KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

[AussieGiant]

So it must be like that i havent read the new rules at all. I really appreciate that im being talked like a 4 year old.

Kag, I'm sorry. I was PMS'ing and not dealing with work very well. I decided to apologies rather than edit it. I'm sorry if it came out too harsh.

And I have to agree with GH and OK. While the conversations are excellent I'm concerned that because the "Cray Computer" minds here are able to process and handle this amount of information, "others" with Core2Duo's or even Quad Cores will have trouble with this.

A thought I had was:

"I wonder if I can just play the game and not study the rules to any great depth, and actually BE effective in the game?"

If the answer is: "Not really, and you better realise you could easily get shafted."

Then I'm worried..but hey...I worry a lot.

[Zim]

I don't know. I think the debate has actually made a lot of things much clearer to me.

If I were to answer that question of yours, I'd say "yes". It's one I've considered through the debates, and part of the reason I've backed off on suggesting lots of rules changes.

[AussieGiant]

I don't know. I think the debate has actually made a lot of things much clearer to me.

If I were to answer that question of yours, I'd say "yes". It's one I've considered through the debates, and part of the reason I've backed off on suggesting lots of rules changes.

I think more than a few of us have been very pleased with TC's explanations, as once his understanding of the rules has been made clear to us, the checks and balances built into his system become apparent. This seems to have left more than a few of us saying as you just did: "Lets leave them as they are and see what happens in the game."

OK's comment about being able to change things as the game progresses is the most sensible approach.

I think I've found a general theme for my next character, so the decompression process is going well. I never realised how much time I was investing until I stopped. God knows what will happen if/when I get a girlfriend...hmmmmmmm

[Privateerkev]

And I have to agree with GH and OK. While the conversations are excellent I'm concerned that because the "Cray Computer" minds here are able to process and handle this amount of information, "others" with Core2Duo's or even Quad Cores will have trouble with this.

If my Pentium 60 can figure it out, anyone can.

A thought I had was:

"I wonder if I can just play the game and not study the rules to any great depth, and actually BE effective in the game?"

If the answer is: "Not really, and you better realise you could easily get shafted."

Then I'm worried..but hey...I worry a lot.

Depends what you mean by effective.

I believe that with very little understanding of the rules, you can create and role-play a great character that is a valuable member of a feudal chain. You can command an army, run a province, and interact with other characters.

Now if you actually want to rise up the chain, you need to know more and more about the rules. If you want to be at the top of a feudal chain, you need at least a fairly good grasp of the rules because you will need to know what the Chancellor can and can not do. And if you want to be an effective Chancellor, you need to understand the rules pretty deeply just so you understand the loopholes that are available for you to implement your own designs.

So, I believe you can walk in "off of the street", plug yourself into the game, and start having fun. And as your character rises in rank, you'll need a progressively deeper understanding of the rules in order to be effective at your rank.

So, that's my take on it from my own limited test game experience.

[AussieGiant]

PK, you definitely don't have a P60 in that brain of yours.

You're description is good to hear. That's about what I would hope for.

[Privateerkev]

PK, you definitely don't have a P60 in that brain of yours.

Your very kind but grad-school has rotted my little Pentium into a little pile of dusty processor particles.

I'm taking a "break" from school right now and I'm finding I need to re-learn basic skills like... speaking with other humans. And reading a whole book cover to cover.



As for your previous concern about how to integrate a gf into your online life, you just have to have priorities. My gf knows that no matter how furiously I am typing up an IC rant on the keyboard, she can come over and interrupt me to ask me something.

OK's post should almost be the pre-amble to the rules. I think it is a very good thought-piece on this stage of the rule-making process.

[OverKnight]

I have a question:

Let's say as Prince Louis, I ask Henry to join House Normandy and make him my second, with the promise that when I ascend to the the throne, he will become the leader of the House.

How would I go about doing this? First, could Henry bring his vassals into my house structure without their say, or would they have the option of declining? Would this be considered a breaking of their oath?

Second, what would needed to be done to integrate their chain into Normandy's?

How would we go from this:

Baronet Hermant Tanlay < Baron Hugues de Poitiers < Viscount Henry

Baronet Bertin de Plaisians < Baron Perrin Gassou < Viscount Louis

To something like this (assuming we stick with chains and not branches):

Baronet Hermant Tanlay < Baron Bertin de Plaisians < Viscount Hugues de Poitiers < Count Perrin Gassou < Marquess Henry < Duke Louis

I'm assuming it would take a voluntary breaking of the two chains, and then each person would swear fealty to the one above him. Everyone gets bumped up a rank or two except poor Hermant. Now, would this include a 5 turn cooling off period even if it's voluntary oath breaking?

Is this feasible?

If the chains are rigid, it seems the only way an outsider could enter a house is at the lowest level, a small reward for turning his coat depending on his former rank. It reminds me of a pyramid scheme, where the only way to advance is to bring someone in under you.

Just a hypothetical question. . .

[Zim]

From my understanding of the rules Henry can swear fealty to whoever he wants, and would bring his vassals with him (although talking to the vassals a bit as well, or encouraging Henry to, would be a good idea, to make things run more smoothly).

Henry and his vassals would either have to come in under Baronet Bertin, form some sort of heavily branched feudal tree, or a lot of breaking oaths and reswearing them would have to be worked out to get the structure you wanted.

The five turn cooloff might or might not make the voluntary oath breaking thing work, depending on whether it gets in and how it's worded (current wording in rules change poll thread and rationale given for the rule suggest it will apply to voluntary oath breaking/remaking), but I don't think it affects the Test Game anyway.

[AussieGiant]

Certainly a good question OK.

Honestly I'd like the rule set to support that but leave IC negotiations determine the "details", of that deal.

I'd equate it to simple popular politics you see here in Europe. Anythings possible as long as you come to an agreement with all the nobles concerned.

[Zim]

But most of us (including me and you) voted for a rule that would prevent that, barring heavy editting of the proposed rule.

Change 1: Cool-Down Period on Oaths. This slows down reorganization of Houses and increases stability at the cost of some freedom. The general effect is likely to be that people do not leave powerful Houses unless they have the backing of another House. Implemented by adding the following line to Rule 2.5:

If a Vassal breaks an Oath of Fealty without the permission of his Lord, he cannot swear a new Oath of Fealty until 5 turns have passed.

Certainly a good question OK.

Honestly I'd like the rule set to support that but leave IC negotiations determine the "details", of that deal.

I'd equate it to simple popular politics you see here in Europe. Anythings possible as long as you come to an agreement with all the nobles concerned.

[TinCow]

The Cool-Down rule does not apply to the Test Game. Even if it did, all of the oath breaking would be consensual to allow for a re-arrangement, so it wouldn't even apply to such an organized re-structuring. The simplest method is simply to agree what the structure will be beforehand, and then have everyone do a post like:

I break my Oath of Fealty with X.
I swear an Oath of Fealty to Y.

If everyone does that properly, the entire re-arrangement can be done in one turn without any problems.

[Zim]

And so I miss the most important section of the proposed rule.

If a Vassal breaks an Oath of Fealty without the permission of his Lord, he cannot swear a new Oath of Fealty until 5 turns have passed.

[AussieGiant]

And so I miss the most important section of the proposed rule.

If a Vassal breaks an Oath of Fealty without the permission of his Lord, he cannot swear a new Oath of Fealty until 5 turns have passed.

Exactly.

But it still took me twenty minutes to read all the rules to then realise that "with consent" then IC work can solve the problem...hence my post.

Sometimes I'm told I would make a good lawyer.

I keep telling them I'm too aggressive though

[Zim]

Exactly.

But it still took me twenty minutes to read all the rules to then realise that "with consent" then IC work can solve the problem...hence my post.

Sometimes I'm told I would make a good lawyer.

I keep telling them I'm too aggressive though

And I sadly managed to quote the rule and miss that part.

Would you believe that despite a tendency to glance over things too quickly and miss details, I actually did very well in the law classes I had to take for my degree?

[AussieGiant]

And I sadly managed to quote the rule and miss that part.

Would you believe that despite a tendency to glance over things too quickly and miss details, I actually did very well in the law classes I had to take for my degree?

I believe you Zim

I was two minutes from writing something completely different until I read the rule 'out loud', yes you read correctly. I read the rules "out loud" and at that point it dawned on me.

[Zim]

I should probably have tried that.

I believe you Zim

I was two minutes from writing something completely different until I read the rule 'out loud', yes you read correctly. I read the rules "out loud" and at that point it dawned on me.

[AussieGiant]

I should probably have tried that.

I find it does help.

Although you need to accept people that can hear you wonder just how insane you are going to get.

[TinCow]

The first post has been updated again to reflect the most recent additions and changes to the rules. These changes are 1, 2, 3, and 5 from the Misc Rule Changes Poll, as well as the two changes recently discussed in the Test Game OOC Thread. Those two OOC Thread changes are the addition of this line to Rule 1.4:

Any player involved in a Civil War may give permission for another player to move their avatar and armies by posting that information in a public thread.

and the editing of the second to last line in Rule 5.1 to read as follows:

Neither the nobleman who made the Declaration of War, nor anyone below him in his vassal chain, can attack the target of that Declaration, or anyone below the target in his vassal chain, until the target(s) have been provided with one full turn's worth of movement.

[Ituralde]

Interestingly enough I am not too fond of too many added rules. I can accept them now, but have arrived at a stage where I could have lived without them.

On another matter, I have been thinking about the way the PVP battles are fought. From what I've seen the tendency goes towards the Custom AI battles made by TinCow. I realize that they're the best compromise between time needed and a reasonable realistic approach. Will they become the standard operating procedure or will the eventual game allow for votes?

I mean it'll probably slow down the game if you waited for everyone to cast their vote with which method the parties are allowed to use. How will this be handled in the game. I'm currently imagining a situation where two rivaling Viscounts decide to solve their problems once and for all on the battle field. Say they can't decide who is to be the leader should their feudal chains merge.

Now that would be something of an agreed Civil War. Most of this can be worked out IC and maybe both sides would make assurances that they will be chivalric on the battlefield. This is where I see the Custom AI battles to become problematic as the players have no control over the exact behaviour of the Armies. How would something like this work out under the current Civil War rules?

[GeneralHankerchief]

I've been thinking for a bit and going back among the Illuminati deliberations. From what happened post-Cataclysm in KotR, I think there needs to be a little extra incentive added to become Chancellor. You'll note that the final two elections of KotR were both rigged by the Illuminati out of a desire to first reform the Reich and then ensure their plan.

So, here's what I've come up with:

Rule x.x: Upon ascendency, the CHANCELLOR is immediately granted, by use of the console, a CHANCELLOR'S army, consisting of X units and answerable to no one but himself. During that time, the CHANCELLOR still controls his Private/Royal army/ies if applicable. At the close of his duties, the CHANCELLOR'S ARmy will be disbanded and an exact copy will be granted to the incoming CHANCELLOR via the console.

The idea of this is to first give the CHANCELLOR something of an executive arm in a decentralized society and also to give the lesser nobles of the CHANCELLOR'S house incentive to be nice (temporary command of an army while Count Dracula is running things).

[OverKnight]

An interesting proposal, but a couple of considerations:

1. A Chancellor can already recruit an army for his own use. He's likely to have his own settlement for some manpower and can negotiate to recruit the rest, if he doesn't own a castle for example, from friendly nobles.

2. If the test game is any indication, military expenditures are going to be huge. With so many armies mandated already, there is a possibility that there will be no florins for building.

[deguerra]

although less florins for building would give us a nice disadvantage over the AI. which as well all know needs all the help it can get. it's an interesting proposal.

[TinCow]

On another matter, I have been thinking about the way the PVP battles are fought. From what I've seen the tendency goes towards the Custom AI battles made by TinCow. I realize that they're the best compromise between time needed and a reasonable realistic approach. Will they become the standard operating procedure or will the eventual game allow for votes?

The current rules provide for a vote each time. I'm considering revising the PvP rules to re-add Custom Battles as an option and then to make a vote required only for Tabletop and Abbreviated Tabletop Battles. Multiplayer Battles, Custom Battles, and AI Battles could all be selected if all the combatants agreed to one of them amongst themselves. Those three types would all be pretty fast, so I have no problems with ignoring public opinion in their selection. I only really think we need a vote on the battle systems that would require a long pause in the game.

An interesting proposal, but a couple of considerations:

1. A Chancellor can already recruit an army for his own use. He's likely to have his own settlement for some manpower and can negotiate to recruit the rest, if he doesn't own a castle for example, from friendly nobles.

Not just "likely." Knights can't run for Chancellor. Therefore the Chancellor must be ranked Baron or higher, which means he has to own at least one province.

[Zim]

Alright, if I understand correctly this coming week and a half is the time to bring up any last minute rules issues.

Thought I'd start by making Tincow curse the name of Zim by raising concern about a rule I fought hard for.

That is the branching rule. The idea everal of the peope who suggested it had was that it might be too easy to get the highest ranks, and the need to do so to catch up to rival Houses might weaken the viability of smaller Houses. Branching the feudal chain accomplishes both to an extent by making it much harder to get the highest ranks, and making it so that between the number of vassals needed to get one Marquess (above which is the branching point, I think) and getting a second one to bump up one avatar to Duke the advantage of one or two more vassals in one House versus another is relatively minor, and a number of Houses of varying sizes can exist where the highest member is a Marquess.

It sounds good, but a couple things worry me. One is that we also pased a rule adding a "time in x high office before being able to move up" rule to low down advancement a little. Together these rules might make it too hard to move far up the ranks.

The other thing is it hit me that the number of active members in the original KOTR tended to hover around 20 during the time I was in the game. If it did in this game as well the rules might make it nearly impossible to get to the highest ranks without destroying the small Houses I'd hoped to encourage. If the numbers are higher this game, as Tincow intends, then that is less of an issue. A Grand Duke could still appear from time to time while there couldt still potentially be a number of other Houses.

What do you guys think?

[Privateerkev]

Alright, if I understand correctly this coming week and a half is the time to bring up any last minute rules issues.

Thought I'd start by making Tincow curse the name of Zim by raising concern about a rule I fought hard for.

That is the branching rule. The idea everal of the peope who suggested it had was that it might be too easy to get the highest ranks, and the need to do so to catch up to rival Houses might weaken the viability of smaller Houses. Branching the feudal chain accomplishes both to an extent by making it much harder to get the highest ranks, and making it so that between the number of vassals needed to get one Marquess (above which is the branching point, I think) and getting a second one to bump up one avatar to Duke the advantage of one or two more vassals in one House versus another is relatively minor, and a number of Houses of varying sizes can exist where the highest member is a Marquess.

It sounds good, but a couple things worry me. One is that we also pased a rule adding a "time in x high office before being able to move up" rule to low down advancement a little. Together these rules might make it too hard to move far up the ranks.

The other thing is it hit me that the number of active members in the original KOTR tended to hover around 20 during the time I was in the game. If it did in this game as well the rules might make it nearly impossible to get to the highest ranks without destroying the small Houses I'd hoped to encourage. If the numbers are higher this game, as Tincow intends, then that is less of an issue. A Grand Duke could still appear from time to time while there couldt still potentially be a number of other Houses.

What do you guys think?

While I have given my opinion on mandatory branching, I will point out that I think the branching point is Marquess because it is the one that will require 2 Counts. Count will probably be the standard rank many people will reach because it will just require 3 people and 3 land. And it is the rank where you get an army.

So, under the current rules, I think it will be common for there to be 3 person teams who unite under a common goal but ranks higher than Count will be fairly rare. To be a Count, you just need 3 people. But if you want to go up just one rank, you need 4 more people, 4 more land, and 5 turns as a Count.

We'll probably see quite a few "stable Counts" who have more than 3 people but only 1 army. They won't get that extra army until another one of them becomes Count. And then they'll get another when a Count becomes the Marquess. So, at 7 people, they'll have 3 armies. But 4 will be without unless they have the Chancellor as a member/ally.

In the linear system, a Marquess had 3 armies but only 5 men. So only 2 were left without armies.

I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this but those are my thoughts.

[Zim]

I see. Branching occurs one level lower than I thought.

So it takes 3 people to get one private army, 6 to get to, and 7+ get 3 or more.

Around three members per House probably will be the most stable arrangement, although any House that hits 7+ will have big advantages over the rest, with the consequence of having to keep a lot of armyless lower level nobles happy.

[Privateerkev]

I think this would be as good a time as any to update the "minimum House power" table so we can compare the minimum amount of strength and power each kind of House would have.

Old linear system:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Baronet- 1 person
1 Influence
no forces
one Edict

Baron- 2 people
1 Influence
2 stat Influence
no forces
one Edict
one Edict or CA

Viscount- 3 people
1 Influence
4 stat Influence
1 private army
one Edict
2 Edicts or CAs

Count- 4 people
1 Influence
7 stat Influence
2 private armies
one Edict
3 Edicts or CAs

Marquess- 5 people
1 Influence
10 stat Influence
3 private armies
one Edict
5 Edicts or CAs

Duke- 6 people
1 Influence
14 stat Influence
4 private armies
one Edict
8 Edicts or CAs
can call emergency session
can't be banned from "governing body" session

Grand Duke- 7 people
1 Influence
19 stat Influence
4 private armies
1 royal army
unlimited Edicts and CA's that need no seconds
can call emergency session
can't be banned from "governing body" session
can declare war on AI
can veto one Edict or CA

Current system: (Remember, this is the bare minimum each type of House would have.)

Baron- 1 person
1 Influence
no forces
one Edict

Viscount- 2 people
1 Influence
2 stat Influence
no forces
one Edict
one Edict or CA

Count- 3 people
1 Influence
4 stat Influence
1 private army
one Edict
2 Edicts or CAs

Marquess- 7 people
2 Influence
11 stat Influence
3 private armies
2 Edicts
6 Edicts or CAs

Duke- 8 people
2 Influence
15 stat Influence
4 private armies
2 Edicts
9 Edicts or CAs
can call emergency session
can't be banned from "governing body" session

Grand Duke- 9 people
2 Influence
20 stat Influence
4 private armies
1 royal army
unlimited Edicts and CA's that need no seconds
can call emergency session
can't be banned from "governing body" session
can declare war on AI
can veto one Edict or CA

[Cecil XIX]

Reposted for discussion:

Looking back, the issue to me isn't whether the system should be linear or branching. We should have the option of going either way in our feudal chains, where a linear chain is more powerful but a branching chain is more stable for the one on top. As long as it's merely an option, it can be done without weakening the current, mandatory structure. If one type of chain is better than the other, that's what we'll get regardless. If they're relatively balanced, then having options is the better choice.

From my experience so far with the test game I've found it extremely discouraging to know that if I want to increase my rank and power it is against my interest to have another noble swear fealty to me directly. I'd like to have the choice between a linear, more powerful house and a branched out house that's more stable for the person at the top. The way things are now, many people will end up swearing fealty to a person they have no loyalty to just to benefit the person to whom they are loyal. I'd like to see the structure of the feudal trees be motivated more by the actual relationships between characters and less by the need to push everybody up the ranks as much as possible.

[Privateerkev]

From my experience so far with the test game I've found it extremely discouraging to know that if I want to increase my rank and power it is against my interest to have another noble swear fealty to me directly. I'd like to have the choice between a linear, more powerful house and a branched out house that's more stable for the person at the top. The way things are now, many people will end up swearing fealty to a person they have no loyalty to just to benefit the person to whom they are loyal. I'd like to see the structure of the feudal trees be motivated more by the actual relationships between characters and less by the need to push everybody up the ranks as much as possible.

I think the feudal chain will end up like counties in KotR.

The idea behind counties, and knighting for that matter, were that they were to be story devices. I remember Econ making a big IC deal about handing Hans a county because he was Henry's son. It was something you were supposed to earn or inherit. Later in the game, it just became something you got because your King/Duke wanted the extra voting power. Little attempt was made to make a story out of it. At least until Becker came along and made his county the center of his world. But he was an exception for the most part.

I suspect feudal chains will be the same way. The idea of one person swearing to another and making a long story of it in the game sounds appealing. But I suspect that if you make it worthwhile to rise in rank, then people will skip the story and just rise in rank. And that means little attempt at stories and people will be plugged into a chain where they are needed much like a Lego block. Partly it is a "race to the bottom". People will try to build taller chains because if they don't, the other group will and they will be the ones with the political power. So, like counties in KotR, feudal chains will be used by some as a mechanism to achieve political power for their avatar.

Is this a problem? I don't know if it is. Not everyone is in to making stories. Some just want to play. I guess if the mechanics are sound, people can decide if they want to make a story out of it.

[pevergreen]

Although i did not see the end of KOTOR, I can see that happening here. I for one would love to write long beautiful stories, but I cant write for tripe. So I will either have no story or very little (and very bad).

Im sure im not the only one either.