Results 1 to 30 of 287

Thread: Successor game rules, draft one.

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Bureaucratically Efficient Senior Member TinCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    13,729

    Default Re: Successor game rules, draft one.

    Quote Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief View Post
    One of the biggest problems in LotR was a sort of rule overload in which the complexity and sheer volume of things we had to familiar with was bogging down the game. Midway through the PBM, TinCow called a time-out and a group of us worked together to streamline things. Since then, there's been a kind of spoken and unspoken consent to make it as KISS as possible.
    QFT, though I don't generally think this applies to ancillary rule systems like the chariot races. The biggest problem I see with the duels is not that they will be too complex (only one person really needs to understand them anyway) but that they won't be used. I originally imagined the chariot races as a way for people to gamble their possessions with others and to resolve disputes by seeing whose team won a race. It was never used for that.

    If there is a serious risk of death from dueling, I doubt we'll see it used too much. I don't know about you, but I'm not likely to risk my avatar's life on a roll of the dice. If I'm going to get myself killed, it will be in a PvP battle. This is the reason I suggest drinking challenges instead.


  2. #2
    Cthonic God of Deception Member ULC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the swirling maddening chaos of the cosmos unseen to man...
    Posts
    4,138

    Default Re: Successor game rules, draft one.

    Quote Originally Posted by TinCow View Post
    QFT, though I don't generally think this applies to ancillary rule systems like the chariot races. The biggest problem I see with the duels is not that they will be too complex (only one person really needs to understand them anyway) but that they won't be used. I originally imagined the chariot races as a way for people to gamble their possessions with others and to resolve disputes by seeing whose team won a race. It was never used for that.

    If there is a serious risk of death from dueling, I doubt we'll see it used too much. I don't know about you, but I'm not likely to risk my avatar's life on a roll of the dice. If I'm going to get myself killed, it will be in a PvP battle. This is the reason I suggest drinking challenges instead.
    Oh, I see how it is - exclude those who can't or won't drink. And what if I dislike the alcohol in question?How fair of you

  3. #3
    Loitering Senior Member AussieGiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Zurich
    Posts
    4,162

    Default Re: Successor game rules, draft one.

    The new thread is covering this gents.

    And I make the same issue TC just did. It's a nice threat to have, which maybe all it needs to be as if someone in the Diet session has enough steam up he can use it as a leverage point.

    Can you imagine Arnold with good duelling characteristics in a Diet session....sweat lord, it could have been a blood bath...literally.

    Having said that...it's a hell of a risk.
    Last edited by AussieGiant; 07-03-2009 at 15:06.

  4. #4
    King Philippe of France Senior Member _Tristan_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Reigning over France
    Posts
    3,264

    Default Re: Successor game rules, draft one.

    Quote Originally Posted by TinCow View Post
    I originally imagined the chariot races as a way for people to gamble their possessions with others and to resolve disputes by seeing whose team won a race. It was never used for that.
    I hate to contradict but I can remember at least one instance of this : settling the dispute between Methodios (myself) and Nikiphoros (Warmaster Horus) over Scopia of all provinces ().

    And I must admit that I rather like the idea of non-lethal (but shameful, for the loser) "trial by god".
    Last edited by _Tristan_; 07-03-2009 at 15:00.
    King Baldwin the Tyrant, King of Jerusalem, Warden of the Holy Sepulchre, Slayer of Sultans in the Crusades Hotseat (new write-up here and previous write-up here)
    Methodios Tagaris, Caesar and Rebelin LotR
    Mexica Sunrise : An Aztec AAR



    Philippe 1er de France
    in King of the Franks

  5. #5
    Cthonic God of Deception Member ULC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the swirling maddening chaos of the cosmos unseen to man...
    Posts
    4,138

    Default Re: Successor game rules, draft one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng View Post
    I hate to contradict but I can remember at least one instance of this : settling the dispute between Methodios (myself) and Nikiphoros (Warmaster Horus) over Scopia of all provinces ().

    And I must admit that I rather like the idea of non-lethal (but shameful, for the loser) "trial by god".
    So you like my rule set? Anything you'd like to see, amended, added, removed? Posted in the correct thread of course

  6. #6
    King Philippe of France Senior Member _Tristan_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Reigning over France
    Posts
    3,264

    Default Re: Successor game rules, draft one.

    See my post in said thread
    King Baldwin the Tyrant, King of Jerusalem, Warden of the Holy Sepulchre, Slayer of Sultans in the Crusades Hotseat (new write-up here and previous write-up here)
    Methodios Tagaris, Caesar and Rebelin LotR
    Mexica Sunrise : An Aztec AAR



    Philippe 1er de France
    in King of the Franks

  7. #7
    ETW Steam: Little Fox Member mini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    899

    Default Re: Successor game rules, draft one.

    we can always add that in later...

    let's just get the game main rules out of the way so we can get started ;p

  8. #8
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default Re: Successor game rules, draft one.

    I am about done with my proposal on a system for duelling - we can see if rival systems are proposed and decide on how to go forward on the duelling "mini-game" in due course. It looks like we have some time before all the players have Kingdoms, so it might be good to review the core rules, which are much more important than any mini-game. I was struck by what TC said recently in another thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by TinCow
    ... how I feel about LotR in general: many improvements that made the game better, but lots of flaws with the system that prevented it from really coming into its own. Fortunately, a lot of those problems were ironed out along the way so we don't have to deal with them anymore. The 'Royal Army' system that was pioneered in KotR has transformed into an excellent and very efficient system for private ownership of military units, as have the rules for IC legislation and OOC rule changes. The built-in ability for the GM to launch 'events' at will also helps a great deal. However, the House structure and the PvP mechanics were never properly polished up during the game and we're still trying to resolve the problems with them now.
    Maybe I am reading this wrong, but I wonder if this implies we need to do more work on House structure and PvP mechanics? Reading this thread, I can see the point about the latter, at least. Do other people think there are problems? Are there solutions? I'm coming late to this discussion and without the benefit of following LotR, so forgive me if I am asking to go over old ground.


    EDIT:


    On other matters, a few minor points on the rules:

    3 (d) Wills and inheritance: insert Wills must be deposited with Zim before the character's death to be considered valid.
    Ducal succession was an issue in KotR and personally I don't like players making key decisions after their avatar is dead. Do we explicitly allow Dukes to resign? If not, I think we should.

    3 )(f) Rules disputes : maybe state that Zim's ruling can over turn that of the King/Prince/Chancellor? this is to avoid a player who really abuses this power in an OOC way. Also, I am leery of giving the Chancellor sole power over the disputes involving the King/Prince. Wouldn't a council of Dukes plus the Chancellor be better?

    3(f) Emergency sessions I am leery about allowing Dukes to call these. They really slow the game down and I would rather not let one partisan player do this. Maybe require a second Duke to agree? Two Dukes shouting stop sounds like an emergency - one not so much.

    On impeachment, presumably it requires an emergency session, if it is to be done out of full session?

    5 (b) army ownership: what's a garrison? any pre-existing stack in a settlement? or just free upkeep militia?

    French terminology - now we have selected our faction, does that mean we should change some terminology to fit the context? e.g. do we need titles for some of our concepts, e.g. should it be Senate or Parliament or Assembly or what? What are our 4 Houses going to be called and which provinces will be in which? My preference is for something regional, roughly corresponding to east, west, north, south, but I don't know the details.
    Last edited by econ21; 07-04-2009 at 01:50.

  9. #9
    The Count of Bohemia Senior Member Cecil XIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Neo-Richmond
    Posts
    2,434
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: Successor game rules, draft one.

    The problems with Houses in LotR was that they were so fluid that they didn't have much meaning, pretty much the opposite of what the problem was in KotR. Since the system in KotR seemed to work a bit better, the current version of KotF's rules are mixed between the two, but leaning towards KotR. I think we're satisfied with that, right?

    As for PVP, the issue there was that in LotR most of the civil wars ocurred across distances so great that you could spend a whole Chancellor's term marching without getting to your enemy. That hasn't been fully resolved, although I think part of the problem was that we never got around to building paved roads through Anatolia. Also, we used Stainless Steel for LotR, which might have different movement rates than LTC. Perhaps LTC will be better?

    In any case, my prefered solution is this: At the beginning of a civil war, either the combatants or all players will vote on the movement system to use that's most suitable for the war to be fought. The options are those Tincow outlines here:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Quote Originally Posted by TinCow View Post
    1) Basic LotR system, as the rules are currently written. Players move normally on the map and battles occur when they encounter one another. This allows total freedom of movement in the game and is thus the most strategic, but as we saw in LotR in-game movement speeds often result in 'phony' wars with no fighting whatsoever. This system thus makes civil war almost completely harmless to an enemy whose lands are not near your own, which reduces their impact and makes them less serious. This system has the advantage of allowing gameplay to continue relatively normally while the maneuvering is in progress.

    2) Phased Movement system, as was used in the LotR War of the Four Basileis. Essentially, players submit movement orders by PM to the GM or battle Umpire, who then makes all the moves simultaneously, using the console to allow multiple movement phases without advancing the game year. Only combatants submit orders, with all neutrals remaining frozen while the war takes place. This is faster than (1), more likely to result in battles due to the ability to allow increased movement ranges, and still allows moderate strategic movements, such as occupying bridges or defending certain settlements. However, players can still run away from one another or otherwise refrain from fighting if they want to. This also makes everyone else sit around and twiddle their fingers waiting for it all to be over, which can be a pain if it lasts a long time.

    3) Phased Movement system, as was used in the KotR Cataclysm. Pretty much the same as (2), but everyone submits movement orders, even neutrals, and the game year keeps advancing. Has the advantages of (2) without making people twiddle their fingers. However, it's a lot more work for the GM/Umpire and it risks exploitation if the neutrals use this period of time to beat up the AI with their bonus movement.

    4) MTW/Risk-style system. Similar to phased movement, but players submit orders to move based on province proximity. For instance, any player can move their army up to two (or one, or three, or whatever) consecutive provinces per phased turn. When players enter a province with a hostile force, a battle occurs. Battles are treated as they are in MTW, namely that if one army is moving into a province with the enemy, but the enemy was stationary that turn, the moving army is the attacker and the stationary army is the defender and may get a terrain/settlement advantage. If both armies were moving, it is a meeting engagement and occurs on an open battlefield without one side getting a terrain advantage. This is even faster than (2) and (3) and very likely to result in a battle, since people don't need to move close to each other in a province, they just need to be in the same province. However, this doesn't allow for the same level of strategic detail as (1) through (3) and generally limits people to deciding whether to attack or defend. This also will make the neutrals sit around watching for a while, though for not as long as (2).

    5) Instant battle system. As soon as a civil war is declared, all players declare who they support or whether they are neutral. When this is completed, a battle instantly occurs with all participants on both sides showing up. When the battle is over, the war is over. This is the fastest method possible and will ALWAYS result in a battle, making civil wars very serious things. However, it allows for pretty much no pre-battle strategy beyond politically recruiting allies.


    To use KotR as an example, this would allow us to use a different rule set for a war between Austria and Franconia than Austria and Outremer, where distance and time could really harm things. I think deciding on a system on a case-by-case basis really helps keep things flowing well.

  10. #10
    Wandering Metsuke Senior Member Zim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,190

    Default Re: Successor game rules, draft one.

    Those changes seem reasonable. I hadn't really expected many rules disputes to happen, I think about that one...

    2 Dukes to call an emergency session makes sense.

    Impeachment does indeed require an emergency session.

    A garrison is any units inside of a settlement, at least for the purposes of the rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by econ21 View Post
    EDIT:


    On other matters, a few minor points on the rules:

    3 (d) Wills and inheritance: insert Wills must be deposited with Zim before the character's death to be considered valid.
    Ducal succession was an issue in KotR and personally I don't like players making key decisions after their avatar is dead. Do we explicitly allow Dukes to resign? If not, I think we should.

    3 )(f) Rules disputes : maybe state that Zim's ruling can over turn that of the King/Prince/Chancellor? this is to avoid a player who really abuses this power in an OOC way. Also, I am leery of giving the Chancellor sole power over the disputes involving the King/Prince. Wouldn't a council of Dukes plus the Chancellor be better?

    3(f) Emergency sessions I am leery about allowing Dukes to call these. They really slow the game down and I would rather not let one partisan player do this. Maybe require a second Duke to agree? Two Dukes shouting stop sounds like an emergency - one not so much.

    On impeachment, presumably it requires an emergency session, if it is to be done out of full session?

    5 (b) army ownership: what's a garrison? any pre-existing stack in a settlement? or just free upkeep militia?

    French terminology - now we have selected our faction, does that mean we should change some terminology to fit the context? e.g. do we need titles for some of our concepts, e.g. should it be Senate or Parliament or Assembly or what? What are our 4 Houses going to be called and which provinces will be in which? My preference is for something regional, roughly corresponding to east, west, north, south, but I don't know the details.
    V&V RIP Helmut Becker, Duke of Bavaria.



    Come to the Throne Room for hotseats and TW rpgs!

    Kermit's made a TWS2 guide? Oh, the other frog....

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO