Successor game rules, draft one.

[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.