Possible LotR Successor Game discussion thread

[TinCow]

Fair enough and I'm glad you posted a counter position to mine Zim. "Perception is everything" in many ways.

A lot of development went into LotR and I certainly think certain things must be included and melded with KotR. A "super set" of slimmed down rules from both would be ideal.

I think our views of KOTR can sometimes be clouded a bit by the Illuminati-effect. One of the reasons KOTR is remembered so fondly is that there was a dedicated group of people who decided to play the bad guys over the long term. This in turn encouraged other people to become similarly dedicated in their opposition to the bad guys, resulting initially in a subtle political struggle and eventually moving into open warfare. From my perspective, it wasn't the KOTR rules that caused this, it was the players themselves: the Illuminati who played the bad guys and the loyalists who then stood up against them.

I would be interested in hearing Northnovas' perspective on this, because I distinctly remember being told that he was very bored with KotR and was close to dropping out. One of the reasons we invited him into the Illuminati was to make the game more interesting for him. After that, he was a major player the entire time. If this is in fact true, the only thing that caused Northnovas' feelings about the game to shift was the Illuminati.

I may very well be biased here, because this game was my brain child. I definitely made huge mistakes with the rule system which cause serious, long-term problems. However, from my perspective as an impartial observer of the game from the very beginning, it seemed like no one every really took much of a lead in the game. I always felt like I had to do things myself to inject conflict and excitement into the game, and that wasn't how it was designed to work. LotR was meant to be a RPG sandbox game. It was designed to let people have a lot of freedom in their actions. Yet it felt to me like people were always waiting around for someone else to do something to cause the excitement.

There were a couple early sparks, like Elite Ferret getting kicked out of his House, but these were always soothed over and everyone tried to be friends. That's the perfect way to act in the real world, but it's damned boring in a game. The first person who took a lead on generating conflict was, not surprisingly, Ignoramus. Iggy played the only true 'villain' we had in LotR and while he did a great job, always remaining consistent in his actions, it took FOREVER for anyone to stand up to him. His blatant abuses of power were handled with a CA banning him from automatically taking the Megas position. That's it, that was his only penalty. The first time anyone really stood up to him was when Tristan stopped him from marrying off his daughter, and even then I had to step in and use my powers to try and make that conflict serious.

It was only about a month or two ago that people finally DID catch on to what was needed and what was possible. Ignoramus, YLC, Ramses, Cecil, Zim, TheFlax, Ibn... all of these people stepped out of the 'friend zone' everyone was playing in and decided to shake things up. Suddenly, the game became exciting, but unfortunately the damage had already been done.

I personally don't think it truly matters which rule system is used. I think a new game based on the KotR rules could be a massive success or a massive failure. I think a new game based on the LotR rules could be a massive success or a massive failure. The determining factor, IMO, is whether the players decide to take risks and rile up the system. No matter how good the rules, a game will be dull if this doesn't happen. No matter how agonizingly bad the rules (well, within reason), a game will be exciting if the players give it exciting plotlines.

These games are sandbox games. Sandbox games give players the tools to do whatever they want, but they have to create their own entertainment. If everyone just sits in the sandbox waiting for someone else to start building something interesting, eventually they'll all get bored and go home. Or someone will pee in the sandbox.

[Zim]

I thought this was interesting. I certainly agree that it's more players that drive game activity than rules, especially players willing to go against the grain.

I think I should mention that things could be tough for those of us joining late and out of the loop. Unlike players inside the conflict I was pretty oblivious concerning the Illuminati. People talked a little about a secret group but it was represented to me more as an obsession of Jan's than anything else.

Then a couple times when I tried to get more involved (considering a run for Chancellor and then later trying to be involved in the investigation Cecil was doing) I was rebuffed by one or more Illuminati members.

The story came together wonderfully at the end of the game and I see it as one of KotR's greatest accomplishments. However, I can truthfully say that for a few of us newer guys activity was stifled rather than encouraged by the group. Perhaps if I had taken up a banner against it things would have been different.

On the note of influence, I agree that it wasn't paid attention to much. Caps tended to be low and not many of us had the uberstats needed to have much influence, no matter the rank. I remember it being pretty much the Basileus with a lot of influence, former Megas' with 2 or 3, and lots of 1s...

I think our views of KOTR can sometimes be clouded a bit by the Illuminati-effect. One of the reasons KOTR is remembered so fondly is that there was a dedicated group of people who decided to play the bad guys over the long term. This in turn encouraged other people to become similarly dedicated in their opposition to the bad guys, resulting initially in a subtle political struggle and eventually moving into open warfare. From my perspective, it wasn't the KOTR rules that caused this, it was the players themselves: the Illuminati who played the bad guys and the loyalists who then stood up against them.

I would be interested in hearing Northnovas' perspective on this, because I distinctly remember being told that he was very bored with KotR and was close to dropping out. One of the reasons we invited him into the Illuminati was to make the game more interesting for him. After that, he was a major player the entire time. If this is in fact true, the only thing that caused Northnovas' feelings about the game to shift was the Illuminati.

[Ignoramus]

I think we should have the ability to form new Duchies but it should be harder than convincing a few people to switch votes. Maybe requiring the official approval of the King in order to legitimise it? The Kaiser in KotR had quite an important role in assigning new provinces, which meant that Houses couldn't afford to risk alienating him. If the King could officially sanction rebels of Dukes then it would create a sense of risk to go against him.

I also think that LotR flopped because of a lack of competition. There was simply too much land to go around. No one threw the kitchen sink into to getting a certain province.

A key element in KotR was stability. The four duchies were there to stay, and so you could make long term plans. In LotR, you were never sure whether a house would exist by the next term which made alliances riskier.

[Cecil XIX]

I think we should have the ability to form new Duchies but it should be harder than convincing a few people to switch votes. Maybe requiring the official approval of the King in order to legitimise it? The Kaiser in KotR had quite an important role in assigning new provinces, which meant that Houses couldn't afford to risk alienating him. If the King could officially sanction rebels of Dukes then it would create a sense of risk to go against him.

This is a very good idea.