Successor game rules, draft one.

[econ21]

Picking up something from the PvP movement thread:

(Note to econ21: Be aware that the whole * marked rule system has been abolished. Rule Changes can now change any aspect of the rules at any point. Rule Changes are also now completely divorced from IC business and are passed by unweighted votes, with the GM having a veto over any Rule Change proposal before it even goes to the vote. Edicts and Amendments are now wholly IC in nature, and are considered temporary IC laws and permanent IC laws respectively. Rules can still require OOC enforcement of the unpleasant kind, which you are familiar with, but Edict and Amendments are now enforced only IC. If someone breaks an Edict or Amendment, they are perfectly free to get away with it unless the players make moves to enforce a punishment.)

Thanks - I confess I am almost completely ignorant of the LotR experience and I did miss the above from reading the KotF rules. To clarify, does this imply that everything in the rules can only be changed OOC by rules changes? Or can some/all of it be changed by amendments?

I am just thinking that some rules are about what you could regard as "physics" (e.g. how far can an army move); others are more about political rules (e.g. a Count must be in a House). It would seem inappropriate to vote IC on the former, but appropriate on the latter. If so, is it worth labelling some rules as IC and some as OOC?

House/Rank changes are still major works in progress

I've probably asked you this before, but are there any issues with the draft rules on House/Rank that we should give a little more thought to before we start? Are they unchanged from LotR? Andres has picked up one point, but there are probably others - the rules are quite complex.

Finally, some comments about House/Rank not specifically directed to TC:

I wondered about the rule that RBGs cannot inherit Duchies. This implies that - once the three starter generals are dead - the four starter Houses must all become "Royal" in some way. And RBGs who aspire to be Dukes must start their own House (and then ultimately bequeath it Given the vote on Steward Dukes, is this intended?

Related to Andres' question, on the same quoted rules for Count - I wonder if we could substitute "Baron" for "landowning vassal" under requirements? Presumably, you can only be a vassal to someone of higher rank and only Barons are lower than Counts and can hold land.

I wonder, do we need Counts to be part of Houses? If we remove that requirement, then new Houses may be able to be formed more "organically".

The rules on requirements for a Duke don't see to include the possibility of becoming a Duke via a 2/3 vote (2c).

A somewhat unrelated point - is there a reason for not allowing players to state which unit to prioritise? The quotas are not that generous, so I don't think the Kingdom would suffer too much from letting them pick (and presumably get the best available). If it is just economics, bear in mind that unit upkeep - which in the long run dwarfs purchase cost - seems pretty unrelated to combat power. (For example, armoured spearmen and sergeant spearmen have the same upkeep.) And I think most of us, in SP games, would try to recruit the best available units. At the very least, I think there should be a clause about not recruiting militia or peasant units if there are superior ones available. (It would be frustrating to ask for infantry and be given peasants, when armoured spears were available).

[TinCow]

Thanks - I confess I am almost completely ignorant of the LotR experience and I did miss the above from reading the KotF rules. To clarify, does this imply that everything in the rules can only be changed OOC by rules changes? Or can some/all of it be changed by amendments?

Nothing in the rules can be changed by Edicts or Amendments, nor can Edicts or Amendments contradict the game rules. If it's written in the rules, you have to use a Rule Change to alter it. For a long time now I've thought of it like a D&D rule set. The rules are the mechanics that define the world we roleplay in, and thus they cannot be altered by the characters within that world. I see what you mean about Counts having to be in Houses, and that is a bit more of an IC intrusion into the rule system than LotR had, however it's one of the only ones and it isn't too bad. In any case, my experience from LotR was that people were extremely good at differentiating IC and OOC when it came to tweaking the rules. When a problem became apparent with the rule system, or an improved method was proposed, people very often voted for it even if it went against their interests. As such, if it becomes a problem to have House membership requirements for Counts (or anything similar) I would be very, very surprised if it was difficult to pass a Rule Change to modify this.

This whole shift was the result of some... difficulties... with players taking IC issues OOC and vice versa. A lot of that was due to the added tension caused by the built-in PvP mechanics. With the potential stakes upped, people got more passionate about things that occurred to their avatars. Attempts on my part to fix the problems with a combination of Moderator/GM powers did not satisfy everyone. If you hadn't noticed, Privateerkev has not logged onto the forums since last September. That is directly related to the problems we had. After the new system was introduced, we never had a single problem like this again.

I've probably asked you this before, but are there any issues with the draft rules on House/Rank that we should give a little more thought to before we start? Are they unchanged from LotR?

They are significantly simplified from LotR, which is a good thing and is an improvement in itself. The current draft of the system is experimental in its own way, but the entire rank structure is very modular and easy to tweak as the game goes along. In LotR, several ranks and many rank powers were added or altered in mid-game without it causing any problems. I think we'll be fine, because the current system leans more towards the basic than the complex. From experience in these games, it's pretty easy to add in more detail mid-game, but it's very hard to strip it out. Best to keep it simple and build than go the other direction.

[TinCow]

I wondered about the rule that RBGs cannot inherit Duchies. This implies that - once the three starter generals are dead - the four starter Houses must all become "Royal" in some way. And RBGs who aspire to be Dukes must start their own House (and then ultimately bequeath it Given the vote on Steward Dukes, is this intended?

This is new in KotF, best if Zim or someone else answered that one. In LotR, RBGs were not handled any differently from family members except to the limits imposed on them by the game engine (can't become Heir, Faction Leader, etc).

Related to Andres' question, on the same quoted rules for Count - I wonder if we could substitute "Baron" for "landowning vassal" under requirements? Presumably, you can only be a vassal to someone of higher rank and only Barons are lower than Counts and can hold land.

Sounds sensible to me.

I wonder, do we need Counts to be part of Houses? If we remove that requirement, then new Houses may be able to be formed more "organically".

This is a change from LotR, which allowed "organic" House formation. After the game was over, the consensus was that LotR allowed too much freedom in this area and a desire was expressed to return to the more structured KotR system. I personally am still fond of the free-form LotR system, but I think I'm in the minority.

The rules on requirements for a Duke don't see to include the possibility of becoming a Duke via a 2/3 vote (2c).

This needs to be fixed. It appears to be an inconsistency due to modifications to the LotR rules that haven't been uniformly implemented throughout the set.

A somewhat unrelated point - is there a reason for not allowing players to state which unit to prioritise? The quotas are not that generous, so I don't think the Kingdom would suffer too much from letting them pick (and presumably get the best available). If it is just economics, bear in mind that unit upkeep - which in the long run dwarfs purchase cost - seems pretty unrelated to combat power. (For example, armoured spearmen and sergeant spearmen have the same upkeep.) And I think most of us, in SP games, would try to recruit the best available units. At the very least, I think there should be a clause about not recruiting militia or peasant units if there are superior ones available. (It would be frustrating to ask for infantry and be given peasants, when armoured spears were available).

In LotR, it was to allow the Megas (Chancellor) to 'stiff' his opponents and to keep the emphasis on the Megas being a powerful friend and a dangerous enemy. Given that we're backing away from that now, this can probably be changed without having an impact on rule complexity. If you're curious, here is the formal discussion that was had on the changes to the army rules. It was a group effort and massively simplified the system, which was becoming extremely difficult to deal with because of the large number of 'Royal Armies' and 'Private Armies' roaming around. The old army rules were actually the area of the rules that caused the OOC/IC conflicts I mentioned earlier.

[econ21]

Thanks, TC, - the thread on army ownership was very insightful. Some others unfamiliar with LotR might want to read it to better understand how this game will work. I don't think I have fully got my head around the army ownership and rank rules yet, but I am getting there.

Ironically, the reason for not specifying the prioritised unit(s) - to allow for getting stiffed by the Chancellor - was the reason I queried it. I was seeing the whole point of prioritisation as a protection against being stiffed by the Chancellor.

The "rules change" procedure is very sensible. We muddled through the IC/OOC ammendments in KotR well enough, but the mish-mash was ungainly.

[Zim]

I used "landowning vassal" to more easily allow for the creation of any new ranks between Count and Baron without having to both make a rule change adding the new one and changing language in the old one. There is also the issue of counts swearing to eachother, likely to happen with larger Houses (at least if their dukes try to keep them very hierarchical, you could also just have multiple branches down from the Duke).

With prioritized units the Chancellor loses some of his power. I'm not sure we should take away his power to control what exact units are recruited. If the position gets too weak people might be less inclined to run for it. It's a lot of work as is...

[econ21]

There is also the issue of counts swearing to eachother, likely to happen with larger Houses (at least if their dukes try to keep them very hierarchical, you could also just have multiple branches down from the Duke).

So oaths of fealty can be between players of the same rank? I thought the whole point about different feudal ranks was to identify where you stood on the vassalage chain. It might be better to restrict oaths of fealty to be to players of higher rank on the KISS principle. New ranks can always be introduced by rules changes, but what we have seems ample to me.

With prioritized units the Chancellor loses some of his power. I'm not sure we should take away his power to control what exact units are recruited. If the position gets too weak people might be less inclined to run for it. It's a lot of work as is...

From a rules design point of view, priorisation just seems meaningless if you ask for infantry and are given peasants. And from a historical plausibility point of view, it does not seem to fit the decentralised feudal vibe we are going for. With about 25 players signed up, at the moment, I would not worry too much about a lack of candidates for Chancellor yet.

[Zim]

In medieval France feudal chains could be quite confusing, with two equals holding land as "vassals" of eachother...

If I change it we still won't have a neat hierarchy, and Houses over 3 or so people will likely end up with the Duke and several different branches (in fact, they would have to). Not neccessarily a bad thing, but for something like the Order from LOTR, which was a House set up as a military order, it might make sense to keep the chain as a neat line rather than a little tree like the family one.

Re: Prioritization I'm reluctant to change something that worked fine in LOTR and received no complaints. It gives the Chancellor a way to passive aggressively retaliate against a House he dislikes, without going to outright war (and with the way our pvp rules are shaping up, he has almost no role during a civil war). It was never a heavily used power, not even that strong of one, and using it likely makes you a permanant enemy.

Do we want to change the FM requirement for heirs of Dukes? I didn't anticipate so many people. Not sure how long it will take to get adoptions, and we're going to have starting permanant RGB Dukes anyway...

[ULC]

I think it would be a good idea to allow a Duke to name anyone as his successor - nothing like a Mini-Siegfried event to stir things up

[econ21]

In medieval France feudal chains could be quite confusing, with two equals holding land as "vassals" of eachother...

I can imagine. It's common in developing countries for people to loan each other money (simultaneously), essentially to establish a relationship of mutual support. But please, Zim, trying to simulate something that was "quite confusing" at the time is not always a virtue. I guess it's because I missed LotR, but I am struggling to understand our House/Rank rules and I doubt I am the only one. We surely don't want to allow two Barons to promote themselves both to Counts just by swearing allegiance to each other? It's starting to do my head in.

If I change it we still won't have a neat hierarchy, and Houses over 3 or so people will likely end up with the Duke and several different branches (in fact, they would have to). Not neccessarily a bad thing, but for something like the Order from LOTR, which was a House set up as a military order, it might make sense to keep the chain as a neat line rather than a little tree like the family one.

I think a military order could work out their own seniority rule informally, we don't need to have it in the game rules. In every military, there is a tree like structure of ranks (multiple sergeants, captains etc) but then additional rules to establish chain of command. At least, that's what I remember from innumberable viewings of the film Zulu, when the two British lieutenants at the start establish who's in charge by date of commission.

Do we want to change the FM requirement for heirs of Dukes? I didn't anticipate so many people. Not sure how long it will take to get adoptions, and we're going to have starting permanant RGBs anyway...

I'm tempted to go for KISS again and drop all distinctions between FM and RGBs except those created by the game engine. I like the idea of Dukes being FMs, as then the game engine will allow them to start dynasties. But I think you are right and the number of players could put a strain on such a requirement.

with the way our pvp rules are shaping up, he has almost no role during a civil war.

To be honest, we have not got very far with the PvP rules yet. But if prioritisation is left as it is, then the case for introducing some mechanic for non-Chancellor recruitment in a civil war seems overwhelming.

[Cecil XIX]

From a rules design point of view, priorisation just seems meaningless if you ask for infantry and are given peasants. And from a historical plausibility point of view, it does not seem to fit the decentralised feudal vibe we are going for. With about 25 players signed up, at the moment, I would not worry too much about a lack of candidates for Chancellor yet.

I don't know if I argued this very strongly back when we were deciding it (or at all, man that seems like a long time ago), or even at all, but I agree completely. Since no player can prioritize a large number of units quickly, you're still pretty vulnerable if the Chancellor isn't spending any money on your armies and provinces. Even a King only gets 5 units per term, which averages to 1 regiment every two turns. And most avatars will probably be Barons, who only get 2 units per Chancellor's Term. That works out to getting one unit every 5 turns! That may be all right for FH with his lancers, or Ramses with his HA, but for the most of us that's not enough to get by on even if we could choose what we got!

Currently, you can specify whether you're prioritizing infantry, cavalry, or archers right? That means at most the chancellor just has to give you is units of peasants, peasant archers or mounted sergeants. I'm guessing mounted sergeants are the most useful, but still. You can hardly call that insurance against a hostile chancellor, especially if he's pumping money in to the armies and provinces of your enemies while your getting nothing. (Sound familar, Zim? )

I would propose that we alter the rule to allow players to prioritze units, but give them the option to choose what units they want, providing that those units can be recruited from settlements they control. If you have a good castle or the like, it should help your ability to prioritize.

No matter who strong you are, you're at a big disadvantage if you're not getting any money. That's still true under this proposed change, with the bonus that players and houses that have a Chancellor who's their determined enemy can still maintain a reduced, but not impotent power base. In my opinion, this is the change that is most essential to KotF.

And as econ said, this is more in line with the fuedal feel we're going for.