Successor game rules, draft one.

[mini]

well, iif ur playing an RGB, your options are limited then...

Everyone is going to want a FM.

[_Tristan_]

I'm not too keen on two ideas posted here :

1 - Edict for annexation : while I understand the concern for fast expansion, I don't like the idea of having to battle in the Senate (or Council or whatever it will be called) to keep a Province in the bosom of the Empire. It makes no sense historically. Powerful vassals (and sometimes even less powerful ones) ignored the will of their King and conquered/annexed provinces for their own gain, often requiring military pressure of their Lord to release them and not some court order...

2 - Possibility for FM only to create new Houses. With the limits and caps set by Zim rules, I don't think we'll see new Houses appear overnight so restricting the possibility of creating them to FM might be just a touch too much and might deter people who have had access to a RGB only from grasping power into their own hands.

Otherwise, I think it is a fine set of Rules and I particularly like the way Influence is planned as is. My main fear is that if a power blocks forms, it could enact Edicts/CA granting Influence from particular causes benefiting their numbers thus raising their power even more (I haven't decided yet if this is rather good or bad...)

[Ignoramus]

Perhaps we can fix the expansion problem by allowing nobles to keep the provinces they conquer, but make it very hard to defend them without the king's support. But that should probably be an IC game action.

[ULC]

In my mind, requiring an edict to annex a province and the king acquiring all conquered provinces seems contradictory.

I'd prefer a system where the province was acquired by the conquering noble, but required annexation through an edict for legitimacy - until it is annexed, the chancellor does not have to fulfill any prioritization that deal with the province. You still have to be a kiss but there is more freedom involved.

[Ignoramus]

Great idea, YLC!

[mini]

so a noble conquers a province, and it is his after the annexation is approved.
What happens if the annexation is not approved?

[ULC]

so a noble conquers a province, and it is his after the annexation is approved.
What happens if the annexation is not approved?

Oh no, it's his period if he conquers it - but until he gets approval for it in the Council, the Chancellor can freely ignore the entire province, including taxes, prioritization, building queues, etc, without penalty.

This makes it difficult to hold onto - it cannot be properly reinforced except from within the kingdom/empire, is subject to higher levels of revolt and generates less income.

[AussieGiant]

One of the most balanced aspects of KotR was that all expansion needed to be legislated through the Diet. Meaning edicts to attack and a second CA (or was it another edict) to ratify the province and absorb it into the Kingdom was required.

This prevented players who are good at the game from literally tearing across the map. It also politicised land and made the politics about acquisition and allocation of land very interesting and very significant. This by extension focused everyone very squarely on the Diet sessions and what was going on in them. A complaint of the last game I believe was a lack of focus in the political threads.

I can't emphasis enough just how important land is to a feudal empire and how the game supports this in so many ways. The Diet was THE MAIN platform in KotR and it was hugely entertaining because it really meant something to go into that Thread and present your case, argue, threaten and bribe your way to success.

The second aspect of this concept was all land, once ratified, went to the King, who then allocated it to a House/Duke who then kept it himself or allocated it to one of his nobles. Again hugely appropriate both in the game and historically. The Kings position in this critical aspect of power countered the extreme executive but transient power of the Chancellor and made the King an ongoing important figure for people to constantly be forced to deal with. As a nice tie in, the Prince would one day be King so playing ahead of the succession tree was always another sub level of politics. Duke's by extension were allocated this power base to use as they see fit. At that point the land issuance was finished.

I strongly recommend this system is replicated, in a simple, effective and easy to understand format.

[ULC]

I think my idea replicates it well enough - you can't go on a conquering spree in the first place because conquered provinces would revolt one right after another or become very vulnerable to attack, while still allowing people to do something. IMO, requiring double legislation to conquer a province is cumbersome. This one still allows for a lot more freedom on politics as well.

[Zim]

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...

[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?

[mini]

maybe the conquered province shouldnt be given to the king obligatory...

More a kind of unwritten tradition. Another tradition is the handing back of the province by the king.

So, a duke may not give the city to the king. The king may now force the surrounding dukes upon this renegade and put pressure.

or a duke hands over the city, but the king just gives it to another house. The conquering house is pissed, and will not hand over the next conquered city, and will plot some kind of revenge against both king and the other house who got th city by buttkissing with the king.


Could lead to various interesting plots, intrigues and civil wars :p

[Ignoramus]

I say that in civil wars the duke gets to keep the province, otherwise the king gets to dictate who owns it. If you don't like it, say so with your sword.

[ULC]

To refine my rule further, when a noble conquers a province -

He can keep it, but cannot adjust tax rate, produce agents & troops, or construct buildings, until:
A) He hands the province over to the King, who then does with it as he sees fit.
B) He gains 2/3rds support from the Council to ratify his sovereignty over the province.

[Ignoramus]

I think it's actually a good idea to have a very basic set of rules for things like this, and then develop it in-game.

Maybe it's good to say that a noble can conquer a province, but like YLC said he cannot adjust tax rate, produce agents & troops, or construct buildings, unless he hands it over to the king or rebels.

That way, he is actually creating a burden for himself. It also doesn't invalidate the worth of the king, as getting his approval will be vital to legitimately utilising that province. If you don't, you may have to throw off the king's authority and try and force an agreement.

I think that the game is served best by short sharp civil wars which result in a decisive battle, and then an agreement is made between winner and loser. This set-up should encourage that.

[Cecil XIX]

YLC's ideas intrigues me. It gives players more freedom in a way that is sure to provoke intrigue. I specifically like how it sets up conflict between the King and the Council. I quite like it.

On another note, I still like the idea of an 'Archduke' rank or somesuch. It's be a nice way for a Duke to gain enough power to rival the King, which should lead to interesting drama. Perhaps if two of the starting Duchies where unified under one man?

Speaking of which, it's possible for two Duchies to have a 'personal union', isn't it?

[Zim]

There's certainly nothing preventing one Duke from swearing fealty to another. I'd like to see any new ranks appear out of in game conflicts. Say, for example, a despotic king becomes so unpopular the Council creates the rank of Archduke as a counter.

That said, if everyone wants me to I can create a new rank easily enough.

One thing about YLC's proposal is that if you have 2/3ds of the votes of the Council on your side, you could just create a rule change making an exception of your settlement...

At any rate it isn't unbalanced. A King with decent authority and any support at all among one or more Houses would have a good chance of blocking the Council vote method. One lacking both might very well deserve the Council going over his head.

Let's keep the discussion open to refine the ideas proposed thus far. Once TinCow returns from vacation we can get his opinion as an experienced gm and look at having a forum created for the game and getting started.

One issue I've been thinking about is piicking who gets the starting characters and, if in the chosen mod France doesn't start with enough fms, who gets the RGBs lucky enough to be Dukes. I could just assign the starting characters, or we could go with something like LOTR where those with the most votes in the previous game choose first. Alternatively, we could come up with some kind of method for randomizing...

[KnightnDay]

After the mod is identified as the winner, I would suggest identifying what's available, identify who is in, and if they want to come in right away or would be willing to wait. Then you can determine who gets what at the start. Random seems fair and the people signing up are for the most part going to be established players from previous games. My $.02

[Cecil XIX]

It's also worth noting that LTC Gold has three possible starting dates, like the first MTW. I know for a fact that the 'Early' period France starts with five generals.

[AussieGiant]

I have to mention that reading the Diet sessions from KotR is pretty entertaining.

Diet Session V in which the reunification event is the main topic, is what these games are all about.

Worth a read from about page 12 onwards.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I love how the very first post on that page has the following:

It seems the "highway of death heads" has not had the desired effect.

All in a matter-of-fact tone too.

[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...