Successor game rules, draft one.

[ULC]

The annexations rules are probably the ones I'm the most unsure of. As mentioned, I never really had much experience with having to push annexation edicts through in KOTR. I'm glad AG spoke up as someone with experience with it am curious how the debate goes.

I do want something to limit expansion as it seemed to get a little out of control in parts of LOTR. How we do so isn't a big deal to me so any further suggestions for alternate systems are welcome.

I do think it's a good thing to have conquered land go to the king before being dispensed to Houses. When it comes down to it it's the only power he has that really forces nobles to deal with him.

I should note that at the moment separate edicts to conquer and ratify annexation are not required as per KOTR, only a single annexation edict made before or after the conquest.

Of course, sooner or late a noble told to abandon his conquest or give it to a rival might say "over my dead body", a situation I would liekly let get resolved in-game rather than through gm fiat...

Hmmm...I think I have an idea, although it might be construed as more complex.

We want people to take personal initiative, and disobedience should be an open option.
We want to limit expansion at the sametime.
We want to give the king some form of power.

So I propose we blend them together. by allowing anyone to conquer any province they see fit. however, taxes must be set to high until and the province can be ignored by the Chancellor, until the said conqueror hands the province over to Royal authority or an edict is passed with 2/3rds majority that annexes the territory.

Thoughts?

[Zim]

Posted the final mod poll thread. It appears we will be playing France, and 90% likely that we will be using the Kingdoms version of whichever mod we pick.

[AussieGiant]

The main issues I see with your suggestion YLC is that it is not an absolutely certain situation for the King and in fact the Chancellor can get involved without his consent. In effect the Chancellor has even more power.

I also think this rule was put into the game IC...can someone confirm?

I'd prefer to wait and see what NN, TC or GH have to say before commenting anything further.

[ULC]

The main issues I see with your suggestion YLC is that it is not an absolutely certain situation for the King and in fact the Chancellor can get involved without his consent. In effect the Chancellor has even more power.

I also think this rule was put into the game IC...can someone confirm?

I'd prefer to wait and see what NN, TC or GH have to say before commenting anything further.

That was one of my main issues with my idea - the Chancellor seems to be able to just simply ignore the rule, so why not change it to the Chancellor can't do ANYTHING with the province besides send troops/agents into it under his control? And the province has taxes set to high, or very high?

[Zim]

*bump*

[TinCow]

I've seen several requests for my input in this thread. Apologies, but I'm out of town on business this entire week. I have internet access, but don't really have time to do much more than skim the forums. I will be happy to respond, but you'll have to wait until next weekend or early next week.

[Zim]

Any more opinions on the issue at hand? I admit at the moment I am still leaning towards the system currently in place in the rules over YLC's somewhat more complicated system.

Does anyone else prefer the latter, or just generally dislike the idea of either type of limit on annexation?

[Cecil XIX]

Heh, good times.

This may be slightly OOC, but I've been thinking about things that made LOTR different from KOTR. Many have been discussed, but as far as I remember one aspect that hasn't been talked about as much is the change in policy regarding avatar acquisition.

In this, KOTR (at first) and LOTR were at opposite extremes. In KOTR you had to take what the game offered, and if it wasn't offering anything you had to wait. In LOTR you could not only get an avatar at any time, you could even get options!

If those were the only two options, I think I'd prefer the former. For most of KOTR, every Elector who joined the Reich started off linked to certain people and a certain House. That was a foundation upon which to build other relations, which were, of course, what made KOTR so great. I think LOTR suffered a bit from having people able to get RGBs whenever they want. When there's no restriction on getting Avatars, the avatar you have doesn't mean as much. A lot of avatars in LOTR were just abandoned, either by people who stopped playing or people who wanted to start fresh with a new avatar. I don't think this reflects poorly on the players themselves (at least I hope not, since I myself belong to the latter group), but I do think it reveals a flaw in the incentives the rules gave the players. The avatar situation needs to be more orderly and still.

I think a middle path is best. At the very least, if a someone want to play as an RGB he should have to take the first one that pops up. There some be some limit to the availability of avatars in order for them to be seen as valuable.

[ULC]

Heh, good times.

This may be slightly OOC, but I've been thinking about things that made LOTR different from KOTR. Many have been discussed, but as far as I remember one aspect that hasn't been talked about as much is the change in policy regarding avatar acquisition.

In this, KOTR (at first) and LOTR were at opposite extremes. In KOTR you had to take what the game offered, and if it wasn't offering anything you had to wait. In LOTR you could not only get an avatar at any time, you could even get options!

If those were the only two options, I think I'd prefer the former. For most of KOTR, every Elector who joined the Reich started off linked to certain people and a certain House. That was a foundation upon which to build other relations, which were, of course, what made KOTR so great. I think LOTR suffered a bit from having people able to get RGBs whenever they want. When there's no restriction on getting Avatars, the avatar you have doesn't mean as much. A lot of avatars in LOTR were just abandoned, either by people who stopped playing or people who wanted to start fresh with a new avatar. I don't think this reflects poorly on the players themselves (at least I hope not, since I myself belong to the latter group), but I do think it reveals a flaw in the incentives the rules gave the players. The avatar situation needs to be more orderly and still.

I think a middle path is best. At the very least, if a someone want to play as an RGB he should have to take the first one that pops up. There some be some limit to the availability of avatars in order for them to be seen as valuable.

We could have a requirement - one must pass an edict to recruit avatars. I am thinking limiting it to one per session, so there isn't a terrible issue with shortage. Once the family true becomes large enough, then I don;t think we will have to spawn any avatars.

[_Tristan_]

I do not think that the larger availability of avatars in LotR was the cause of the difference in involvement of the players.

However, the fact that you could just drop your avatar because you got fed up with it or reached its RP limits (YLC ) was the main difference.

From what I saw of KotR while I was following on the sidelines (before joining), the avatars seemed to last forever, whatever they had to confront, and when one got killed it was generally either traumatic or cataclysmic...

In LotR, after a time, it was difficult to interact with some characters because you couldn't know if they'll be still there come next turn and not through some bad turn of luck but because of players' lack of interest in them...

One requirement we could enforce on players wanting to play a RGB avatar would be to post a short story depicting their avatar' s former history, ambition, etc... fleshing it out...

I remember that the story I wrote for Hugo in KotR or Methodios in LotR endeared them to me and made me want to have them live forever whatever stood in their way...

Had they died early, I'm not even sure I could have jumped back into the game immediately as has been proven by my lackluster play of Georgios Angelos...

[AussieGiant]

I think Cecil is onto something.

I remember waiting and waiting and waiting. Once the game finally allowed me to join I was highly motivated in making sure the character was fleshed out and I certainly had a vested interest in his well being, career and advancement.

Play an "non character elector" was a good way to be part of the action and allowed you to get your feet wet and not sit on the side lines, but once you got yourself an avatar, then it was certainly an event in itself and created a large amount of "significance" in what you did.

I played the "Merchant of Venice elector" character until Arnold arrived...it was a very good experience.

I think that would be an ideal situation.

[ULC]

I think Cecil is onto something.

I remember waiting and waiting and waiting. Once the game finally allowed me to join I was highly motivated in making sure the character was fleshed out and I certainly had a vested interest in his well being, career and advancement.

Play an "non character elector" was a good way to be part of the action and allowed you to get your feet wet and not sit on the side lines, but once you got yourself an avatar, then it was certainly an event in itself and created a large amount of "significance" in what you did.

I played the "Merchant of Venice elector" character until Arnold arrived...it was a very good experience.

I think that would be an ideal situation.

Hmmm...would it then be possible to actually designate a character for yourself who has not yet matured and roleplay him? Just thinking aloud.

[Cecil XIX]

Hmmm...would it then be possible to actually designate a character for yourself who has not yet matured and roleplay him? Just thinking aloud.

Like this?

That's the only time it ever happened as far as I know, but I think it would be a fine thing to do. There's hardly anything written about a character before they become active, despite the potential for unique stories.

I'm glad you chimed in AG, I think your experience was the best-case example of what happens when people have to wait, both with your 'Merchant of Venice' character Arnold himself.