Successor game rules, draft one.

[Zim]

Game setting rules and ranks done so far, with shameless use of the LOTR ruleset as a base (with TinCow's permission). My goal has been to add some of the strong base missed from KOTR to the greater fluidity and far greater understandability of LOTR"s rules (which I know well, having tried to slog through KOTR's rules for comparison...).

Major changes vis a vis LOTR: The faction leader has more power, mainly with the addition of being able to allocate new lands. Houses are a little more rigid but provisions for starting new ones are still included. Somewhat fewer ranks although this can be changed quite easily.

I'll be trying to finish the rules draft within the next day or so, but wanted to open up what I had to discussion. This is all in the draft stages, so changes can still easily be made if there are any problems.




1. General

(a). - Game Settings:

M2TW Kingdoms with the 1.5 patch
Lands to Conquer Gold Mod
Very Hard Campaign, Very Hard Battles.
Large Unit Size
Battle Timer On
Show CPU Moves
Manage All Settlements
Only two land units (including a general) may travel on each ship.

(b). - Avatars: Each player will roleplay a Noble of the mighty nation of France. On joining the game, each player will choose an avatar to represent this Nobles. Avatars can be ‘family members’ or recruitable generals. Players are reminded that due to limitations imposed by the M2TW engine, only avatars on the family tree will be able to marry, have children, and have a chance of becoming Prince and King. Recruitable generals can be spawned at any time, but family member creation is beyond our control. Players may only use agents as avatars with permission from the GM, since agents cannot fight battles and have a different set of stats from family members and recruitable generals. If a Man of the Hour adoption is offered to an avatar, the choice of whether to accept it is entirely up to the avatar who is the adopter.

If a player character is killed, there is a 5 turn wait to have an rgb spawned for him. He may immediately take any available fms, however.

(c). - Battles: A player whose avatar leads an army that is involved in a battle will be expected to fight that battle. This will involve downloading the savegame of the battle, playing it and then uploading the resulting savegame. Uploading the post-battle save must be done within 48 hours of the pre-battle savegame being uploaded. If the deadline expires, the battle is autoresolved. If a player cannot fight a battle that is assigned to them, the battle may also be fought by any player whose avatar will also be present in the battle. Under no circumstances will a battle be fought by a player whose avatar is not present in the battle. If there is no player available to fight a battle, it must be autoresolved. If there are no allocated avatars involved in the battle at all, it must be autoresolved.

(d) - Game Management: At the start of each turn, the Chancellor will post an annual report on the events of the last turn, including a save game file for the new turn. After the annual report is posted, players will have at least 24 hours to download the save, and make their personal moves. Players can move their avatars, move any unit or fleet their avatar owns, and fight any battles against the AI that they are capable of fighting with their avatar’s army. Player may also move any unit, fleet, or avatar they have been given specific permission to move by the respective owner, as long as that permission is posted in a public thread. The Chancellor may extend the time limit beyond 24 hours at his discretion, but all players are encouraged to act as swiftly as possible to keep the game moving. Players may not move avatars or armies into the territory of a neutral or allied faction without the permission of an edict. Nor may they attack the settlements or armies of neutral or allied factions without a declaration of war resulting from an edict.

(e) - Events: Whenever they desire, but no more often than once every 10 turns, Zim, TheFlax, or anyone they choose may create an in-game Event. Events are not limited in scope, subject matter, or method of implementation. All game rules can be violated to implement an Event. The players can prevent the implementation of any single Event through a simple majority of unweighted votes.

(f) - Game Master: Zim will serve as Game Master and is responsible for management of the game and enforcement of the Game Rules. Zim can delegate any of his powers to another person whenever he chooses. Zim has the ability to create stacks for the AI.

2. Houses

(a). - Starting Houses: There are four starting Houses, named The Duchy of Bourgogne, The Duchy of Aquitaine, The Duchy of Lorraine and The Duchy of Bretagne. These starting Houses are to be initially led by Raymond de Provence, Prince Louis, Hugues de Champagne and Alain de Rohan, respectively. The leaders of these starting Houses are exempt from any obligations to join the Houses of their parents, and are the first Dukes of their respective Houses.

All other family members start in the House of their parents and are considered to have sworn an oath of fealty to their "parent", regardless of whether they are born into the family, are adopted, or marry into it. They are able to break their familial oath and attempt to join another House, start a new one, or remain independent. However, this brings with it the chance of Civil War as laid out in rule 6 (b).

(b). - RGBs: Recruitable generals start off in the game as independent Knights, excepting the first two as per rule 2 (a). From this position they are free to remain independent or join any of the existing Houses. Should they join an existing House and own land, they will be counted as landed vassals for the purpose of determining ranks within their House, but are unable to inherit leadership of the House. Should a Knight receive an adoption or marriage offer, they will be required to join the House of their new parents, if said parents have one. If they are already members of another House this will still carry the risk of Civil War as per Rule 6 (b).

(c) - New Houses: Any independent land owning Noble may attempt to start a new House by proposing a Codex Amendment at the Council of Nobles. Should their Codex Amendment pass, they automatically attain the rank of Duke of their new House. They may name it whatever they please. Recruitable generals who become Dukes in this manner are exempt from any requirement to join a parent's House if they are adopted or become an FM through marriage.

3. - Feudal Hierarchy

(a). - Rank Gain and Loss: All Nobles enter the game at the rank of Knight. Nobles will be promoted to a higher rank as soon as they meet the requirements for that rank. If, at any point, a Noble ceases to meet the requirements of their existing rank, they will be demoted to the highest rank whose requirements they meet.

(b). - Gaining and Losing Provinces: All conquered provinces must be ratified by an edict, which can be passed at the session before the conquest or be applied retroactively at the first session after. If a province is not ratified in this manner by the end of the very next session after it was made, it must be given away or abandoned. While a province is not ratified taxes must be set to the highest level possible and no recruitment can be made in that settlement. Any province conquered and ratified becomes part of the King's Demesne. At the time of conquest, the conquering noble can refuse to hand the province over to the King, but this puts him in a state of Civil War with the King. The King can be prevented from giving any province in the Demesne to another Noble by a two-thirds majority vote of the Council.

The King's choice of who to give the province can be blocked by a 2/3ds majority of the Council (excluding the King himself, except as a tiebreaker). For this to happen a Duke must declare an emergency session to have the matter voted on.

At the start of the game, Zim will determine which Nobles receive control of the starting provinces, to a maximum of one province per Noble. Nobles lose control of one of their provinces if they voluntarily give it to another Nobles, if it is conquered by an AI faction, if it is occupied by the army of a Noble who has made a Declaration of War against them, or if they break an oath of fealty (however, if a civil war results they can regain the province either in the war or through a treaty).

(c). - Retinue: At any time, a Noble may give any retinue item/member they possess to another Noble or remove it from their avatar without giving it to anyone else. If a retinue item/member cannot be transferred or removed due to game coding or distance between avatars, console commands may be used to allow the transfer or removal.

(d) - Wills & Inheritance: Upon the death of a noble his land goes to the highest member of his feudal chain. If he is independent the land goes to the King. All land in the King's Demesne is passed to the new King. Duke's can pass on their rank to a House member of their choosing, by naming a successor in a valid will. Wills must be PMed to Zim before the Avatar’s death to be considered valid. If a Duke dies without naming a successor, the King picks the successor from among the highest ranked Nobles in their House.

(e) - Oaths of Fealty: Any Independent Noble may swear an oath of fealty to any Noble whenever he wishes. In order to become a vassal of another Noble, a Noble must take an Oath of Fealty by specifically swearing allegiance to that player in a public thread. The prospective Lord has the right to refuse to accept the Oath. An Oath of Fealty can be broken if either the Lord or the Vassal specifically revokes it in a public thread. 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. A Noble can only have one Lord at a time, but he may have an unlimited number of Vassals. Oaths of Fealty cannot be sworn or broken while the Council is in session.

(f) - Feudal Ranks: In the event of a conflict, Rule 3 (f) takes priority over all other rules. The feudal ranks and positions are as follows:

Knight:
Requirements: None
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per Council Session.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot run for Chancellor.

Baron:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province.
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per Council Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can rename any settlement under their control at any time.
(3) If this rank is held during a Normal Council Session, can Prioritize a total of 1 units per full 10 turn Chancellor term.
Penalties:
(1) Loses control of all provinces if they fail to vote in two consecutive Normal Council Sessions. All provinces lost in this way are given to the Baron's Duke. If the Baron is not in a House, the provinces are given to the King.

Count:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one landowning vassal. Must be a member of a House.
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per Council Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can rename any settlement under their control at any time.
(3) If this rank is held during a Normal Council Session, can Prioritize a total of 2 units per full 10 turn Chancellor term.
Penalties:
(1) Loses control of all provinces if they fail to vote in two consecutive Normal Council Sessions. All provinces lost in this way are given to the Count's Duke.

Duke:
Requirements: Must be one of the beginning Dukes as per Rule 2 (a), have become Duke as per the will of a deceased Duke as per Rule 3 (d), have been given the title by a resigning duke, have attained the title of Duke by Rule 2 (c) or gained the title as part of a peace agreement at the end of a Civil War.
Influence: 1 + 1 for every Count in his House.
Powers:
(1) Can propose three Edicts or Amendments per Council Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can rename any settlement under their control at any time.
(3) Can call Emergency Council Sessions if another Duke seconds the call.
(4) May at any time rename their House.
(5) Cannot be banned from a Council Session.
(6) If this rank is held during a Normal Council Session, can Prioritize a total of 3 units per full 10 turn Chancellor term.
(7) Can voluntarily resign and pass on their title to any land owning Noble of their choosing.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot hold any other rank except those of Chancellor and Prince.

Prince:
Requirements: Must be the in-game faction heir.
Influence: 2.
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Influence and Powers of the Prince are added on top of the Influence and Powers of the Prince's other rank(s), unless the Power specifically states otherwise.
(2) In the absence of the King, the Prince can ban nobles from a Council Session. Banned Senators cannot speak or propose legislation, but they are permitted to vote.
(3) In the absence of the King, the Prince can adjudicate on rule disputes. However, if a rule dispute directly involves the King or the Prince, the Chancellor will be the adjudicator.
(4) If this rank is held during a Normal Council Session, can Prioritize a total of 1 units per full 10 turn Chancellor term. This power is cumulative with the ability to prioritize units under any other rank held by the Prince.

King:
Requirements: Must be the in-game faction leader.
Influence: equal to authority stat.
Powers:
(1) Can propose an unlimited number of Edicts or Amendments per Council Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for all settlements in the King's Demesne. Can destroy any building in those settlements and can rename any of them at any time.
(3) Can call Emergency Council Sessions.
(4) Cannot be banned from a Council Session.
(5) Can prioritize 4 units per term.
(6) Can declare war on any faction at any time, for any reason.
(7) Can veto one Edict or Amendment per 3 ranks of Authority.
(8) Decides which noble, if any, a Princess should marry.
(9) Can allocate all newly conquered land, or let it remain within the King's Demesne if he wishes.
(10) Once during his reign, the King may automatically assume the post of Chancellor for a single term. The King must declare that he is exercising that right at a Council Session; He will then be appointed Chancellor with no election. This right can only be invoked once, but the King can also compete in normal Chancellor elections.
(11) Can ban Nobles from a Council Session. Banned Nobles cannot speak or propose legislations, but they are permitted to vote.
(12) Can adjudicate on edicts and amendments. However, if a rule dispute directly involves the King or the Prince, the Chancellor will be the adjudicator.
(13) Can rename the faction at any time.
(14) Can move the Capital at any time, as long as the new Capital is within the King's Demesne.

Penalties:
(1) Cannot hold any other feudal rank except that of Chancellor.
(2) Cannot swear an Oath of Fealty to another Senator and cannot have any Vassals.
Inheritance: On the death of a King, all Oaths of Fealty pertaining to the Noble who is now King are instantly broken, with no penalties. The new King takes control of any provinces in the King's Demesne, as well as retaining those under his control at the time of his ascension. If he was Duke of his House, his named heir for that post attains the rank. In the absence of a named heir, the second in charge of the House becomes Duke.

Chancellor:
Requirements: Must have been elected Chancellor or attained it through declaration under King's Power (10).
Influence: For every term a noble serves as Chancellor, he gets a permanant +1 to his influence. This bonus is cumulative for nobles who serve multiple terms as Chancellor. This bonus does not apply to the King or any Chancellor who was removed by being impeached.
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Influence and Powers of the Chancellor are added on top of the Influence and Powers of the Chancellor's other rank(s), unless the Power specifically states otherwise.
(2) The Chancellor is repsonsible for all monetary expenditures in the game. The choice of what to build/recruit is entirely up to him, except as stated in the Limitations on Powers.
(3) The Chancellor can move all armies that start a turn outside a settlement and led by a captain.
(4) The Chancellor can move all fleets, unless they started the turn inside a port in the realm.
(5) The Chancellor can move and use all agents.
Limitations on powers:
(1) The Chancellor must respect all settlement tax rates and build queues. The Chancellor is not required to build anything, but if he does build in a settlement, it must be the first item in the build queue. If no build queue is posted for a settlement, the Chancellor may build whatever he wishes.
(2) The Chancellor must respect all requests for the transfer or deletion of retinue members/items, as long as these requests comply with the rules.
(3) Prioritized Units - No money can be spent on any recruitment until all Prioritized Units have been funded, unless the Nobles who Prioritized them agree otherwise. If there are multiple Prioritized Units, and not enough funding for all of them, the Chancellor may choose which to recruit first. Nobles may specify any of his settlements for the unit to be recruited from, and any unit available for hire in that settlement to be recruited. Artillery and mercenaries cannot be Prioritized. A unit may be retrained instead of recruited if the unit is already located in a settlement where it can be retrained in some fashion.
(4) Cannot remove a building from any build queue if construction has already begun on it, unless the owner of the province agrees otherwise.

[Zim]

No problems with the changes in the House rules then? I'll try to finish up the rest in the next few days and leave that open for more discussion.

[Zim]

4. - Government

(a) - Sessions: The Council of the Realm (Conseil du Royaume) will meet in a Normal Session every 10 turns. Out of session, there can be open debate and deliberations. Each Normal and Emergency Session consists of 3 real time days of debate, followed by 2 real time days of voting. Zim or anyone delegated by him can change the length of individual sessions at will.

(b) - Proposing Legislation: During each session, Nobles may propose Edicts and Amendments, up to the limit allowed by their rank. Edicts and Amendments must be seconded by two other Nobles before they can be put to the vote.

(c) - Edicts: Edicts require a simple majority of weighted votes to pass and remain in effect until the next normal session of the Council. Tied Edicts fail. If contradictory Edicts are passed, the one with the most votes takes priority. Edicts can only be enforced by IC means. Edicts cannot contradict the Game Rules.

(d) - Codex Amendments: Amendments require a two-thirds majority of weighted votes to pass and remain in effect permanently, or until repealed by another Codex Amendment. Codex Amendments can only be enforced by IC means. Codex Amendments cannot contradict the Game Rules.

(e) - Rule Changes: Rule Changes require a two-thirds majority of unweighted votes (1 vote per player) to pass. Rule Changes can permanently change the Game Rules. Any player can propose Rule Changes, regardless of IC rank. Zim can veto any proposed Rule Change, but does not vote. Game Rules are enforced by IC or OOC means, as Zim sees fit.

(f) - Influence: Each Noble’s voting power is equivalent to his total Influence. No Noble's Influence may ever be lower than 1. Influence is increased permanantly by 1 if a Noble marries a Princess of the royal family and 1 for each term a noble serves as Chancellor.

(g) - War: Except as allowed by rank powers under Rule 3 (f), any declaration of war must be authorized by an Edict.

(h) - Elections: At each Normal Session, on the death of the Chancellor, or on the impeachment of the Chancellor, there is an election for the post of Chancellor. Ties lead to a fresh ballot. A second tie is decided by seniority (avatar age).

(i) - Impeachment: The Chancellor can be impeached and removed from office by a two-thirds majority vote of the Council. Impeachment takes effect immediately after the vote is passed. After impeachment, a fresh election is held to elect a new Chancellor, although the King may also exercise his power to become Chancellor at that point. The Noble replacing the impeached Chancellor serves out the remainder of the impeached Chancellor's term. All Edicts passed in the Council session that elected the impeached Chancellor remain valid, unless overturned by new Edicts at the Emergency Session that impeached him.

5. - Armies

(a) - Armies: Except as stated in Rule 5 (b), all Nobles own all army units that begin a turn in a stack led by their avatar, in the garrison of a settlement they own, and in the garrison of a fort inside a province they own, regardless of how the units got there. Nobles instantly own any Captain-led stack that their avatar moves onto. No one may move or disband any units owned by a Noble without his permission.

(b) - Seizing Armies: Any Noble may move his avatar onto an army owned by another Noble from the same feudal chain. If this occurs, the Noble with the highest feudal rank instantly owns the entire combined army. If both Nobles are of the same rank, the eldest Noble will own the entire combined army. The King may instantly seize any army his avatar moves onto, regardless of the status of the Noble that previously owned it, unless that Noble is in a state of Civil War against the King. A Noble may not move his avatar onto an army owned by a Noble from outside his feudal chain unless both Nobles agree to the move beforehand. If there is a subsequent disagreement about who owns the units in the army, where the army is to move, or who commands the army, the King will decide. This Rule does not apply to garrisons of settlements or forts. Avatars may never be seized.

(c) - Naval Fleets: All Nobles own all fleets that begin a turn in the port of a settlement they own, regardless of how the fleet got there. Otherwise, naval fleets are owned by the Noble with the highest feudal rank who is onboard the fleet. If there are multiple Nobles of the same rank, the eldest Noble will own the fleet. No one may move or disband any ships in a fleet owned by a Noble without his permission.

(d) - Historical Army Composition: An army of 10 units or less cannot have more than 3 units of heavy cavalry. An army of 11 units or more cannot have more than 5 units of heavy cavalry. For the purposes of this rule, bodyguard units do not count as heavy cavalry. Armies that do not meet these requirements cannot fight battles under any circumstances, though they can be used for transportation.


6. - Civil War

(a) - Declaration of War: A Noble must make a Declaration of War towards a specific Noble in a public thread before they can attack any of that Noble’s armies or settlements. A Declaration of War applies to all Nobles of lower rank in the vassal chains of both the Noble who makes the Declaration and the Noble who is the target of the Declaration, including vassals who swear an Oath of Fealty after the Declaration of War has been made. A Declaration of War does not apply to any Nobles in the vassal chain who are above the declarer or the target.

(b) - Civil War through Oath Breaking: If a Vassal breaks an Oath of Fealty, anyone above him in the feudal chain may choose to instantly enter a state of Civil War. For the purposes Rule 6 (a), the Noble who broke the Oath of Fealty will be considered the person who issued the Declaration of War, and the Noble who chooses to enter the state of Civil War will be treated as the target of the Declaration of War.

(c) - Ending a Civil War: A Civil War will end when all Nobles on one side are dead or all living Nobles on both sides publicly agree to a Peace Treaty. A Noble's public agreement to a Peace Treaty will also remove all Nobles below him in his feudal chain from the Civil War, unless the vassal Nobles specifically state otherwise in a public thread. So long as it is limited to changes to the provinces, settlements, armies, Oaths of Fealty, retinue, or the title of Duke of the Noble(s) signing the Peace Treaty, it will be considered binding law. All terms of a Peace Treaty that go beyond these limits, particularly those that increase a Noble’s influence or powers beyond those allowed by the rules, will only be binding if adopted by a two-thirds majority of the Council at the next normal session. Individual Nobles may unilaterally remove themselves from a Civil War within one turn of the Declaration of War that brought them into it by breaking all Oaths of Fealty that tie them to any Noble involved in the War and by publicly declaring Neutrality. Neutrality cannot be claimed by a declarer, a target, or any Noble who has been involved in a PvP Battle during that specific Civil War.

(d) - Civil Wars on the Campaign Map: While a Civil War is in progress, all players involved in the Civil War will lose their ability to make any moves on the campaign map. On every game turn, all players involved in the Civil War will submit a PM to Zim giving movement orders for that turn. These movement orders can include up to a maximum of two of the following orders:

(1) - Gather: The player may gather units he owns that are located in the same province as his avatar, but which are not currently located in his avatar's army. All units specified in this manner will be teleported into the avatar's army.

(2) - Move: The player may move his avatar's army into any adjacent province. If a player desires to cross a body of water, Zim will determine how many Move orders are required to cross it, and whether the player can end a turn at sea.

(3) - Defend: The player fortifies his army in a specific province, providing a terrain advantage if a battle occurs in that province before the player moves again.

After the turn ends, Zim will implement all moves for players involved in the Civil War, utilizing the console. The orders will be executed simultaneously for all players, but in the sequence they were listed in the PMs (i.e. Order 1 will be implement for all players, followed by Order 2 for all players). If this movement results in a player entering a province with a hostile AI-controlled army, Zim will determine whether a battle against the AI will occur. Movement will continue in this manner until two hostile player-controlled armies enter the same province. When this occurs, a PvP Battle will begin. All PvP Battles will be considered Meeting Engagements, in which neither side has a terrain advantage, unless one of the armies was Defending the province where the battle occurred. If this happens, the defending army will get a terrain advantage in the following manner: (1) If the province is owned by the Defender, the battle will be a siege assault of the settlement. (2) If the province is not owned by the Defender, the battle map will be chosen such that a terrain advantage, such as a high mountain, fort, or bridge is given to the Defender. The Umpire of the battle will determine the precise nature of the terrain advantage.

(e) PVP Recruitment: Recruitment during Civil Wars will take place through a draft system, outlined as below.

(1) Each turn of civil war, players can prioritise recruitment (draft) one unit for every settlement they own or have conquered during the war, replacing their normal prioritizations until the next Council session (normally 10 turns).

(2) Drafts take precedence over ALL other monetary expenditures in the game and are executed by the GM when implementing combatants' move orders, recruiting by settlement in a random order, but with priority given to settlements that did not draft in the previous turn.

(3) When the civil war is over, each player must give orders to the GM to disband one full strength unit for every unit drafted during the war (the GM will umpire any unit transfer exploits designed to evade disbandment).



(f) - PvP Battles: Whenever a PvP Battle occurs, if both players agree, the battle will be fought via multiplayer, with Zim or anyone he chooses acting as umpire. The umpire will determine the map and the precise composition of the armies. If the battle is not fought via multiplayer, there will be a 24 hour voting period to determine how the battle will be fought. The voting options will be (a) Tabletop Battle (b) Abbreviated Tabletop Battle and (c) AI Battle. All players may vote, even those not involved in the battle, all votes will be unweighted, and the option that receives the most votes will be chosen. Tabletop Battles will be in the style of the The Battle of the Iron Bridge and the Battle of the Basileis and will be umpired by Zim or anyone he chooses. Abbreviated Tabletop Battles will be identical to a Tabletop Battle, but will be 1 turn in length. Players will determine their starting positions and outline a general strategy for the battle. The umpire will then play out the battle and determine the victor. The umpire may allow a maximum of 1 or 2 additional turns beyond the starting turn if they so choose. The Abbreviated Tabletop Battle will be run by Zim or anyone he chooses. AI Battles will be custom battles in the TW engine in which the AI will control all units on both sides. AI battles will be umpired by Zim or anyone he choose. The umpire will determine all settings to be used in the battle, including the map and the precise composition of the armies. Regardless of the type of battle chosen, the umpire must attempt to have the battle replicate the in-game state of affairs to the best of his ability. Regardless of the type of battle chosen, the umpire will determine the results, including, but not limited to, units to be disbanded as casualties, avatars to be killed off as casualties, and changes in the control of provinces. Console commands may be used to implement the results.

[Zim]

So...no problems with the rules?

[TheFlax]

I'd definitely play with those rules. Seems a good reflection of what was discussed towards the end of LotR.

[Zim]

Thanks, that's what I was going for.

What about the prioritized units for more ranks than just the House leaders? I thought it would reflect how decentralized militaries were in a feudal system, and give players a little extra something to call their own in this slightly more House-centric rule system.

n the other hand, would it be too much of a pain for the Chancellor?

Here's something I didn't consider at all that TinCow posted in the old discussion thread. He had mentioned the vast majority of players never made it past 1 influence and that the influence rules didn't seem to impact the game much.

Based on what I saw in LotR, I think it might actively be good to completely abolish stat-based Influence. Just give everyone one vote and be done with it.

[OverKnight]

I have a question about Impeaching a Seneschal.

4. - Government(i) - Impeachment: The Chancellor can be impeached and removed from office by a two-thirds majority vote of the Council. Impeachment takes effect immediately after the vote is passed. After impeachment, a fresh election is held to elect a new Chancellor, although the King may also exercise his power to become Chancellor at that point. The Noble replacing the impeached Chancellor serves out the remainder of the impeached Chancellor's term. All Edicts passed in the Council session that elected the impeached Chancellor remain valid, unless overturned by new Edicts at the Emergency Session that impeached him.

So, if I get this, an Emergency Session has to be called to conduct an Impeachment vote?

Also an Emergency Session may only be opened by the King or a Duke with the second of another Duke?

[econ21]

So, if I get this, an Emergency Session has to be called to conduct an Impeachment vote?

Also an Emergency Session may only be opened by the King or a Duke with the second of another Duke?

That's how I understand it. I don't see how we would have a "constitutional" IC vote without either a regular or emergency session. The Council is just a talking shop out of session.

[TinCow]

As we are nearing the beginning of the game, we should do some final checks on the rules to make sure we fix any small tweaks that need to be made. I encourage everyone to look over what is currently posted and comment on anything they think needs to be altered.

One I have already noticed is King's power #12:

(12) Can adjudicate on rule disputes. However, if a rule dispute directly involves the King or the Prince, the Chancellor will be the adjudicator.

This is inherited from the original version of the LotR rules, where it was itself a holdover from KotR. Since that time, we have split the rules apart from IC legislation. I no longer think it is appropriate for the King to adjudicate on rule disputes, since the rules are now inherently OOC in nature. The King should adjudicate all IC disputes, especially conflicts over interpretation of Edicts and Amendments, however I think the GM should be the only person adjudicating disputes about the actual OOC rules themselves.

[Vladimir]

Can independent knights be given forts at strategic locations to simulate the feudal system? Successful defense of those areas should allow the knight to gain status or join a house.

[Zim]

I'm not sure about giving them special legal status but it would be nice to see forts being used. Does LTC add the stone forts from Kingdoms or two free upkeep slots?

I think I'll have the rules done tonight.

I like TinCow's idea about a respawn rate for RGBs and only 1 at a time being recruited.

I assume for the start of the game we're recruiting enough RGBs to go around? Should this happen before or after Council session number 1?

[GeneralHankerchief]

I assume for the start of the game we're recruiting enough RGBs to go around? Should this happen before or after Council session number 1?

IIRC, the first turn in LotR (1080) was used specifically to recruit all the RBGs, so it would be easier to RP and such for the initial Magnaura session, which happened the turn after. Your call, but if we are doing an RBG blitz then it would probably be best to get it out of the way ASAP.

[TinCow]

I'm not sure about giving them special legal status but it would be nice to see forts being used. Does LTC add the stone forts from Kingdoms or two free upkeep slots?

I think I'll have the rules done tonight.

I like TinCow's idea about a respawn rate for RGBs and only 1 at a time being recruited.

I assume for the start of the game we're recruiting enough RGBs to go around? Should this happen before or after Council session number 1?

I see no reason we can't do the same for this game as we did for LotR: spawn a large number of RBGs and then put them up with the pre-existing family members for selection by lottery. Even if we choose not to allow selection from multiple RBGs later, this is just the easiest method of distributing a large number at once. It does require that the game be advanced one turn before we start though, so that the RBGs can be spawned.

[econ21]

One idea that might be worth considering is developing a system for resolving "duels" between characters. There are some situations in which verbal blows escalate to the point where some physical combat is fitting, but a full blown "civil war" is not - mainly because it is a matter of personal "honor" rather than rebellion per se. In KotR, I remember the Arnold/Jan feud raising this kind of issue - also I think Lothar made some duel type challenge at one point.

Duels would require mutual consent (I don't think we want to go down the road of allowing our characters to murder others). To resolve a duel, I think I could put together some kind of quick umpired system. To make it involving, players could give the umpire some kind of basic order each "round" and the outcome be resolved depending on chance and relevant character stats, traits and experience etc. The possible outcomes could involve death, wounding and new traits (dread for killers, chivalry for merciful victors etc).

Ideally, I would base it on some workable existing skirmish type rule set. (Anyone want to recommend one?) If not, I daresay I could come up with some passable system - e.g. based on some rock-paper-scissors gameplay. Move orders could perhaps include posture: defensive/cautious attack/all out attack; perhaps direction (strike left/right/high/low); and perhaps some "special moves" - e.g. disarm, immobilise.

While in real life, duels might depend heavily on personal skill, in game, I'd be inclined to make it fairly random (you lose either because you rolled low or because you played paper to your opponent's scissors) as the character stats are not focused on physical attributes and anyway the game would suffer if one player emerged as an uber duellist who could slay all others STW geisha style.

I'd also be inclined to allow champions to be nominated as combatants - either NPCs or players - although the rewards would be reduced in line with the risks and players may take a dim view of knights hiding behind their NPC champions. The quality of the NPC champion could vary with rank - it would be a bold man who duelled the king's champion (and an equally bold king who personally duelled rather than relied on such a champion).

Any interest?

We don't need to sort this out in advance of the game as hopefully no one will emerge newborn with a deadly vendetta. Indeed like the table top battle rules, the duel system need not be part of the core rules anyway. But it should not take too long to devise and would be useful to get finalised before any particular duel arises (so the system is not biased towards a particular combatant).

[Cecil XIX]

While I'd like for such a system to exist, I fear there's too little in MIITW for a basis, and since duels are decided more by physicality than battles I'm not sure any system would recognize who is the best duelist.

Nevertheless, just having the option would be a great boon to roleplaying. I don't know if you've read about it yet econ, but Tincow came up with a marvelous system for simulating chariot races for LotR. I think if it can be done for one, it can be done for the other. I'd say it's definitely worth a try. To iron out kinks, how about the first few duels in the game can't be to the death, and/or we do some test duels first?

[TinCow]

That could certainly be fun. In LotR I developed a rule set to run chariot races with random results but with enough detail to produce interesting and unique outcomes each time. I posted the rules here. A similar system could be used for dueling if you do it in a 'fencing' system, a lot like boarding ships in Sid Meier's Pirates (if you ever played that). The basic idea being that you've got a game board of 7 squares in a single row. Both duelists start in the middle, on square 4. Die rolls are used to determine what happens. For instance, on a roll of 1, duelist A pushes his oppenent back a square, or on a roll of 6, duelist B pushes his oppenent back 2 squares. For flavor, there can be other effects, like an injury which reduces someone's chances in future rolls, or perhaps someone owns an excellent sword which gives them an advantage on a roll once or twice in a duel. When a person is pushed off their last square, they lose. There is then a roll to determine whether they were injured or killed in the process.

[ULC]

One idea that might be worth considering is developing a system for resolving "duels" between characters. There are some situations in which verbal blows escalate to the point where some physical combat is fitting, but a full blown "civil war" is not - mainly because it is a matter of personal "honor" rather than rebellion per se. In KotR, I remember the Arnold/Jan feud raising this kind of issue - also I think Lothar made some duel type challenge at one point.

Seconded - my first character Iakovos in LotR tried to get this done multiple times with at least Elite Ferrets character.

would require mutual consent (I don't think we want to go down the road of allowing our characters to murder others). To resolve a duel, I think I could put together some kind of quick umpired system. To make it involving, players could give the umpire some kind of basic order each "round" and the outcome be resolved depending on chance and relevant character stats, traits and experience etc. The possible outcomes could involve death, wounding and new traits (dread for killers, chivalry for merciful victors etc).


Ideally, I would base it on some workable existing skirmish type rule set. (Anyone want to recommend one?) If not, I daresay I could come up with some passable system - e.g. based on some rock-paper-scissors gameplay. Move orders could perhaps include posture: defensive/cautious attack/all out attack; perhaps direction (strike left/right/high/low); and perhaps some "special moves" - e.g. disarm, immobilise.

Brainstorm - we could resolve it similarly to Swords in the Moon, using Command as a rating for their duel score, with other stats such as chivalry, dread, and piety coming into factor.

Command - Basic stat? Command could be both number of hitpoints, with each turn could be alternating rounds of offense and defense, and represent number of dice rolled - 1 die for every 2 command stars, minimum 1 maximum 5.
Chivalry - defense bonuses? So whoever has higher chivalry gets a +1 bonus when defending from an attack.
Dread - offense bonuses? So whoever has higher dread gets a +1 bonus when attacking?
Piety - increase die size? Who ever has the most piety gets a bump in their die size, from a standard 1d6 to a 1d8?
Loyalty - Comes into play only when one is a champion? Gives a +1 offense and defense bonus, if the champions loyalty is higher?

While in real life, duels might depend heavily on personal skill, in game, I'd be inclined to make it fairly random (you lose either because you rolled low or because you played paper to your opponent's scissors) as the character stats are not focused on physical attributes and anyway the game would suffer if one player emerged as an uber duellist who could slay all others STW geisha style.

I'd also be inclined to allow champions to be nominated as combatants - either NPCs or players - although the rewards would be reduced in line with the risks and players may take a dim view of knights hiding behind their NPC champions. The quality of the NPC champion could vary with rank - it would be a bold man who duelled the king's champion (and an equally bold king who personally duelled rather than relied on such a champion).

Any interest?

We don't need to sort this out in advance of the game as hopefully no one will emerge newborn with a deadly vendetta. Indeed like the table top battle rules, the duel system need not be part of the core rules anyway. But it should not take too long to devise and would be useful to get finalised before any particular duel arises (so the system is not biased towards a particular combatant).

Aye!

[Andres]

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but there seems to be a contradiction in the rules on the rank of Count:

Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one landowning vassal. Must be a member of a House.
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per Council Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can rename any settlement under their control at any time.
(3) If this rank is held during a Normal Council Session, can Prioritize a total of 3 units per full 10 turn Chancellor term.
Penalties:
(1) Loses control of all provinces if they fail to vote in two consecutive Normal Senate Sessions. All provinces lost in this way are given to the Count's Duke. If the Count is not in a House, the provinces are given to the King.

By definition, a Count is in a House, so the "if the Count is not in a House" seems contradictory.

[econ21]

Picking up something from the PvP movement thread:

(Note to econ21: Be aware that the whole * marked rule system has been abolished. Rule Changes can now change any aspect of the rules at any point. Rule Changes are also now completely divorced from IC business and are passed by unweighted votes, with the GM having a veto over any Rule Change proposal before it even goes to the vote. Edicts and Amendments are now wholly IC in nature, and are considered temporary IC laws and permanent IC laws respectively. Rules can still require OOC enforcement of the unpleasant kind, which you are familiar with, but Edict and Amendments are now enforced only IC. If someone breaks an Edict or Amendment, they are perfectly free to get away with it unless the players make moves to enforce a punishment.)

Thanks - I confess I am almost completely ignorant of the LotR experience and I did miss the above from reading the KotF rules. To clarify, does this imply that everything in the rules can only be changed OOC by rules changes? Or can some/all of it be changed by amendments?

I am just thinking that some rules are about what you could regard as "physics" (e.g. how far can an army move); others are more about political rules (e.g. a Count must be in a House). It would seem inappropriate to vote IC on the former, but appropriate on the latter. If so, is it worth labelling some rules as IC and some as OOC?

House/Rank changes are still major works in progress

I've probably asked you this before, but are there any issues with the draft rules on House/Rank that we should give a little more thought to before we start? Are they unchanged from LotR? Andres has picked up one point, but there are probably others - the rules are quite complex.

Finally, some comments about House/Rank not specifically directed to TC:

I wondered about the rule that RBGs cannot inherit Duchies. This implies that - once the three starter generals are dead - the four starter Houses must all become "Royal" in some way. And RBGs who aspire to be Dukes must start their own House (and then ultimately bequeath it Given the vote on Steward Dukes, is this intended?

Related to Andres' question, on the same quoted rules for Count - I wonder if we could substitute "Baron" for "landowning vassal" under requirements? Presumably, you can only be a vassal to someone of higher rank and only Barons are lower than Counts and can hold land.

I wonder, do we need Counts to be part of Houses? If we remove that requirement, then new Houses may be able to be formed more "organically".

The rules on requirements for a Duke don't see to include the possibility of becoming a Duke via a 2/3 vote (2c).

A somewhat unrelated point - is there a reason for not allowing players to state which unit to prioritise? The quotas are not that generous, so I don't think the Kingdom would suffer too much from letting them pick (and presumably get the best available). If it is just economics, bear in mind that unit upkeep - which in the long run dwarfs purchase cost - seems pretty unrelated to combat power. (For example, armoured spearmen and sergeant spearmen have the same upkeep.) And I think most of us, in SP games, would try to recruit the best available units. At the very least, I think there should be a clause about not recruiting militia or peasant units if there are superior ones available. (It would be frustrating to ask for infantry and be given peasants, when armoured spears were available).

[TinCow]

Thanks - I confess I am almost completely ignorant of the LotR experience and I did miss the above from reading the KotF rules. To clarify, does this imply that everything in the rules can only be changed OOC by rules changes? Or can some/all of it be changed by amendments?

Nothing in the rules can be changed by Edicts or Amendments, nor can Edicts or Amendments contradict the game rules. If it's written in the rules, you have to use a Rule Change to alter it. For a long time now I've thought of it like a D&D rule set. The rules are the mechanics that define the world we roleplay in, and thus they cannot be altered by the characters within that world. I see what you mean about Counts having to be in Houses, and that is a bit more of an IC intrusion into the rule system than LotR had, however it's one of the only ones and it isn't too bad. In any case, my experience from LotR was that people were extremely good at differentiating IC and OOC when it came to tweaking the rules. When a problem became apparent with the rule system, or an improved method was proposed, people very often voted for it even if it went against their interests. As such, if it becomes a problem to have House membership requirements for Counts (or anything similar) I would be very, very surprised if it was difficult to pass a Rule Change to modify this.

This whole shift was the result of some... difficulties... with players taking IC issues OOC and vice versa. A lot of that was due to the added tension caused by the built-in PvP mechanics. With the potential stakes upped, people got more passionate about things that occurred to their avatars. Attempts on my part to fix the problems with a combination of Moderator/GM powers did not satisfy everyone. If you hadn't noticed, Privateerkev has not logged onto the forums since last September. That is directly related to the problems we had. After the new system was introduced, we never had a single problem like this again.

I've probably asked you this before, but are there any issues with the draft rules on House/Rank that we should give a little more thought to before we start? Are they unchanged from LotR?

They are significantly simplified from LotR, which is a good thing and is an improvement in itself. The current draft of the system is experimental in its own way, but the entire rank structure is very modular and easy to tweak as the game goes along. In LotR, several ranks and many rank powers were added or altered in mid-game without it causing any problems. I think we'll be fine, because the current system leans more towards the basic than the complex. From experience in these games, it's pretty easy to add in more detail mid-game, but it's very hard to strip it out. Best to keep it simple and build than go the other direction.

[TinCow]

I wondered about the rule that RBGs cannot inherit Duchies. This implies that - once the three starter generals are dead - the four starter Houses must all become "Royal" in some way. And RBGs who aspire to be Dukes must start their own House (and then ultimately bequeath it Given the vote on Steward Dukes, is this intended?

This is new in KotF, best if Zim or someone else answered that one. In LotR, RBGs were not handled any differently from family members except to the limits imposed on them by the game engine (can't become Heir, Faction Leader, etc).

Related to Andres' question, on the same quoted rules for Count - I wonder if we could substitute "Baron" for "landowning vassal" under requirements? Presumably, you can only be a vassal to someone of higher rank and only Barons are lower than Counts and can hold land.

Sounds sensible to me.

I wonder, do we need Counts to be part of Houses? If we remove that requirement, then new Houses may be able to be formed more "organically".

This is a change from LotR, which allowed "organic" House formation. After the game was over, the consensus was that LotR allowed too much freedom in this area and a desire was expressed to return to the more structured KotR system. I personally am still fond of the free-form LotR system, but I think I'm in the minority.

The rules on requirements for a Duke don't see to include the possibility of becoming a Duke via a 2/3 vote (2c).

This needs to be fixed. It appears to be an inconsistency due to modifications to the LotR rules that haven't been uniformly implemented throughout the set.

A somewhat unrelated point - is there a reason for not allowing players to state which unit to prioritise? The quotas are not that generous, so I don't think the Kingdom would suffer too much from letting them pick (and presumably get the best available). If it is just economics, bear in mind that unit upkeep - which in the long run dwarfs purchase cost - seems pretty unrelated to combat power. (For example, armoured spearmen and sergeant spearmen have the same upkeep.) And I think most of us, in SP games, would try to recruit the best available units. At the very least, I think there should be a clause about not recruiting militia or peasant units if there are superior ones available. (It would be frustrating to ask for infantry and be given peasants, when armoured spears were available).

In LotR, it was to allow the Megas (Chancellor) to 'stiff' his opponents and to keep the emphasis on the Megas being a powerful friend and a dangerous enemy. Given that we're backing away from that now, this can probably be changed without having an impact on rule complexity. If you're curious, here is the formal discussion that was had on the changes to the army rules. It was a group effort and massively simplified the system, which was becoming extremely difficult to deal with because of the large number of 'Royal Armies' and 'Private Armies' roaming around. The old army rules were actually the area of the rules that caused the OOC/IC conflicts I mentioned earlier.

[econ21]

Thanks, TC, - the thread on army ownership was very insightful. Some others unfamiliar with LotR might want to read it to better understand how this game will work. I don't think I have fully got my head around the army ownership and rank rules yet, but I am getting there.

Ironically, the reason for not specifying the prioritised unit(s) - to allow for getting stiffed by the Chancellor - was the reason I queried it. I was seeing the whole point of prioritisation as a protection against being stiffed by the Chancellor.

The "rules change" procedure is very sensible. We muddled through the IC/OOC ammendments in KotR well enough, but the mish-mash was ungainly.

[Zim]

I used "landowning vassal" to more easily allow for the creation of any new ranks between Count and Baron without having to both make a rule change adding the new one and changing language in the old one. There is also the issue of counts swearing to eachother, likely to happen with larger Houses (at least if their dukes try to keep them very hierarchical, you could also just have multiple branches down from the Duke).

With prioritized units the Chancellor loses some of his power. I'm not sure we should take away his power to control what exact units are recruited. If the position gets too weak people might be less inclined to run for it. It's a lot of work as is...

[Vladimir]

Should we create a rule on allowing the AI a few turns to develop? I’m in favor of taking five settlements in five turns but wonder if other players want to give the game more time to develop. Should this be handled IC or out?

Has a determination been made on which avatar gets what starting settlement?

[econ21]

Aye to TinCow, let's change the wording from "rule dispute" to "edicts and proclamations" (I think that is the French coloured term Tristan suggested for amendments)

Should we create a rule on allowing the AI a few turns to develop? I’m in favor of taking five settlements in five turns but wonder if other players want to give the game more time to develop. Should this be handled IC or out?

I suspect we will handle this IC, but I would put the case again to Zim for buffing up the AI forces on our borders, as it is hard to make a convincing IC argument for letting your enemy develop.

Has a determination been made on which avatar gets what starting settlement?

I assume this will just be by avatar starting location. King gets Paris, Dauphin gets Toulouse as capital of his Duchy; 3 starter generals get their starter settlements by virtue of being its Duke.

The rules do need a little rewording to allow for the French specific information and colour.

[AussieGiant]

Econ's on point now about expansion.

Keep it IC and make sure the GM does more than enough in game console work to ensure we deal with it as an IC topic.

[Vladimir]

I suspect we will handle this IC, but I would put the case again to Zim for buffing up the AI forces on our borders, as it is hard to make a convincing IC argument for letting your enemy develop.



I assume this will just be by avatar starting location. King gets Paris, Dauphin gets Toulouse as capital of his Duchy; 3 starter generals get their starter settlements by virtue of being its Duke.

The rules do need a little rewording to allow for the French specific information and colour.

As much as I like to have every advantage possible, I agree that buffing AI (i.e. English) settlements would add a challenge. What do you think Zim?

Also: Are there some settlements which start out without a general? I suppose settlements should go to the more experienced players, however, I've always wanted to go to southern France.

Rewording of the rules is necessary before we agree on them.

[econ21]

Are there some settlements which start out without a general?

It's 5 provinces and 5 generals (inc King and Dauphin) at the start, so it's nice and balanced.

I suppose settlements should go to the more experienced players, however, I've always wanted to go to southern France.

Yes, Dukes are very important for driving IC politics, so giving them to players with a track record makes sense. What we've tried to do in the past is favour the long stayers who did not make it to positions of influence in the predecessor game. For the rest of us, I think Zim will create some RBGs and then when we have picked, use the teleport to place them in the provinces that people want to be placed in. I guess we need to allow some real time interval for Houses to try to recruit RBGs before location is finalised.

[TinCow]

For the rest of us, I think Zim will create some RBGs and then when we have picked, use the teleport to place them in the provinces that people want to be placed in. I guess we need to allow some real time interval for Houses to try to recruit RBGs before location is finalised.

Yep, I think that's the best method. In LotR, I allowed all players to pick any settlement owned by the faction as the starting point for a new avatar and simply teleported them to whatever place they chose. Beyond the obvious benefits to roleplaying of being able to start in a particular spot instead of having to cross half the empire to get there, this also allows the RBG recruitment to be done in any sleepy, backwater settlement so that it doesn't risk interfering with normal recruitment that might otherwise be going on at the chosen destination.

[Zim]

As much as I like to have every advantage possible, I agree that buffing AI (i.e. English) settlements would add a challenge. What do you think Zim?

I think it was suggested some time ago an addition be made to the rules allowing me to create armies for AI factions if need be. Not sure which post number, though.

At the least I could add some troops to Normandy to make it tougher to take, and maybe eventually some to England as well if it's invaded, although I'll be adjusting the King's Purse of AI factions as well, so hopefully they'll be building enough already.