KOTF OOC Thread

[_Tristan_]

I fully apologize to OK if he feels I reached too far and impinged on his powers and ruined the fun he might have ingame...

Though the result may not seem what it is, my only intention was to use what little freedom OK granted me over the save and grab it to try and create a situation which would create some IC drama... I never intended for it to become some OOC drama as well (though that seems a poor choice of words, in retrospect...)

Once again, I apologize to Overknight and would agree to start playing anew from the previous save (I don't know if I have a savegame post-battle... If not I'd kindly request to be allowed to fight it anew...)

Sorry all for the bother, but as King I feel a responsability to make the game interesting and create some strong character interactions (hence my tirade against Alain or my running in the Election against Hugues)... All this stems from a good sentiment and not from some will to create a game of my own...

If need be I'll edit my post in the Conseil to reflect the changes wished by the GM/the players.

[Braden]

Spotted this late last night and didn't respond (too late on).

1 - If the move had IC motivation and supporting presidence (i.e. some build up stories) then I'm more inclined to sit in the "sort it IC" camp.

2 - I will stand by the ruling Zim has put forward OOC

3 - This "can" pose an interesting debate IC with the Seneschal over-rulling the King (Cromwell vs. King Charles anyone?), IF the two opponents want to run with it IC.

4 - Using the previous save does not infringe on working on point 3. It could be the King has moved, unauthorised towards an agreement with England but the Seneschal found out and put a stop to it. This doesn't me the opposing Kings haven't made a backroom agreement that may yet come into fruition at a later date...

5 - Last night I had visions of me putting on my Trial hat again as the Council put the King on trial for treason! On a side note, I'm happy to do that again for this PBE if needed...an Inquisitor though might be needed to convict a King however (Alfonso De Torqumada might be on duty).

In the end, think I'll agree that we run from the previous save (after I moved Henri to Metz I believe) but we have a vein of IC conflict here we can mine...try to use it.

[AussieGiant]

This move has more OOC rule breaks than I care to list.

If anyone wants me to list them, then just ask. I'd even say I'd be able to push TC's legal brain in a corner of legal certainty on this.

The "meaning of the entire rule as understood by the average person" would be my immediate focal point and not the legalise version so prevalent in some parts of the world i.e. USA.

Suffice to say there is more than enough grounds for OK to decline the save if he so wishes.

Therefore it's up to him at this critical point which direction we move in.

IF, he accepts the save, then we do have ourselves a humdinger of an event that would rapidly take most of our time in an emergency session of some magnitude.

IF, he doesn't then he can take the save and move on right now. He's given everyone over 24 hours already so he is well within his rights to simply move forward and let ANYONE do what they want NEXT turn.

-----------------------------

My question is, can we refer to the OOC rules as our IC "charter" as part of the deliberations?

I've never seen anyone other than the Chancellor, Megas, Seneschal move or conduct actions based on Agents in three games. That indicates to me that everyone understands the meaning of the rules in question.

If you want to nit pick and use arguments like "Only" in a sentence, then we will rapidly have ourselves an OOC rule debate that will stop this game in it's tracks. Why, because you will need to do exactly what the US legal system does. That is write a rule of one sentence, and then provide 4 pages of explanation so every single loop hole of language is addressed.

It will get ugly.

-----------------------------

So how about we just get OK to make a call on this?

The only other person I can see here intervening is Zim.

-----------------------------

EDIT

Keep in mind the opportunities and actions some of the more medievally minded people here could make with a legal system in which specific mean is not addressed in the rules!!!???

[OverKnight]

Zim and TheFlax may make this an event if they want as has been mentioned:

(e) - Events: Whenever they desire, but no more often than once every 10 turns, Zim, TheFlax, or anyone they choose may create an in-game Event. Events are not limited in scope, subject matter, or method of implementation. All game rules can be violated to implement an Event. The players can prevent the implementation of any single Event through a simple majority of unweighted votes.

Of course we could then vote on implementation.

I'm going to take a look at the save.

[OverKnight]

I have looked at the two latest saves.

I considered two options: 1. Immediately playing on from 1096-4 save. The IC result would be that the Seneschal caught wind of a proposed alliance with England and quashed it. Following this Hugues cancelled the funds for the mercenaries that Philippe requested, leaving the King unable to move on the Kaiser.

2. Accepting the latest save. The IC result would be that Hugues would immediately cancel the new alliance with the diplomat in Paris and call for an Emergency Session.

Option number two is tempting. However, there are ways within the current rules for Philippe to get what he wants that would be just as dramatic. Perhaps it would be riskier and take longer to implement, but I haven't even completed one turn as Seneschal in almost four days.

Allowing this violation of the rules would, I believe, set a dangerous precedent. Others might try "dramatic" actions with a save, hoping that they would receive retroactive permission to do so if what they did created IC conflict. Such fishing expeditions would, I believe, cause further delays in game play and prolonged rules discussions.

The next turn should begin in a few hours.

[Braden]

I have looked at the two latest saves.

I considered two options: 1. Immediately playing on from 1096-4 save. The IC result would be that the Seneschal caught wind of a proposed alliance with England and quashed it. Following this Hugues cancelled the funds for the mercenaries that Philippe requested, leaving the King unable to move on the Kaiser.

Hoping we’ve gone for option 1 here! IC it pits the Royal family more directly against the Council, sides will be draw up that won’t have an impact for a good few turns and I’d love to read the IC story around this from both sides.

[Braden]

OK I’m a little concerned with the oddities being displayed by the game currently, the last two battles have had what can only be described as “Bugs” in them mainly revolving around them being classed for some reason as Night-Fights.

Must admit that my archers have ALWAYS defaulted to Fire Arrows for all my test battles so far…was this the case from the onset?

Whilst getting the night-fight trait can be seen as good, are we experiencing some potential issues that will compound later?

(on a semi-related note, in one of my test games my monarch was 18 and my biological son was “born” at age 29!! Seen this sort of thing many years back in Rome, which was fixed, same bug perhaps?)

[econ21]

My question is, can we refer to the OOC rules as our IC "charter" as part of the deliberations?

This question has been nagging away at me right from when I entered the discussion when the group was finalising the rules. I know TC separated the OOC rules from the IC amendments in LotR, but I just can't get my head around that separation.

Some of the OOC rules represent "physics" - what is physically possible. How many troops can fit on a ship is one example. With such rules, it is right that they be set OOC and not subject to IC manipulation. With the KotR rules, they were the "starred" rules that could not be changed.

The problem is that almost every other OOC rule (apart from the ships) make mores sense as representing the constraints of "politics" - what is politically possible. As such, it seems valid to refer to them as our IC "Charter", although somewhat odd that they are changed OOC rather than IC. I think the way TC reconciled this to me was by saying we might debate things IC and then if we reach a decision IC, we vote OOC to bring the rules into line with that decision. That seems to be the best way to live with the system we have now.

So taking the current case, the way to think about it seems to be as OK intimated - we are not role-playing an absolute monarchy. Convention has dictated that only the Seneschal may direct agents and conduct diplomacy (and spend money etc.). The agents simply won't obey the King or anyone else unless he comes with the Seneschal's seal of authorisation[1].

Now we could have an IC dispute about this and if the King won an amendment with a 2/3 Conseil vote IC that he could conduct diplomacy, there would be a strong case for changing the OOC rules through an OOC vote to allow him to do so.

So I guess the short answer is that I think it would be appropriate to refer to (almost all of) the OOC rules as our IC Charter and the unwritten rules as a kind of "common law", binding conventions.



[1]We could relax this in a GM event or if the Seneschal OOC agreed to go along with some wheeze like Tristan tried for story reasons, but neither case applies here.

[Cecil XIX]

Looks like I missed the window between the beginning and end of a fairly big problem. Would've posted earlier today otherwise.

For the record I agree with OK. flyd's history lesson was also instructive, and supports my instinct on the matter: If the rules don't say you can do something, than you can't. For the sake of our sanity, and to keep AG's head from exploding (), I believe this is the best policy.

Regarding the distinction between OOC and IC rules, I think it's necessary for one simple reason: We players may want different things than our avatars.

The players want drama and excitement, generally speaking, and that requires difficulty and challenge. Our avatars, like most sane people, don't want to make things any more difficult for themselves than they have to be.

Thus, OOC rules changes are necessary because there are some things which are could for the game because they make things harder for our avatars. The boat rule econ mentioned is a good example. Wouldn't all of our avatars want to be able to transport a full stack on only one boat? Yet we agreed to it OOC because what was inconvienent for the avatar was better for the game and the players.

Simply put, I think OOC rule changes are necessary so we can make life harder for our avatars for the sake of our own amusement.

...Rereading AG's question and econ's answer, I'm suddenly wondering if I just answered a question no one asked.

[AussieGiant]

So lets carry on.

Otherwise my head may indeed explode and that's just going to be quite a mess all round.

[_Tristan_]

I'm not sure like how things are developing here...

I understand how pissed OK may be over the move (which has been negated btw) but is that reason enough to negate any valid moves I've made prior to the unvalid diplomacy...