Successor game rules, draft one.

[TinCow]

I was in the process of assembling an updated rule set to account for the changes made since the current draft was posted. However, I have noticed more issues while doing this.

In Rule 2(c) - New Houses, it is worded that an edict needs to pass, but requires a 2/3 majority. Since a 2/3 majority is required and presumably the new house would be permanent (as opposed to lasting 10 turns, like an Edict does), why not just say it requires a Codex Amendment and leave it at that?

In Rule 3(a), the word "Knight" in the second and third sentences should probably read "Noble." As it currently reads, Barons and Counts cannot be promoted, and no one except Knights can ever be demoted (and Knights can't go any lower).

Rule 3(b) has a few issues. First, the ratification bit as worded requires that taxes be jacked up to the maximum immediately on conquest, even if the Council hasn't had an opportunity to ratify the conquest because a Council session hasn't occurred yet. Is this intentional? Who owns the province before it is ratified, in the time period between its conquest and the next Council session?

(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.

Second, the line about the King's ability to give provinces away seems redundant:

Any province conquered and ratified becomes part of the King's Demesne. At any point he may give a province to any House (in which case the Duke decides to allocate it to himself or another member of his House) or to any individual noble he favors. 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.

First, the second bit about an individual noble makes the first bit about the Duke pointless, as 'any individual noble' includes all Dukes. In addition, the ability to give away provinces to other people is already covered later in the rule with this:

Nobles lose control of one of their provinces if they voluntarily give it to another Noble...

As such, I think that line can be completely eliminated without any impact whatsoever, unless it was not intended that the King be able to give his Demesne to whoever he wants.

Also in Rule 3(b), there is the following bit:

The King's choice of who to give the province can be blocked by a two-thirds 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.

In re: the above, the tie-breaker bit is unnecessary, as it's impossible to need a tiebreaker with a 2/3 vote. Either 2/3 agree to it, or they don't. A simpler wording of the above would be: "The King can be prevented from giving away a province by a two-thirds majority vote of the Council."

For Rule 3(c) - Retinue, does LTC include province titles as retinue? If not, the rule can be simplified by stripping out that language (which was added for SS 4.1 in LotR).

For Rule 3(d), it appears Wills are now pointless, as all inheritance issues are automatic. Was this intentional? If so, the last line can be stripped out and the word Wills should be removed from the title of the rule:

(d) - Wills & Inheritance: Upon the death of a noble his land goes to the highest ranking 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. Dukes can pass on their rank to a House member of their choosing. Otherwise, the second in charge in their House's feudal chain takes their place as Duke. Wills must be deposited with Zim before the character's death to be considered valid.

For Rule 3(e) - Oaths of Fealty, the rule was changed from its LotR wording to read "Any Independent Noble may swear an oath of fealty to any Duke whenever he wishes." There are no provisions for a Noble swearing to anyone but a Duke, but a Count cannot exist unless someone has sworn an Oath to him. Under the current rules, it is thus impossible to become a Count.

Rule 6(a) will likely need some extra editing because the proposed changes to PvP campaign movement make the bit about who moves first obsolete.

Rule 6(b), IMHO, could be better adapted to KotF. I think it would be nice to do more to force House warfare. If you declare war on someone in another House, you declare war with the entire House. In addition, I don't think vassals should be able to 'peace out' without the permission of the Duke of their House.


---

[edit] A few other questions:

(1) Why was the Prioritized Construction system removed? That worked fine and seemed popular in LotR and was one of the effective methods of avoiding a totally partisan Chancellor.

(2) Is it intentional that pretty much every player gets prioritized units? In LotR, the system allowed only the 'top dog' in a feudal chain to get prioritized units, though he could prioritize them in his vassals settlements. This was designed to make Houses more cohesive and create a more important relationship between the top-most lord and his vassals. By giving EVERYONE prioritized units, you are actually making the Houses more decentralized and less reliant on the Duke, which I think is the opposite of what people wanted. In addition, we're going to be bleeding Prioritized Units out our eyeballs once the initial expansion is over and everyone has a province. You're looking at upwards of 80 prioritizations per term!

[econ21]

That's a lot of questions, TC. To be honest, I suspect Zim and most of us would be happy for you to present your preferred rewording as in most cases it sounds like its a question of tidying up and logic.

A number of the questions are substantive and should be discussed. Of those you mentioned, I would offer an opinion on two - wills and unit prioritisations.

Personally, I prefer Dukes wills over automatic inheritance. Wills are "realistic" and also fun, as they create Edward the Confessor type conflicts where people vie for the inheritance and don't know who has it till the Duke croaks. I asked for extra text to cover depositing wills with the GM as in KotR I was very leery of dead Dukes declaring heirs. I confess I missed the rule on automatic inheritance. I think this may have originated in the idea of very heirarchical House structure in which there was a clear number 2. However, I have pushed for a more "family tree" like House structure, so there may be more than one person on the second rung of the House ladder (more than one Count). I thought we had gone with that kind of structure and made it so that a Count cannot be a vassal of a Count, in which case I think the automatic inheritance idea falls by the wayside. Anyway, Zim and others can chime in, but that's just my explanation of the confusion.

On unit prioritisations, I personally would like to keep the current rules so that the lower ranks are be able to prioritise their own men. One unit per settlement per 10 turns does not seem excessive for the lowest landed noble (Baron). If you are worried about 80 units in a term being a lot, I am tempted to do an AG and say let's sort it out IC. I hope it will be a while before we get so many provinces.

[TinCow]

That's a lot of questions, TC. To be honest, I suspect Zim and most of us would be happy for you to present your preferred rewording as in most cases it sounds like its a question of tidying up and logic.

I'd be more than happy to. Indeed, I started to do so while consolidating them, but realized I was changing things without approval and I didn't want to do that. Thus the above list. I want to give people some time to chime in on things before I whip out the editing pen on the actual draft.

Personally, I prefer Dukes wills over automatic inheritance. Wills are "realistic" and also fun, as they create Edward the Confessor type conflicts where people vie for the inheritance and don't know who has it till the Duke croaks. I asked for extra text to cover depositing wills with the GM as in KotR I was very leery of dead Dukes declaring heirs. I confess I missed the rule on automatic inheritance. I think this may have originated in the idea of very heirarchical House structure in which there was a clear number 2. However, I have pushed for a more "family tree" like House structure, so there may be more than one person on the second rung of the House ladder (more than one Count). I thought we had gone with that kind of structure and made it so that a Count cannot be a vassal of a Count, in which case I think the automatic inheritance idea falls by the wayside. Anyway, Zim and others can chime in, but that's just my explanation of the confusion.

For your edification only, here's the Wills rule from LotR:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

2.4 – Wills & Inheritance: On his death, all of a Senator’s provinces and retinue are distributed according to the most recent valid Will. In order for a Will to be valid, it must have been posted in a public thread or PMed to econ21 or TinCow prior to the Senator’s death. Except as noted below, a Will provision is only valid to the extent that it names a living, of-age avatar that is controlled by another player as the inheritor of the province or retinue stated. A player's next avatar may only inherit a single province and a single retinue. A Will may name multiple Senators as inheritors, so long as each province and/or retinue is only bequeathed to a single Senator. Any provisions of the Will that do not meet these requirements will be invalid. Valid provisions of a Will will not be negated due to the existence of invalid provisions in the same Will. If there is no valid Will provision for an owned province, the Senator’s immediate Lord gains possession of the province. If the Senator also has no Lord, the Basileus gains possession of the province.

On unit prioritisations, I personally would like to keep the current rules so that the lower ranks are be able to prioritise their own men. One unit per settlement per 10 turns does not seem excessive for the lowest landed noble (Baron). If you are worried about 80 units in a term being a lot, I am tempted to do an AG and say let's sort it out IC. I hope it will be a while before we get so many provinces.

That's fine, I'm comfortable handling this IC, I just want to make sure people are aware of just how many prioritizations there are going to be in this game. For the record, the lowest rank gets TWO prioritizations, not one. As I understand it (we start with 5 provinces, right?) on the very first turn of the game, there will be 26 (8 for King, 4 each for 4 Dukes, +2 for one Prince) prioritiziations available. Quick expansion to 10 provinces is likely, and that would potentially increase the number of prioritizations to 41. That's more than we ever had in LotR, and, with few exceptions, you're essentially going to keep adding 2 every time you conquer a province, until you hit the player limit.

[OverKnight]

Don't forget that any estimates of expansion have to take into account the Pope. We're under his tender mercy again.

Speaking as the first Megas in LotR, I think it would be vastly easier to track recruitment and prioritisation if it remains confined to Royalty and the House leaders. I think that units will trickle down to the Counts and Barons, but that will be a task for the Dukes as a sort of middle mangement. This will alleviate some of the bookkeeping and organizational duties of the Seneschal.

I don't remember any complaints about recruitment from LotR. So if it's a satisfactory system, I don't think we should alter it.

[econ21]

That's fine, I'm comfortable handling this IC, I just want to make sure people are aware of just how many prioritizations there are going to be in this game. For the record, the lowest rank gets TWO prioritizations, not one. As I understand it (we start with 5 provinces, right?) on the very first turn of the game, there will be 26 (8 for King, 4 each for 4 Dukes, +2 for one Prince) prioritiziations available. ... Quick expansion to 10 provinces is likely, and that would potentially increase the number of prioritizations to 41.

Um, good point. I think the King is 5, but still, it is a lot. I guess it may lead to a situation of excess demand - the Seneschal can't afford to or does not want to give everyone their prioritisations. That will mean no "national" army that the Seneschal can give himself above and beyond what he gets from his title. And it would mean prioritisations are more like bids than entitlements - you are trying to get the troops, not sure to get them. How the Seneschal juggles those demands will be quite an interesting political issue.

To ease the situation, we could subtract 1 from all numbers:
Baron: 1
Count: 2
Duke: 3
King: 4
Prince +1

So at start, it would be 17 prioritisations. 17 units over 10 turns from 5 settlements does not sound excessive. Then if we expand to 10 provinces, perhaps we would have 5 new Barons, giving us 22 prioritisations.

Compeletely disenfranchising those below the Dukes would not help at the outset, as there are no landowners below Duke.

On reflection, I think I would advocate the -1 across the board, as I would prefer prioritisations to be closer to entitlements than to bids. (You can bid anyway, regardless of prioritisations).

[Cecil XIX]

Looking at the numbers, I second econ's proposed reduction.

Perhaps that also makes people more amenable to having nobles choose what units they get with their prioritization? Or was that already agreed to? I'm starting to have trouble following the discussions here and in the PVP thread.

[TinCow]

Yes, I think we've agreed to allow specific unit selection via prioritization as a method of making Houses more resistant to a hostile Seneshal.

The above reduction does fit better and I will accept it, though I still think that having the Duke be responsible for his entire House's priortizations (as in LotR) would be better for RPing and for organization.

[Zim]

I'm a bit busy for the next day or so as the Sheriff's Department is doing a gun auction... I'll give the rules a good look and editting tomorrow evening.

To answer those last few questions real quick:

"(1) Why was the Prioritized Construction system removed? That worked fine and seemed popular in LotR and was one of the effective methods of avoiding a totally partisan Chancellor."

Was it popular? During the time I played (with a big chunk missing in the middle fo the game when I didn't have internet access) virtually noone used it...

I removed it because I thought almost noone used it and I wanted to simplify the rank powers a little (same reason I took out a few of the other powers).

"(2) Is it intentional that pretty much every player gets prioritized units? In LotR, the system allowed only the 'top dog' in a feudal chain to get prioritized units, though he could prioritize them in his vassals settlements. This was designed to make Houses more cohesive and create a more important relationship between the top-most lord and his vassals. By giving EVERYONE prioritized units, you are actually making the Houses more decentralized and less reliant on the Duke, which I think is the opposite of what people wanted. In addition, we're going to be bleeding Prioritized Units out our eyeballs once the initial expansion is over and everyone has a province. You're looking at upwards of 80 prioritizations per term! "

I liked the idea of decentralizing it a bit and giving lower ranks a chance to prioritize a small number of movements. I did mention it and ask if anyone had concerns, quite some time ago, which would have been a nice time to raise them. However, I did not do the number crunching needed to forsee if it would be a problem...

It might be worth noting that I had exactly one request for something like 3 prioritized units during my term as Megas, even though many, many more could have been made. Seeing the low use rate for that power, I guess I didn't think too much about the ramifications if everyone used it.

At any point anyone is free to put up their own rule system or volunteer to take over gm duties. I put my own efforts towards doing so because nooone else seemed willing to at the time and I've found these games to be a big part of the fun I've had since coming to the Org. I'm not a lawyer and I've never written rules for a complex game before. I'm just doing the best I can...

[Cecil XIX]

Don't worry about it Zim, we're happy to have you as our GM. As for construction prioritization, didn't PK use that to construct the Huge Walls at Antiokheia? Or was that when he was Megas Logothetes?

[TinCow]

At any point anyone is free to put up their own rule system or volunteer to take over gm duties. I put my own efforts towards doing so because nooone else seemed willing to at the time and I've found these games to be a big part of the fun I've had since coming to the Org. I'm not a lawyer and I've never written rules for a complex game before. I'm just doing the best I can...

I didn't mean to cause offense, I was just trying to spot potential problems before they occurred. I can tell you for a fact I wouldn't touch the GM spot with a 10 foot pole. I spent a year doing that for LotR, and for this game I just want to be a player. It is definitely a rewarding and fun job, particularly with the event system, but it does cause fatigue and I am currently fatigued.

I queried this earlier and apparently it is intended. I think the VH taxes are partly to slow expansion. I am inferring ownership lies with the conqueror, but because he can't recruit, it's not a very juicy prize. I think the wording was the result of some to and fro, though, so if you want to propose one or more alternatives, that might be helpful.

No, it's fine, I just wanted to make sure the wording was doing what it was intended to do. As it stands, it will certainly slow expansion. Towards the end, LotR instituted a rule system for full-on independence movements that split off sections of the Empire from the rest and gave them an element of autonomy. Part of that included jacking up taxes to VH, and that resulted in serious unrest and rebellions in any province without a major garrison. This will will probably have a greater impact on slowing expansion than anything else proposed, simply because after we've expanded beyond the most immediate territories, the conquering army will have to remain as a garrison until the next Council session due to the unrest level. It will be a very effective method of expansion control.

I wonder if you could redraft that to allow nobles to swear oaths to nobles of higher rank (only)? Also, could you clarify where the King stands in relation to oaths, as I recall - with some pique - Lothar saying he did not recognise the King as his liege; is that the official KotF position on Duke-King relations?

In LotR, no one could swear fealty to the Emperor, because nominally everyone was supposed to be a vassal of the Emperor. I think it would work the same way here. By allowing oaths to the King, you essentially imply that anyone who doesn't swear the oath isn't subordinate to the King, which just isn't true in our game.

[econ21]

At any point anyone is free to put up their own rule system or volunteer to take over gm duties.

I think I speak for everyone when I say we very much appreciate your volunteering to be the GM. It's big undertaking and I don't think anyone expects the GM to write all the rules - you just get to have the last say if you want it. I appreciate your consensual approach and your giving us time to brainstorm even at this late hour.

I am trying to avoid going to bed, so I can make a contribution on some of TCs other queries. One or two do raise issues that might merit more discussion, but most seem straightforward:

In Rule 2(c) - New Houses, ... why not just say it requires a Codex Amendment and leave it at that?

Yes, BTW, are we - as per Tristan's suggestion, going to call Codex Amendments, Proclamations?

In Rule 3(a), the word "Knight" in the second and third sentences should probably read "Noble."

Indubitably.

Rule 3(b) has a few issues. First, the ratification bit as worded requires that taxes be jacked up to the maximum immediately on conquest, even if the Council hasn't had an opportunity to ratify the conquest because a Council session hasn't occurred yet. Is this intentional? Who owns the province before it is ratified, in the time period between its conquest and the next Council session?

I queried this earlier and apparently it is intended. I think the VH taxes are partly to slow expansion. I am inferring ownership lies with the conqueror, but because he can't recruit, it's not a very juicy prize. I think the wording was the result of some to and fro, though, so if you want to propose one or more alternatives, that might be helpful.

The other queries you raise on 3b look like sensible cleaning up.

For Rule 3(c) - Retinue, does LTC include province titles as retinue? If not, the rule can be simplified by stripping out that language (which was added for SS 4.1 in LotR).

No and yes.

For Rule 3(d), it appears Wills are now pointless, as all inheritance issues are automatic. Was this intentional? If so, the last line can be stripped out and the word Wills should be removed from the title of the rule:

I suggest:

(d) - Wills & Inheritance: A landowning noble can bequeath his land if he deposits a will with the GM before his death. If there is no will, all land goes to his House or, if he has no House, to the King. All land in the King's Demesne is passed to the new King. A Duke can name his successor in his will; the King will choose one if he does not.

You could use the LotR clause, but it just fried half my brain, so caveat emptor, dear readers.

For Rule 3(e) - Oaths of Fealty, the rule was changed from its LotR wording to read "Any Independent Noble may swear an oath of fealty to any Duke whenever he wishes." There are no provisions for a Noble swearing to anyone but a Duke, but a Count cannot exist unless someone has sworn an Oath to him. Under the current rules, it is thus impossible to become a Count.

I wonder if you could redraft that to allow nobles to swear oaths to nobles of higher rank (only)? Also, could you clarify where the King stands in relation to oaths, as I recall - with some pique - Lothar saying he did not recognise the King as his liege; is that the official KotF position on Duke-King relations?

Rule 6(a) will likely need some extra editing because the proposed changes to PvP campaign movement make the bit about who moves first obsolete.

Yes, pls do include PvP movement Risk-style.

Rule 6(b), IMHO, could be better adapted to KotF. I think it would be nice to do more to force House warfare. If you declare war on someone in another House, you declare war with the entire House. In addition, I don't think vassals should be able to 'peace out' without the permission of the Duke of their House.

I thought 6(a) gets close to House warfare - all those below in the House are targets. Personally, I would rather make states of war totally free: you can declare war on anyone and that is it. If your vassal does not declare war on the person who is attacking you, that should be regarded as breaking an oath, but they should have that option IMO and if you are willing to let it go, so be it. (Presumably, a coup will start with one person declaring then some of the rats deserting the sinking ship).

(1) Why was the Prioritized Construction system removed? That worked fine and seemed popular in LotR and was one of the effective methods of avoiding a totally partisan Chancellor.

I have not heard of this system - sounds interesting.