KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

[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.

[Privateerkev]

I'm not asking for an explanation, I'm expressing a preference that I would like the chain to automatically contract rather than break apart.

Your use of the question mark led me to believe you were asking a question.

Well, then oaths would have to be automatic at least under certain circumstances to pull that off.

I don't think I want automatic oaths. I want to choose who I swear to.

[Zim]

I wasn't entirely sure if Tincow had ever addressed that issue, but I understood the reasoning that would go behind the feudal chain breaking apart. The question part of the post really just needed an answer of "The former is correct" or "The latter is right" rather than a long explanation. The last sentence showing which way I preferred it to be was the one I was hoping would inspire debate.

Your use of the question mark led me to believe you were asking a question.

Well, then oaths would have to be automatic at least under certain circumstances to pull that off.

I don't think I want automatic oaths. I want to choose who I swear to.

[Privateerkev]

I wasn't entirely sure if Tincow had ever addressed that issue, but I understood the reasoning that would go behind the feudal chain breaking apart. The question part of the post really just needed an answer of "The former is correct" or "The latter is right" rather than a long explanation. The last sentence showing which way I preferred it to be was the one I was hoping would inspire debate.

Well, my diagrams help me think stuff out so maybe it will help others.

As for the rules, they state currently that the moment you lose a requirement for a rank, you lose the rank. And that is what I have been going off of when I give my answers. That is why a chain breaks apart.

A contraction would force players into oaths they never agreed to. Same with forcing the heir to move to the top. Right now we have a very voluntary system. But what you and Ituralde have proposed has an element of involuntary oath swearing. At first glance, that is not a road I'd like to go down.

In a chain situation, then if someone leaves or dies, the one's under should have the opportunity to gain promotion by restating their oath.

Then of course the issue is finding someone at the bottom level to fill the new gap.

Yup, that is the current system. It is all IC.

[AussieGiant]

In a chain situation, then if someone leaves or dies, the one's under should have the opportunity to gain promotion by restating their oath.

Then of course the issue is finding someone at the bottom level to fill the new gap.