KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

[Zim]

I suppose it wasn't a very good idea. I just understand the worry about a single player death destablizing a House. The reswearing thing would be more of an issue if someone from the middle died rather than someone at the top. Would the guys below the now dead avatar still be beholden to the higher ups? Or would the higher ranks have to do some quick bargaining to keep them in the House with a new oath? I'd like the House to stay together, with an actual oath breaking needed to break it apart. If this has been addressed I've missed it.

If the recently ascended heir was a vital part of the feudal chain then the top rank of the House would still drop, but he'd be propelled from wherever he is to the top, over the former second in comand (assuming the second wasn't the heir). For the life of me I can't decide whether this would be a cool opportunity for RPing (if the second was popular he could take the other vassals with him and threaten civil war if the heir claims his title) or an incredibly stupid idea and rotten thing to do to the second in command.

Ah, I see it took a sleepy mind to talk sense to a sleepy mind. This makes much more sense now. (no offense to Ituralde, but his clear writing obviously could not make it through my sleepiness. )

But still, what do we do about the vassal requirement? If Duke A, names Marquess B his heir, and then dies, the Marquess will have no Marquess to swear to him. He would need a new person to swear to his Baronet (or in the middle of the chain) to push him up to Duke under the current rule.

Moving away from that moves us away from having vassals as an essential building block. If I can just keep my title, all because people die, that seems like it might make the game too static. And if I can make sure my son keeps my title, all because I die, that also seems too static.

So, if we do this, what are we basing titles on? Is it still vassals, and we just waive the requirement under certain circumstances? It sounds like something we would have to nail down pretty tight.

*edit*

Also I am confused on which oaths need to be "re-sworn". When the Duke dies, the Marquess still has his Count (who still has his Viscount) and so on. The feudal chain is exactly the same except the guy on top died so there is no Duke. The House is still there if the members wish it to be. Basically what is being proposed for that situation is that we just "call" the Marquess a Duke without requiring him to find an extra vassal. So, Dukes will start varying in how many vassals they have.

[Privateerkev]

I suppose it wasn't a very good idea. I just understand the worry about a single player death destablizing a House. The reswearing thing would be more of an issue if someone from the middle died rather than someone at the top. Would the guys below the now dead avatar still be beholden to the higher ups? Or would the higher ranks have to do some quick bargaining to keep them in the House with a new oath? I'd like the House to stay together, with an actual oath breaking needed to break it apart. If this has been addressed I've missed it.

The current rule covering a death in the middle, is this. Say there is a Viscount, Baron, and Baronet. It is a 3 person House. If the Baron died, both surviving people would become Baronets. Because the chain would be broken. No one would be sworn to anyone with the remaining 2 people in a 3 people chain. Then one could swear to the other if they wished and one would be a Baron and one would be the Baronet.

If the recently ascended heir was a vital part of the feudal chain then the top rank of the House would still drop, but he'd be propelled from wherever he is to the top, over the former second in comand (assuming the second wasn't the heir). For the life of me I can't decide whether this would be a cool opportunity for RPing (if the second was popular he could take the other vassals with him and threaten civil war if the heir claims his title) or an incredibly stupid idea and rotten thing to do to the second in command.

Under the current rule, the 2nd down the chain would simply become the top of the chain. If the characters agreed to rearrange the chain so the "heir" is on top, that can be done IC but there is no current rule requiring it. Right now, you can pick an "heir" all you want but there are no rule mechanics to enforce the choice.

[Zim]

I think that is what is worrying people like Ituralde and me. It seems like a House has a potential breakdown every time some guy in the middle dies. for a three person House this wouldn't be a huge deal but for bigger Houses it would throw things in turmoil. I think Houses should be a little more stable than that, even if the rank of the guy on top changes from time to time.

The current rule covering a death in the middle, is this. Say there is a Viscount, Baron, and Baronet. It is a 3 person House. If the Baron died, both surviving people would become Baronets. Then one could swear to the other if they wished and one would be a Baron and one would be the Baronet.

That one I knew. I was just explaining my poorly thought out idea of what would happen if the heir receiving the title was a neccessary part of the feudal chain, preventing his getting the rank of his father (he'd replace the second in command for top rank, unless the second was willing to fight for it).

Under the current rule, the 2nd down the chain would simply become the top of the chain. If the characters agreed to rearrange the chain so the "heir" is on top, that can be done IC but there is no current rule requiring it. Right now, you can pick an "heir" all you want but there are no rule mechanics to enforce the choice.

[Privateerkev]

I think that is what is worrying people like Ituralde and me. It seems like a House has a potential breakdown every time some guy in the middle dies. for a three person House this wouldn't be a huge deal but for bigger Houses it would throw things in turmoil. I think Houses should be a little more stable than that, even if the rank of the guy on top changes from time to time.

It's possible. Under the current rules, your House will go up and down unless you have extra nobles to form "branches". Like have a spare Baronet to plug into the chain if a noble dies.

[Zim]

I'm not so much worried about the whole chain shrinking by a link so much as it breaking entirely.

If players a, b, c, d and e are linked together in that order (e at the top) and c dies, do we get a pair of tiny chains consisting of two barons and viscounts (going by Tincow's new rank rules with the baronet cut out) or does the chain contract? I think a and b should remain part of the total chain through their prior oaths (which already tie the whole chain together in certain rank powers, like only the top noble being able to use prioritize building powers).

It's possible. Under the current rules, your House will go up and down unless you have extra nobles to form "branches". Like have a spare Baronet to plug into the chain if a noble dies.

[Privateerkev]

I'm not so much worried about the whole chain shrinking by a link so much as it breaking entirely.

If players a, b, c, d and e are linked together in that order (e at the top) and c dies, do we get a pair of tiny chains consisting of two barons and viscounts (going by Tincow's new rank rules with the baronet cut out) or does the chain contract? I think a and b should remain part of the total chain through their prior oaths (which already tie the whole chain together in certain rank powers, like only the top noble being able to use prioritize building powers).

e
-d
--c
---b
----a

would become automatically:

b
-a

and

b
-a

They can then re-form if they choose:

d
-c
--b
---a

But the re-forming would be voluntary and the initial breaking would be automatic.

See, in the initial chain, one person only swore to one person. You cut the middle, and you just have those that have previously sworn to each other. You would then have to swear a new oath if you wanted to reform the new (smaller) chain.

[Zim]

I'm not asking for an explanation, I'm expressing a preference for the chain automatically contracting rather than break apart.

e
-d
--c
---b
----a

would become automatically:

b
-a

and

b
-a

They can then re-form if they choose:

d
-c
--b
---a

But the re-forming would be voluntary and the initial breaking would be automatic.

See, in the initial chain, one person only swore to one person. You cut the middle, and you just have those that have previously sworn to each other. You would then have to swear a new oath if you wanted to reform the new (smaller) chain.