happy one. I'm leaning towards making sure all of the resources get rotated among the players. If we do your idea, it rewards a veteran player because he gets something a new player wouldn't. And while I think that veteran players are important, I'm worried it will create a "old boys" network among a small group of veteran players. Which will make for a less open and happy gaming atmosphere. I do agree your idea would be more historically accurate though. But I'm willing to sacrifice that so things can be more "fun" for everyone.

On another note, regarding the new rule draft, there seems to be a lack of change in the lower ranks in terms of knights only being allowed to vote if a vassal and possibly Baronets also being limited in army command somewhat.

Actually, it would be a nice touch if a noble of a higher station in the same private army (that belongs to an even higher lord) could take over command of it. Kind of like a Viscount thinking that he should be the leader of the army rather than a knight.

Well the higher noble says who the army commander is so that is somewhat figured out already. As for not voting unless your a vassel, I am certainly open to the idea. I do worry a little bit that it might leave new players with little to do. Voting is something that helps tie players to the game and I am hesitant to mess with that. Though, it would help bind the vassel and the lord closer together which some seem to want.

[TinCow]

I think PK hit the nail on the thread with his edit. There is already a way to pass provinces and retinue along to a son who is not yet assigned to a player: use a third party. This occurred to me momentarily when I was thinking about some kind of Regent rule, but it would work perfectly fine here as well. All you have to do is give it to a third-party nobleman who you would intend to act as Regent until the true heir came of age or was taken by a new player. Then that nobleman could just voluntarily pass own ownership to the intended heir. However, since it isn't a mandatory trade, the 'Regent' could simply refuse to hand over possession if that's what he wanted to do. That would have IC implications that would be fun... and all of it without any changes to the rules. I would be perfectly happy to even allow people to pass things onto themselves via that method, because the added buffer of a third party who has absolute control over the final exchange introduces a level of politics and uncertainty that would benefit the game.

As for changes to the rank structure, I didn't make any changes at the low levels because I want to keep discussing them. I haven't seen any consensus on the matter yet, and I want this to be group decision making. Other people are free to draw up their own rule text to be discussed. That would probably be more efficient than waiting for me to figure out what is intended. I do like the multiple ranks in an army thing, though. Something along the lines of adding this text to Rule 1.3 might work:

If there are multiple players involved in a battle, all of whom are capable of commanding it and wish to command it, the player who's avatar holds the highest rank will be the commander. If the avatars are of equal rank, the CHANCELLOR will select which of the players will be the commander.

*edit* Realized the above rule should only apply to non-Private and Royal armies, since those have commanders already chosen for them.

Above idea temporarily suspended while I try to think if there's any situation in which this would actually be necessary.

[Privateerkev]

I think PK hit the nail on the thread with his edit. There is already a way to pass provinces and retinue along to a son who is not yet assigned to a player: use a third party. This occurred to me momentarily when I was thinking about some kind of Regent rule, but it would work perfectly fine here as well. All you have to do is give it to a third-party nobleman who you would intend to act as Regent until the true heir came of age or was taken by a new player. Then that nobleman could just voluntarily pass own ownership to the intended heir. However, since it isn't a mandatory trade, the 'Regent' could simply refuse to hand over possession if that's what he wanted to do. That would have IC implications that would be fun... and all of it without any changes to the rules. I would be perfectly happy to even allow people to pass things onto themselves via that method, because the added buffer of a third party who has absolute control over the final exchange introduces a level of politics and uncertainty that would benefit the game.

As long as the 3rd party transfer remained voluntary, I'd support this. While still open to abuse, this adds in a nice "check and balance" that has the added bonus of encouraging RP'ing and politicking. It was the direct handing down of resources from a player's 1st avatar to the player's 2nd avatar that felt icky to me. The "regent" could decide for himself whether to honor the noble's wishes. The burden would then be on the noble to treat the regent well before he died to help ensure the regent remains loyal. If the regent changes his mind after the noble dies, well then the "eldest son" would certainly have a large IC beef but all of that could be RP'd and could be exciting.
----------------------------------------------

I have two new ideas that are unrelated to matters of inheritance:

1.) What would you think of adding 1 influence to Faction Heirs? They get a +1 cap already. Chancellors get +1 influence plus +1 cap and I think FH's should get the same. The way I see it, there is influence inherent in being a "Prince" and the +1 influence would reflect that.

2.) A Grand Duke (and maybe even a Duke) would have the power once per Chancellor session to mandate that a certain guild in a certain province "must be accepted" if that guild is offered in a province the noble controls. The Grand Duke and Duke already have the power to "prioritize" buildings and this power is along those lines. This means a Grand Duke can say, "During this session, if Hamburg is offered a Merchant Guild, the Chancellor must accept it." And maybe the Faction Leader can dictate 2 "must accepts" for guilds in his settlements. That way, higher ranking nobles can direct the guild strategy in their provinces.

[AussieGiant]

Guy's,

I still can't get my head around the fact that people's positions will yoyo up and down based on what everyone else in that faction thinks about the leader, or anyone else in the faction for that matter.

I know this part of the game is designed like the Mafia games but it is something that I think will detract from the overall situation.

I certainly liked the genealogy and family tree's and what they all meant in KotR, and that includes the adopted general's and spawned characters. I also think these provided great continuity and I also think most of us liked it.

The coat of arms by deguerra and the general feeling of belonging, where very much like the families and the Ducal and Royal son's, brothers and sisters (maybe we might strike it lucky with a few female players...playing princesses and queens would be great) that made up the feudal societies back then.

Even in this structured situation we all know there was certainly more than enough fireworks in the previous game. Therefore I would prefer to keep that part of it. If we leave the more advanced Civil War system in place this will allow for "options" but they are really "final" solutions if things can't be worked out inside the House and the family situation.

People being Grand Duke's one minute then a Duke the next and vis versa all the way up and down the hierarchy doesn't seem appealing or even remotely accurate.

I liked the fact that the Steffen's where a major part of Bavaria and that a few extraordinary nobles attached themselves to the family and provided great service. Likewise I enjoyed Arnold's inability to not continue the line and "hand" things over to the Zirn's through his sister after following on in his fathers footsteps. I would personally like to see these "great houses" established at the beginning, with the knowledge that we are providing a strong mechanism for fragmentation should there be enough support for it.

What is going to seem unnatural is people magically losing titles and their positions due to a mechanism that insitutionalises mistrust and double dealing. There was already more than enough of that going on in the first game...the idea of having very knife edge internal house politics running seems like it will be too hardcore.

Our relationships where already disfunctional enough without advocating it further in the actual rules.

[Ferret]

I think nothing should be left to the same players next avatar, that is just hogging power and part of the fun is earning what you have, not being born with it. However it would make sense if a Grand Duke or Duke left a single settlement to his son. If the player's next avatar is of no relation though then it is just meta gaming and should, imo, be avoided.

[Privateerkev]

I like that the positions can yo-yo. It will force the upper-ranks to earn their title and not just inherit it.

Power... some people work hard for it. Some people get it as a "sweet-16 present".

As for how important "houses", "royalty", "lineage", "nobility", ect... are, that will be up to us to decide IC. I'm glad TC's rules don't dictate specific House structures, family tree structures, and bloodlines. We'll figure all of that out ourselves.

Maybe it was not as historic to have the nobles yo-yo up and down based on fickle vassals, but it might be a lot more fun. Quite frankly, I believe we had some "weak" Dukes in KotR. And for the most part, they were "weak" because they weren't online much, or felt that they could treat their vassals crappy because there were few consequences. Having the "oaths of fealty" become "breakable", solves a lot of those problems. Is the Duke not online much and ignores you? Just switch to another. Is your Duke sidelining you for personal reasons? Switch to another.

Now, the noble's ability to declare war on someone who breaks an oath is a powerful counter-balance. Also, TC's idea on a "cooling off" period might help too.

[Zim]

I like the idea of requiring land + title being given only to an avatar that already has a character. The idea of having that character possibly be a regent for the leader's underage son is also interesting, since if the regent decides to keep the land a civil war could start between loyalists and supporters of the regent.

RE: AussieGiant's concerns, I'm a little ambivalent. I really liked the relative stability of the House structure in KOTR, but also like the fluidity of the new system, where in year x the main power could reside in a single giant House, but 100 years later there might be many, roughly equal ones, as the old one fragmented. The possibility of a Civil War is supposed to make the idea of breaking fealty a weighty decision, but it will be hard to figure out what kind of difference that will make until we play the game for a while (and longer than a potential test game).

[TinCow]

I still can't get my head around the fact that people's positions will yoyo up and down based on what everyone else in that faction thinks about the leader, or anyone else in the faction for that matter.

I don't think there will be a great deal of yo-yoing simply because I think people will tend to stick with their chosen Houses for the most part. If you get a group of people together with similar IC goals, they will tend to want to work together in the long term. However, I do understand what you are saying. It is possible that the Houses will be very unstable, despite what I imagine happening.

One possible way to counteract that without completely scrapping the feudal structure system would be to impose some kind of limit on how often people can switch sides. Perhaps a limit on how often people can swear Oaths of Fealty, but with no limit on how often they can break them. For example, you can only swear an Oath of Fealty once every 10 turns. So, if you join a House, that House is the only one you can be part of for the next 10 turns. You can leave (break Oath) before 10 turns is up, but you won't be able to join a new House until the rest of your time limit expires. So if you want to leave one House and join a second House at the same time, you would have to wait until your 10 turn cooling off period is done before breaking and re-swearing. The longer the cooling off period, the less 'yo-yoing' we are likely to see.

[Ferret]

perhaps that coud be an addition to the King's banish ability. If someone breaks an oath of fealty then they could be declared an outlaw. Personally my character will despise anyone who breaks an oath.

[Ramses II CP]

I think the threat of civil war will deter yo-yo'ing. I doubt people are going to willingly let go their Grand Duke power so that Baronet X can go seek his fortune elsewhere. A guy at the top only has to smack one little guy down to keep the rest in line, or cause them to at least make a well developed move with a better chance of success.

Additionally if you develop a reputation for swearing an oath and then not keeping it, how many people are going to want your fealty? Characters that get involved in yo-yo'ing will not be long for the world.

[Privateerkev]

Additionally if you develop a reputation for swearing an oath and then not keeping it, how many people are going to want your fealty? Characters that get involved in yo-yo'ing will not be long for the world.

That's a good point. I like the fact that you can "refuse" someone's oath. There might be some yo-yo'ing in the beginning but I predict a lot of players will want stability and will create that atmosphere. Sure, we'll get a rebel now and then like Wolfgang or Jan, but their success will be limited unless they do it at the right time and place.