Out of character thread XVI

[Zim]

No worries, Stuperman. I only considered it because Econ21 brought it up. If the idea is so universally despised I won'tpush the issue.

My own personal ambition right now for my character is remaining Count of Antwerp after the Cataclysm, and getting to fight some battles against he Danes and French.

Thank you for joining the fight for Recruitable Generals' rights! As spokesman fo the as of now single member club, We/I agree that dukeships and other high positions should be handed out for merit, at the descretion of the appointing official. We are not looking for handouts!

Is there somewhere I can see who hs recruitable generals, other than me and Deguerra? I might pm them.

Edit: I second the idea of voting for future fixes for the game. My vote will be for using the most recent one, of course.

[FactionHeir]

I cannot say whether a change will be for the "better", as that is wholly subjective: i.e. is better
- Characters gain more good traits and lose all bad traits
- Characters gain more bad traits and lose good traits
- Things become more balanced, with chances of gaining both good and bad traits
- And of course: Bugs are being fixed vs Bugs are being exploited

In the initial release of the fix, I was focussed more on fixing bugs and making good traits more available while reducing bad traits drastically, although to a less extreme extent than Medifix.
In the later stages, this has turned mostly on focussing on eliminating any remaining bugs and testing whether some conditions might trigger in unexpected ways (TC knows more about this from past PMs where he asked me about changes). Example of that would be that generals not inside a settlement, but inside the region when a building was finished (and not necessarily by their faction) would gain traits associated with its completion.
In the most recent versions, it has become less HRE-centric and focussed on balancing traits for factions overall (so musim nations are no longer left alone but balanced as well to christian ones). Also, I have started toning down how quickly good traits are gained from early versions and played around with trait thresholds for traits, that now have more than 1 trigger, so they aren't gained too quickly. Similarly, some bad traits have become worse and their chances have been upped either not at all or by 1-2%, depending on various factors.
Of course the other main changes throughout were addition of new triggers for less used or unused traits, so you get to see them more and define your character better. The biggest addition was a huge section on marriage and childbirth triggers, so fathers (and mothers!) have a large impact on how their offspring develop.

[Privateerkev]

Is there somewhere I can see who hs recruitable generals, other than me and Deguerra? I might pm them.

WH, RK, DG, you, and Deguerra all have RBG's. There is a 6th unclaimed one as well that someone might take if their avatar dies or we get a new player.

[FactionHeir]

There is a list in the first post of the C&G reports.

[Zim]

WH, RK, DG, you, and Deguerra all have RBG's. There is a 6th unclaimed one as well that someone might take if their avatar dies or we get a new player.

Gah! The acronyms, the horrible acronyms!
I'll start trying to figure out who those people are right now.

[Privateerkev]

Gah! The acronyms, the horrible acronyms!
I'll start trying to figure out who those people are right now.

There is also AG, OK, TC, WL, GH, SM, NN, and PK.

You will be quizzed...

[Zim]

Sadly, I think I can identify most of that second list...

For the first one:
WH=Warmaster Horus
RK= Roadkill
DG= Dutch_guy
Sound right?

[FactionHeir]

Except that noone actually uses SM or WL. Neither would anyone use E or e21 for that matter.

Btw, when someone first posted PK, I was confused, because it meant "Player Killer" up until then to me

[Privateerkev]

I use SM and I think I've used WL before.

Econ, Ig, gib, and mini-econ have yet to have their names butchered. Though they do get shortened.

(If I've left anyone out, I apologize...)

Oh wait! There is EF! :D

*edit*

and Cecil

[Dutch_guy]

Sadly, I think I can identify most of that second list...

For the first one:
WH=Warmaster Horus
RK= Roadkill
DG= Dutch_guy
Sound right?

Spot on.

[Zim]

And FH.
If I started going by ZM, would people stop calling me z i r n?

Dutch_guy, Woohoo! I got it in one try!

I use SM and I think I've used WL before.

Econ, Ig, gib, and mini-econ have yet to have their names butchered. Though they do get shortened.

(If I've left anyone out, I apologize...)

Oh wait! There is EF! :D

*edit*

and Cecil

[Privateerkev]

And FH.

sorry FH...

[econ21]

If the game ends in 2-3, then we won't set sail as you had insisted a few months back econ?

I want to continue this game as long as it is fun. I do want to sail to America. However, I think TC is right that we should take a sounding amongst the players in 20-30 turns and see whether we as a group do still find it fun or want to start a new PBM. A lot will depend on the internal politics and how challenging it is. Just before the cataclysm, I think it was starting to become a little quiet internally and externally. Right now, thanks to the cataclysm, neither is true. But who knows what it will be like in 30 turns?

WotS started to lag and virtually everyone recognised it was time to end it, even though we had a lot more to do (we had not come close to meeting EBs conditions for a Romani victory).

I have no problems settling this in a Diet vote. However, if that is to happen I first want a clarification from the Kaiser (econ21) about what the rule is at this moment. That makes a huge difference, as the 'opposition' to whatever he picks will then have to come up with a 2/3 majority.

PK is right that we started the game with the idea that the generals not on the family tree could not become Dukes. I think that gave some spice to the game. However, at that time, we did not have the idea of modding in recruitable generals. We thought the only people not on the family tree were the two Stewards.

When we did mod recruitables in we - or at least I - completely forgot about the idea that players not on the family tree could not be Dukes. And if I had thought about it, I would have been inclined to reject it as rather unfair on the Austrians (or newbies, or whoever) and overly restrictive.

I think we can regard the recruitables as more like self-made men - they don't have the blue blood family ties. But if a Duke wants to make them their successor, they can do.

[OverKnight]

Speaking as as someone who played one of the originial "self made man", I'm all for lifting OOC restrictions on what they can do. However, I'd like it if people kept IC insights on characters origins. Part of the fun playing Otto was wheeling and dealing to climb up the social ladder. He had a chip on his shoulder about his lesser origins, and it was part of what fueled his ambition.

So let's get rid of the OOC restrictions, but feel free to keep class bias as an IC notion.

Also unless recruitable generals are adopted into the Royal Family, they won't have their own kids, so there is still motivation for them to wiggle their way into the high nobility.

[Privateerkev]

Also unless recruitable generals are adopted into the Royal Family, they won't have their own kids, so there is still motivation for them to wiggle their way into the high nobility.

Also they can't be freehold counts, prince, or Kaiser.

I am also thinking of introducing a CA that demands that RBG's must crawl along the Diet floor and grovel any time they wish to address the body.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Oh, and I would like to take this opportunity to say that TC was right and I will now address him as "lord of charter interpretation" though I may cut it down to "Loci" for short.

[AussieGiant]

Regarding non family members or RGB's.

Things have moved on from when anything was written or first thought about, regarding RBG's.

I certainly like the idea IC of there being some kind of "class" system as PK has outlined but I would recommend letting the game flow and seeing if that occurs rather than interpreting a rule in any hard or fast fashion. All that is doing is "bending" things in a certain direction to suit an agenda.

If an RBG and the players controlling them are strong enough "in" and "out" of character to gain any position then so be it...let's have the game allow for it rather than making a rule for the sake of this "idea".

We have more than enough rules...I will always argue for letting the game flow and "seeing" what happens rather than micro analysing current "codifcation" and or passing further laws.

As OK states there are clear "in game" mechanics which will prevent them from certain things. But lets keep the restrictions IC rather than OOC in various laws.

[Privateerkev]

I certainly like the idea IC of there being some kind of "class" system as PK has outlined but I would recommend letting the game flow and seeing if that occurs rather than interpreting a rule in any hard or fast fashion. All that is doing is "bending" things in a certain direction to suit an agenda.

I wasn't "bending" anything. It really was how I saw the rules. Unless you claim that "perception" is really an inherent and subconscience "bending". By that interpretation, we all "bend" the rules every time we read the charter.

I'm playing a generic elector for a very long time so my stance on RBG's was certainly not to shape some sort of IC agenda. The class war idea was based on my own interpretation of the rules. To claim I was "bending" is to apply a certain amount of forethought and maliciousness to my actions that I simply do not believe applies.

I will demand your apology and that you here-after refer to me as the "deputy lord of charter interpretation."

[deguerra]

so I can be a Duke, but if I want to have kiddies, I must find myself a sassy royal wench. Capsice :D

[FactionHeir]

Or just get adopted and get a marriage proposal as the rest of us.

[Zim]

The tricky part about that is that there is now a low general to territory ratio. It might be tough to be adopted.

Most of the "rest of us"(them) were probably born into the family, if for no other reason than that Tincow had difficulty creating recruitable general characters until recently.

Edit: Great story, deguerra!

[FactionHeir]

Shouldn't take too long. I imagine within 2 chancellorships, it is entirely possible to reclaim all the lost territories, if no restrictions are set for conquest.

Also, being part of the family doesn't mean you will get married. Most of the current characters (and the recently deceased) were bachelors all their lives and some (like Arnold) still haven't been married. Hans only got married the turn he got himself killed, so that's almost a hundred turns since he's been in play.

[Privateerkev]

Most of the "rest of us"(them) were probably born into the family, if for no other reason than that Tincow had difficulty creating recruitable general characters until recently.

RBG's are actually a relatively new addition to the game. Our territories got pretty static so our avatars were not marrying or having children anymore.

We had new players join (WH and RK), but no avatars to give them in the houses they wanted, so there was an executive decision to let FH mod the game to allow RBG's

The parts of the charter that were in question (section 4.1-4.3) were to deal with the three beginning generals that the HRE starts out with.

Now, because of avatar death and new players we have more RBG's. Because of certain political and demographic circumstances, the question came up of making one Duke.

Some of us saw section 4 of the charter as outlawing such an act. Some did not. Econ ruled that an RBG can become Duke.

Finally AG mortally offended me and will be forced to pay horrible penance in the form of a large ice cream shake. Or beer...



And that is the RBG story in 5 minutes or less.

[Zim]

Very true, Factionheir. For some reason I read deguerra's post asking how to get into the royal family, not how to have children.

On a side note, Tincow had plans to get the next turn up sometime late this evening, and it's about 8 P.M. in his time zone (EST). Assuming he can do as planned, that means the next turn will be up in a couple hours!

Edit: Scratch that, the next turn is up!

[Ramses II CP]

Fritz is so not going to be popular.

[AussieGiant]

I wasn't "bending" anything. It really was how I saw the rules. Unless you claim that "perception" is really an inherent and subconscience "bending". By that interpretation, we all "bend" the rules every time we read the charter.

I'm playing a generic elector for a very long time so my stance on RBG's was certainly not to shape some sort of IC agenda. The class war idea was based on my own interpretation of the rules. To claim I was "bending" is to apply a certain amount of forethought and maliciousness to my actions that I simply do not believe applies.

I will demand your apology and that you here-after refer to me as the "deputy lord of charter interpretation."

Oh dear...PK, I read the same section you referred to and concluded that I saw nothing in the rules that restricts who can be Duke and who cannot.

Sound familiar??

therefore, from my point of view there was some bending going on to fit your idea...which I think is a good idea but should be left up to the gamers to decide IC rather than any attempt a preventing recruitable general becoming Dukes or Steward. In fact they should be allowed to atain these position because they can never become a Prinz or Kaiser due to the IC restrictions.

Am I allowed to have that opinion "oh deputy lord of charter interpretation".

[Zim]

Took a look at the save to decide on my character's actions and noted two gah worthy things.

1: Jan von der Pfalz is balding at 22, has almost no traits, and a loyalty decreasing trait. Poor guy, but I guess it'll fit in with my first story for him

2: There are a LOT of full stack Danish armies around northeastern Flanders and Franconia, and through the western half of Swabia.

Hmmm...I was thinking more Gah! than gah?, but the smilie will do.

[Privateerkev]

Oh dear...PK, I read the same section you referred to and concluded that I saw nothing in the rules that restricts who can be Duke and who cannot.

Sound familiar??

therefore, from my point of view there was some bending going on to fit your idea...which I think is a good idea but should be left up to the gamers to decide IC rather than any attempt a preventing recruitable general becoming Dukes or Steward. In fact they should be allowed to atain these position because they can never become a Prinz or Kaiser due to the IC restrictions.

Am I allowed to have that opinion "oh deputy lord of charter interpretation".

First off, Econ already ruled on this before your first post regarding this issue so your essentially debating with me over a "non-issue". ^^

Second, while you can certainly debate my interpretation of the rules, you will have a hard time convincing me that I did not actually believe that interpretation. Where you see bending, I simply perceived something. I did not have to look very hard to see my stance. It just popped out at me. I do not claim that those who held a different interpretation, somehow "bended". They just saw things differently. And their perception won out because of the power-relationship in the game. If your GM, you get to make your perception and conception of the game reality for the other players. "it's good to be the king"

You can disagree with that stance all you want but you will find it difficult to convince me that it was actually not my perception. I claim to be "lord-god-emperor" of knowledge regarding my perception. Therefore I will tell you whether I was bending anything or not and you will either believe it or you won't.

As for whether you can have an opinion, the "deputy lord of charter interpretation" will consider it if you get him a large milk shake. Or a beer. Or... a beer flavored milk shake. Mmmmmmmm.....

[AussieGiant]

First off, Econ already ruled on this before your first post regarding this issue so your essentially debating with me over a "non-issue". ^^

Second, while you can certainly debate my interpretation of the rules, you will have a hard time convincing me that I did not actually believe that interpretation. Where you see bending, I simply perceived something. I did not have to look very hard to see my stance. It just popped out at me. I do not claim that those who held a different interpretation, somehow "bended". They just saw things differently. And their perception won out because of the power-relationship in the game. If your GM, you get to make your perception and conception of the game reality for the other players. "it's good to be the king"

You can disagree with that stance all you want but you will find it difficult to convince me that it was actually not my perception. I claim to be "lord-god-emperor" of knowledge regarding my perception. Therefore I will tell you whether I was bending anything or not and you will either believe it or you won't.

As for whether you can have an opinion, the "deputy lord of charter interpretation" will consider it if you get him a large milk shake. Or a beer. Or... a beer flavored milk shake. Mmmmmmmm.....

So then...does all that apply to my opinion that:

I read the same section you referred to and concluded that I saw nothing in the rules that restricts who can be Duke and who cannot?

And yes Econ ruled so we have a result.

His decision doesn't magically remove the ability to discuss it, or in fact work out how one sentence can be interpretted in completely opposite directions.

Can you explain your thought process on it?

[Privateerkev]

So then...does all that apply to my opinion that:

I read the same section you referred to and concluded that I saw nothing in the rules that restricts who can be Duke and who cannot?

And yes Econ ruled so we have a result.

His decision doesn't magically remove the ability to discuss it, or in fact work out how one sentence can be interpreted in completely opposite directions.

Can you explain your thought process on it?

Alright, I'll just state that I'm not trying to beat a dead horse and am just answering AG's question. Econ ruled and I'm happy with it.

But here was where I was coming from:

I read that section of the charter and saw that generals could not be Dukes. I assumed that it carried forward to the present. That part of the charter was active at 1080. I thought things written in 1080 were good in 1332 since no one ever changed the law.

When I saw "generals", I thought it meant all "generals" in the game, period. Starting generals, generals gained through bribery, recruitable generals, ect...

I took the law and extended it to present day. We've done it before. We apply laws that were written in the game over 250 hundred years ago and keep using them until they are amended. Usually no one bats an eye over it.

For me it was an easy leap. It wasn't part of an IC agenda. If anything, playing a generic elector would make my character more sympathetic to the plight of the common self-made man.

Others read the charter differently. And people decided that since the law only applied to the beginning of the game, then it shouldn't hamstring us today. And that's cool with me. I am not really "anti-RBG" no matter how many "RBG groveling CA's" I may propose. I just read the charter a certain way and that informed my opinion on Econ's statement about Zim being Duke.

So, for me, the matter is settled. But that is how I arrived at my first stance on the issue and why.

[AussieGiant]

Alright, I'll just state that I'm not trying to beat a dead horse and am just answering AG's question. Econ ruled and I'm happy with it.

But here was where I was coming from:

I read that section of the charter and saw that generals could not be Dukes. I assumed that it carried forward to the present. That part of the charter was active at 1080. I thought things written in 1080 were good in 1332 since no one ever changed the law.

When I saw "generals", I thought it meant all "generals" in the game, period. Starting generals, generals gained through bribery, recruitable generals, ect...

I took the law and extended it to present day. We've done it before. We apply laws that were written in the game over 250 hundred years ago and keep using them until they are amended. Usually no one bats an eye over it.

For me it was an easy leap. It wasn't part of an IC agenda. If anything, playing a generic elector would make my character more sympathetic to the plight of the common self-made man.

Others read the charter differently. And people decided that since the law only applied to the beginning of the game, then it shouldn't hamstring us today. And that's cool with me. I am not really "anti-RBG" no matter how many "RBG groveling CA's" I may propose. I just read the charter a certain way and that informed my opinion on Econ's statement about Zim being Duke.

So, for me, the matter is settled. But that is how I arrived at my first stance on the issue and why.

Ok that's very clear.

Which sentence was the one that made it clear for you? I can't see it...which probably could be how we have come to opposite views on the issue.