Successor game rules, draft one.

**TinCow** · 07-10-2009, 23:36

Originally Posted by econ21

That's a lot of questions, TC.

To be honest, I suspect Zim and most of us would be happy for you to present your preferred rewording as in most cases it sounds like its a question of tidying up and logic.

I'd be more than happy to. Indeed, I started to do so while consolidating them, but realized I was changing things without approval and I didn't want to do that. Thus the above list. I want to give people some time to chime in on things before I whip out the editing pen on the actual draft.

Personally, I prefer Dukes wills over automatic inheritance. Wills are "realistic" and also fun, as they create Edward the Confessor type conflicts where people vie for the inheritance and don't know who has it till the Duke croaks. I asked for extra text to cover depositing wills with the GM as in KotR I was very leery of dead Dukes declaring heirs. I confess I missed the rule on automatic inheritance. I think this may have originated in the idea of very heirarchical House structure in which there was a clear number 2. However, I have pushed for a more "family tree" like House structure, so there may be more than one person on the second rung of the House ladder (more than one Count). I thought we had gone with that kind of structure and made it so that a Count cannot be a vassal of a Count, in which case I think the automatic inheritance idea falls by the wayside. Anyway, Zim and others can chime in, but that's just my explanation of the confusion.

For your edification only, here's the Wills rule from LotR:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

On unit prioritisations, I personally would like to keep the current rules so that the lower ranks are be able to prioritise their own men. One unit per settlement per 10 turns does not seem excessive for the lowest landed noble (Baron). If you are worried about 80 units in a term being a lot, I am tempted to do an AG and say let's sort it out IC. I hope it will be a while before we get so many provinces.

That's fine, I'm comfortable handling this IC, I just want to make sure people are aware of just how many prioritizations there are going to be in this game. For the record, the lowest rank gets TWO prioritizations, not one. As I understand it (we start with 5 provinces, right?) on the very first turn of the game, there will be 26 (8 for King, 4 each for 4 Dukes, +2 for one Prince) prioritiziations available. Quick expansion to 10 provinces is likely, and that would potentially increase the number of prioritizations to 41. That's more than we ever had in LotR, and, with few exceptions, you're essentially going to keep adding 2 every time you conquer a province, until you hit the player limit.

**OverKnight** · 07-11-2009, 00:32

Don't forget that any estimates of expansion have to take into account the Pope. We're under his tender mercy again.

Speaking as the first Megas in LotR, I think it would be vastly easier to track recruitment and prioritisation if it remains confined to Royalty and the House leaders. I think that units will trickle down to the Counts and Barons, but that will be a task for the Dukes as a sort of middle mangement. This will alleviate some of the bookkeeping and organizational duties of the Seneschal.

I don't remember any complaints about recruitment from LotR. So if it's a satisfactory system, I don't think we should alter it.

**econ21** · 07-11-2009, 01:30

Originally Posted by TinCow

That's fine, I'm comfortable handling this IC, I just want to make sure people are aware of just how many prioritizations there are going to be in this game. For the record, the lowest rank gets TWO prioritizations, not one. As I understand it (we start with 5 provinces, right?) on the very first turn of the game, there will be 26 (8 for King, 4 each for 4 Dukes, +2 for one Prince) prioritiziations available. ... Quick expansion to 10 provinces is likely, and that would potentially increase the number of prioritizations to 41.

Um, good point. I think the King is 5, but still, it is a lot. I guess it may lead to a situation of excess demand - the Seneschal can't afford to or does not want to give everyone their prioritisations. That will mean no "national" army that the Seneschal can give himself above and beyond what he gets from his title. And it would mean prioritisations are more like bids than entitlements - you are trying to get the troops, not sure to get them. How the Seneschal juggles those demands will be quite an interesting political issue.

To ease the situation, we could subtract 1 from all numbers:
Baron: 1
Count: 2
Duke: 3
King: 4
Prince +1

So at start, it would be 17 prioritisations. 17 units over 10 turns from 5 settlements does not sound excessive. Then if we expand to 10 provinces, perhaps we would have 5 new Barons, giving us 22 prioritisations.

Compeletely disenfranchising those below the Dukes would not help at the outset, as there are no landowners below Duke.

On reflection, I think I would advocate the -1 across the board, as I would prefer prioritisations to be closer to entitlements than to bids. (You can bid anyway, regardless of prioritisations).

**Cecil XIX** · 07-11-2009, 01:45

Looking at the numbers, I second econ's proposed reduction.

Perhaps that also makes people more amenable to having nobles choose what units they get with their prioritization? Or was that already agreed to? I'm starting to have trouble following the discussions here and in the PVP thread.

**TinCow** · 07-11-2009, 01:54

Yes, I think we've agreed to allow specific unit selection via prioritization as a method of making Houses more resistant to a hostile Seneshal.

The above reduction does fit better and I will accept it, though I still think that having the Duke be responsible for his entire House's priortizations (as in LotR) would be better for RPing and for organization.

**Zim** · 07-11-2009, 02:07

I'm a bit busy for the next day or so as the Sheriff's Department is doing a gun auction... I'll give the rules a good look and editting tomorrow evening.

To answer those last few questions real quick:

"(1) Why was the Prioritized Construction system removed? That worked fine and seemed popular in LotR and was one of the effective methods of avoiding a totally partisan Chancellor."

Was it popular? During the time I played (with a big chunk missing in the middle fo the game when I didn't have internet access) virtually noone used it...

I removed it because I thought almost noone used it and I wanted to simplify the rank powers a little (same reason I took out a few of the other powers).

"(2) Is it intentional that pretty much every player gets prioritized units? In LotR, the system allowed only the 'top dog' in a feudal chain to get prioritized units, though he could prioritize them in his vassals settlements. This was designed to make Houses more cohesive and create a more important relationship between the top-most lord and his vassals. By giving EVERYONE prioritized units, you are actually making the Houses more decentralized and less reliant on the Duke, which I think is the opposite of what people wanted. In addition, we're going to be bleeding Prioritized Units out our eyeballs once the initial expansion is over and everyone has a province. You're looking at upwards of 80 prioritizations per term! "

I liked the idea of decentralizing it a bit and giving lower ranks a chance to prioritize a small number of movements. I did mention it and ask if anyone had concerns, quite some time ago, which would have been a nice time to raise them.

However, I did not do the number crunching needed to forsee if it would be a problem...

It might be worth noting that I had exactly one request for something like 3 prioritized units during my term as Megas, even though many, many more could have been made. Seeing the low use rate for that power, I guess I didn't think too much about the ramifications if everyone used it.

At any point anyone is free to put up their own rule system or volunteer to take over gm duties. I put my own efforts towards doing so because nooone else seemed willing to at the time and I've found these games to be a big part of the fun I've had since coming to the Org. I'm not a lawyer and I've never written rules for a complex game before. I'm just doing the best I can...

**Cecil XIX** · 07-11-2009, 02:46

Don't worry about it Zim, we're happy to have you as our GM. As for construction prioritization, didn't PK use that to construct the Huge Walls at Antiokheia? Or was that when he was Megas Logothetes?

**TinCow** · 07-11-2009, 03:11

Originally Posted by Zim

At any point anyone is free to put up their own rule system or volunteer to take over gm duties. I put my own efforts towards doing so because nooone else seemed willing to at the time and I've found these games to be a big part of the fun I've had since coming to the Org. I'm not a lawyer and I've never written rules for a complex game before. I'm just doing the best I can...

I didn't mean to cause offense, I was just trying to spot potential problems before they occurred. I can tell you for a fact I wouldn't touch the GM spot with a 10 foot pole. I spent a year doing that for LotR, and for this game I just want to be a player. It is definitely a rewarding and fun job, particularly with the event system, but it does cause fatigue and I am currently fatigued.

Originally Posted by econ21

I queried this earlier and apparently it is intended. I think the VH taxes are partly to slow expansion. I am inferring ownership lies with the conqueror, but because he can't recruit, it's not a very juicy prize. I think the wording was the result of some to and fro, though, so if you want to propose one or more alternatives, that might be helpful.

No, it's fine, I just wanted to make sure the wording was doing what it was intended to do. As it stands, it will certainly slow expansion. Towards the end, LotR instituted a rule system for full-on independence movements that split off sections of the Empire from the rest and gave them an element of autonomy. Part of that included jacking up taxes to VH, and that resulted in serious unrest and rebellions in any province without a major garrison. This will will probably have a greater impact on slowing expansion than anything else proposed, simply because after we've expanded beyond the most immediate territories, the conquering army will have to remain as a garrison until the next Council session due to the unrest level. It will be a very effective method of expansion control.

Originally Posted by econ21

I wonder if you could redraft that to allow nobles to swear oaths to nobles of higher rank (only)? Also, could you clarify where the King stands in relation to oaths, as I recall - with some pique - Lothar saying he did not recognise the King as his liege; is that the official KotF position on Duke-King relations?

In LotR, no one could swear fealty to the Emperor, because nominally everyone was supposed to be a vassal of the Emperor. I think it would work the same way here. By allowing oaths to the King, you essentially imply that anyone who doesn't swear the oath isn't subordinate to the King, which just isn't true in our game.

**Zim** · 07-11-2009, 07:10

Originally Posted by TinCow

I didn't mean to cause offense, I was just trying to spot potential problems before they occurred. I can tell you for a fact I wouldn't touch the GM spot with a 10 foot pole. I spent a year doing that for LotR, and for this game I just want to be a player. It is definitely a rewarding and fun job, particularly with the event system, but it does cause fatigue and I am currently fatigued.

It's not a matter of being offended, more becoming weary. It seems I come home to ever growing lists of where I messed up. Rules changes are being proposed at a dizzying rate, and I've had trouble keeping up with edits, which have to be made hastily and then contain even more mistakes and contradictions. I'm just tired... I'm sure much of it is that now far more people are much more interested in the game, so more are sharing their input on problems.

I'll try to compile a list of changes tomorrow evening after work

"For Rule 3(d), it appears Wills are now pointless, as all inheritance issues are automatic. Was this intentional? If so, the last line can be stripped out and the word Wills should be removed from the title of the rule:"

The last line about wills was meant to refer to Duke's passing on their titles. There was a lot of discussion in the pregame thread about making the game more like KOTR. I had thought land in KOTR tended to stick with houses, so wrote up the rules to make it go straight to the Duke of the noble's House. I also thought this might avoid the issue of someone leaving their land to another House with no perceptible reason, which their new character then immediately joins.

Changing it to allow anyone to leave their land to whomever they wish is easy enough, but creates the chance of making the Houses a huge jumble landwise if players go crazy with their wills. It's certainly not a big risk, but from past experience neither is abuse of prioritizations, which we're discussing changing the rules to prevent.

Since we're apparently now going away from the linear feudal chain system of LOTR, the part about Dukes without wills having their House go to the second in charge will no longer work. I intended it to be in case we end up with an inactive Duke who doesn't leave a will...

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

Don't worry about it Zim, we're happy to have you as our GM. As for construction prioritization, didn't PK use that to construct the Huge Walls at Jerusalem? Or was that when he was Megas Logothetes?

Was PK Megas for a term? It probably happened that two months I was away...

Were there other instances of building prioritizations being used?

Edit: Made some revisions to rules. There's still a lot to catch up on, though, which I'll work on tomorrow.

**econ21** · 07-11-2009, 13:08

Originally Posted by Zim

Changing it to allow anyone to leave their land to whomever they wish is easy enough, but creates the chance of making the Houses a huge jumble landwise if players go crazy with their wills. It's certainly not a big risk, but from past experience neither is abuse of prioritizations, which we're discussing changing the rules to prevent.

Good point, I withdraw that suggestion. How about:

(d) - Wills & Inheritance: Upon the death of a noble his land goes to the highest member of his feudal chain. If he is independent the land goes to the King. All land in the King's Demesne is passed to the new King. Duke's can pass on their rank to a House member of their choosing, including by naming a successor in their will. Wills must be deposited with Zim before the character's death to be considered valid. If a Duke dies without naming a successor, the King picks the successor from among the highest ranked in their House.

Changes in italics.

**TinCow** · 07-11-2009, 16:01

Originally Posted by Zim

It's not a matter of being offended, more becoming weary. It seems I come home to ever growing lists of where I messed up. Rules changes are being proposed at a dizzying rate, and I've had trouble keeping up with edits, which have to be made hastily and then contain even more mistakes and contradictions. I'm just tired... I'm sure much of it is that now far more people are much more interested in the game, so more are sharing their input on problems.

I'll try to compile a list of changes tomorrow evening after work

I really don't mind doing the edits on the starting game rules, to help keep make things easier for you. I've already got a partially finished version completed anyway.

On that note, I'd like to state that I really don't want to do the Library again for this game. I've now done WotS, KotR, and LotR. I need a break from the Library.