I don't mind if we continue the trial - it does not take much of my time - but I can't see us overcoming the pacing problem with anything like our decentralised rules. Maybe some players will like that kind of pace, but I don't think it's for me.

It might be useful to think of alternative rules. But also, the trial is making me think about what it is I or others like about PBMs - and WotS in particular.

Just of the top of my head:

1) It's nice to be "King" - to play the game, for a period of time. It has to be long enough to be involving but short enough to give others a chance. 20 turns seemed right for the early game; maybe it was too long for the late game, I don't know.

2) Having the motions and voting added spice, for the same reason that playing the game in a PBM rather than solo is fun - because you are not doing the "same old, same old" strategies and ploys you do in your solo game. You might be given objectives or targets that are quite different from what you are used to.

3) Playing battles with your general was fun - you get to play the game, if only for a night, even when you are not king. The incentive of getting battles also was perhaps the strongest driver behind the politics in the PBM.

4) Writing - and reading - stories was fun. We maybe did not do that enough in the WotS but some good stuff has come up with the Civil War.

5) Roleplaying your character was fun - some people created very memorable characters, as evidenced in the HoF nominations.

6) Watching your character grow and climb up the ladder of Roman leadership traits (tribune => legate => praetor etc) was fun. (Although we did rather jump over that towards the end).

Decentralisation does not seem "central" to any of the above. I can see Lucjan's point that tying you to a place may help you roleplay your character and shape the politics. But it is only one dimension that could define your character - and not even a dimension explicit in the game (there are no titles per se). We could device an age/rank mechanic like the Roman leadership traits; we could emphasise the piety/chivalry/loyalty stats and try to build on them.

Perhaps we should brainstorm ideas that enhance the half a dozen fun things I've listed about PBMs (and any other desirable aspects of PBMs that people identify). For example, how could we encourage more story writing or more vivide characters?

If a key driver in WotS was the chance for your general to fight battles, perhaps we should focus ideas around that, rather than around somewhat arbitrary attachments to place. For example, could we work out a system of promotions: squire => knight => Duke => Chancellor or something? The expectation would be that younger generals would hang out with an older one (like the Tribunes in WotS) and gradually inherit their commands? (Vices and virtues seem to conspire to cripple governors who stay at home). Promotions could even be things people voted on, so you would have to make a case for your promotion. They could be based on your tactical skills, on your writing skills (bard?), on your wisdom in guiding the discussion of statecraft, as well as on your lobbying and the power of your sponsor(s).

Basically, I think we should continue to explore the decentralisation issue but also think about alternative or supplementary means to improve on WotS.