Successor game rules, draft one.

[econ21]

I am a bit worried about the possibility of Nobles being able to switch houses. One of the great things about KOTR was the factional squabbling between the houses. It was great! In LOTR, however, houses were too fluid, and it killed any real friction, because as soon as someone got sick of the house leader, they just formed their own house.

That's an important issue to consider - especially if the noble leaving, leaves with their lands, as presumably they will. I did not play LotR so I am not sure how this will all play out. Under the current rules, as I understand them, the person leaving the House will take their land? The Duke will have the right to declare war on the departing noble on the grounds that he is oath-breaker and if so all the Dukes other vassals will also be at war (at least in name, I cant see we can force them to fight or switch sides). The Duke will presumably have a military edge, so any conflict would presumably depend on the attitude of the other Houses. If they support the breakaway noble, then I imagine he could get away with it.

If all of the above is true, it sounds reasonably ok to me - the penalties are very politically dependent, with some weight in favour of the Duke but not insurmountable. If a Duke alienates all his vassals, he could be deposed - which again seems ok. We could hardwire more support for the Duke into the rules, but I think governing (by Dukes etc) does require some consent.

Is the above how other people see things? How does it relate to what happened in LotR? Were the same rules in play there, but there was too much fluidity between houses?

[Ignoramus]

That's an important issue to consider - especially if the noble leaving, leaves with their lands, as presumably they will. I did not play LotR so I am not sure how this will all play out. Under the current rules, as I understand them, the person leaving the House will take their land? The Duke will have the right to declare war on the departing noble on the grounds that he is oath-breaker and if so all the Dukes other vassals will also be at war (at least in name, I cant see we can force them to fight or switch sides). The Duke will presumably have a military edge, so any conflict would presumably depend on the attitude of the other Houses. If they support the breakaway noble, then I imagine he could get away with it.

If all of the above is true, it sounds reasonably ok to me - the penalties are very politically dependent, with some weight in favour of the Duke but not insurmountable. If a Duke alienates all his vassals, he could be deposed - which again seems ok. We could hardwire more support for the Duke into the rules, but I think governing (by Dukes etc) does require some consent.

Is the above how other people see things? How does it relate to what happened in LotR? Were the same rules in play there, but there was too much fluidity between houses?

In LotR, I think it was the same, but it was really hard for house leaders to stomp on rebellious vassals. The large distances involved really added to this problem. When I was Emperor, trying to attack rebellious players was impossible, due to the large distances. In KotF, we shouldn't have as big a problem.

My main concern is that without players being really committed to a particular house, things can sometimes get disorganised and it's hard to find something to fight for.