Successor game rules, draft one.

[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.

[Cecil XIX]

Tincow's use of the word 'fencing' made me wonder: How exactly did duels work in the middle ages, particularly the 11th-13th centuries that will likely make up most, if not all of KotF. Does anybody know what weapons, equipment etc. were used. I wouldn't want realism to detract from the fun and functionality of the dueling system, but I'd rather avoid us fighting with rapiers and epees and smallswords.

[TinCow]

I don't know a whole lot about medieval duels, but they definitely were not like fencing. I just used that term because it has a similar physical setup, with both fighters starting in the middle, and people spar forward and backward without variation to either side. That's easy to keep track of in a numerical system.

An alternative to dueling that might get used a bit more would be drinking challenges. Have an argument? Settle it by drinking your opponent under the table.

[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!

[Cecil XIX]

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?

I like most of these, and would definitely prefer to see our character sheets matter as much as possible so the duel seems more 'real'. I'm not sure if it makes much sense for command to give a bonus to duels, wouldn't valor be better? I also can't see any logic in having piety affect battles, except maybe morale? One thing to consider is traits that give a bonus to hitpoints, that translates from battles to duels the easiest.

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 would prefer the opposite. Unlike the geisha (shudder), you can simply choose not to engage in a duel. I also don't think it would get used much, who'd be willing to risk their character/empower their opponent by placing things mostly in the hands of fate? Characters would need to be largely in control, like they are in the tabletop battles.

[ULC]

I like most of these, and would definitely prefer to see our character sheets matter as much as possible so the duel seems more 'real'. I'm not sure if it makes much sense for command to give a bonus to duels, wouldn't valor be better? I also can't see any logic in having piety affect battles, except maybe morale? One thing to consider is traits that give a bonus to hitpoints, that translates from battles to duels the easiest.



I would prefer the opposite. Unlike the geisha (shudder), you can simply choose not to engage in a duel. I also don't think it would get used much, who'd be willing to risk their character/empower their opponent by placing things mostly in the hands of fate? Characters would need to be largely in control, like they are in the tabletop battles.

Makes sense - Valor then, with every 3 Valor giving a single die, from 1-4 dice.

Piety is a representation of intellect as well in M2TW, so expanding on that idea, an intelligent persons ability to quickly think would open up a greater chance for them to react to new situations - but would not guarantee any hard advantage, hence why the die is still entirely random. This would also only apply for one die.

I think I'll make a list of a all traits that would be relevant in a duel from the vnv.text and post it with it's ingame modifier and possible duel modifier, should be fun.

[Cecil XIX]

Piety is a representation of intellect as well in M2TW, so expanding on that idea, an intelligent persons ability to quickly think would open up a greater chance for them to react to new situations - but would not guarantee any hard advantage, hence why the die is still entirely random. This would also only apply for one die.

I think I'll make a list of a all traits that would be relevant in a duel from the vnv.text and post it with it's ingame modifier and possible duel modifier, should be fun.

Is it? Not to get into a philosophical debate of course, I just haven't noticed that. If anything I remember traits that suggest the opposite, although maybe that was only in the first MTW. Regardless, I like your explanation very much and would gladly read your report on the relevancy of the traits.