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).