KOTF OOC Thread

[ULC]

Speaking of which, I'm having trouble recovering Gaetan's character. He has suddenly become very hard for me to play as, and he feels just off now when I try to write for him.

[econ21]

If you want a new start, you could talk to Zim about ditching Gaetan and taking the vacant Prince.

[ULC]

If you want a new start, you could talk to Zim about ditching Gaetan and taking the vacant Prince.

Henri is not vacant - stop insulting his intelligence!

No, it wouldn't really matter whom I picked, I'd still have the same problem. My head has just not been into the game as of late. Also, need to get that story up between me and GH...and I hope the one between me and Ramses turns out well.

[TheFlax]

Henri is not vacant - stop insulting his intelligence!

No, but Charles is.

[Braden]

Yeah, don't diss Prince H...he'll get ya

[OverKnight]

Braden, feel free to take the save and move Henri as you wish. Or since you've given permission to the Seneschal to move him, PM instructions on where you want him to go.

[OverKnight]

Nice move there, OK!

Just yesterday I was thinking about the fact that more and more discussion has moved into PMs. Good to see some of it in the Council again.

We do seem to be having some very interesting discussions in the Conseil. I hope it keeps up.

It also makes it easier for me to manage the game as a nice side effect.

[Braden]

Took the save and returned it...just moved Henri to Metz

[OverKnight]

I would have like to have made it through a turn without a rules dispute, but no such luck.

I did not give Tristan permission to reach a deal with England, including an alliance I might add, while he had the save. I gave him permission to explore a possible deal to pass on to me for actual in game implementation.

I've been told that there is no rule prohibiting someone besides the Chancellor from hijacking a save and conducting diplomacy, and that it should be dealt with IC. I think this goes beyond that. If anyone can run off with the save and do whatever they want and then say "Let's deal with it IC" once the damage has been done, it makes the PBM unplayable.

I also don't like how the GM was contacted about the legality of this by Tristan before I got the save back, not publicly in the reports thread, but in a private PM. Which could mean that half the reason I waited so long for it was that Tristan wanted to present me with a fait accompli.

Edit: I'm not moving forward until this mess is sorted out. I've half a mind to ignore the latest save and continue with the last one. I'm sure we could sort that out IC as well.

[econ21]

Sounds like a good job we have an impartial GM to sort this kind of thing out.

My 2 cents: I think the spirit of the rules was that only the Seneschal move agents and conduct diplomacy. If anyone other than the King had conducted unauthorised diplomacy, I would agree go back to the previous save - it did not happen.

But a King conducting diplomacy without his Senschal agreeing has more plausibility - he can start wars, why not alliances? - and dealing with it in character starts to look more attractive. Civil wars have been started over less and my impression of the evolution of, say, the British monarchy is that is has been characterised by a gradual whittling down of the King's authority to do this and that. With these PBMs we are always looking for some thing to add spice to the role-playing - this could be it. The King was kind of humiliated in the Seneschal vote and so deliberately defying the Conseil (which vetoed the English alliance) and the Senschal (who kicked his *** in the vote) seems in character. And the Seneschal was elected after a bruising contest with a clear mandate, an alliance with England was explicitly outlawed - so an appropriate in character reaction - inter alia - would be to call an emergency session of the Conseil and pass a proclamation banning anyone but the Senschal conducting diplomacy (along with an OOC rules change to back it up). Some other steps to clip the King's wings might also be in order (enforced abdication being an ultimate sanction), but it's a difficult balancing act given the King's ability to grant land and the unknown about Ramses's view (restrictions on the King being restrictions on him too). Whether the Conseil wants to take the reputation hit from breaking the alliance would be another tricky matter if decided in character - do we care about international relations or domestic legality? To be honest, "this mess" all sounds absolutely fascinating to me. Going back to the previous save seems dull by contrast.

However, all this assumes that OK is willing to play ball and if he is too frustrated by it all OOC, I can understand. Past Chancellors in past games would definitely have felt put out (I remember getting wrapped knuckles from them a couple of times for trying stuff beyond my pay grade) and none had to contend with a King like Tristan.

Let's wait to hear what Zim says before we do anything hasty.

[KnightnDay]

Like quite a few people, I like Zim too and consider him quite impartial, but I think he blew this call.

The Rules say:

(5) The Chancellor can move and use all agents.

No one else has this power. I will grant you what is missing here is the all-important word "only", but given the fact no other character has this attribute the only way I see the king being able to pull this off in accordance with the rules is to have Constance make the diplomatic move on his behalf. If that were to be the case, I think then Tristan would be within his right to make the alliance, because in doing so he did not use an agent, but again only in that way do I see this action as legit.

Econ21, I agree with you it would be more fun to deal with IC, and if Zim wants to turn this into a game event, he is certainly within his powers to do so and I would readily support that. But if we are playing by the rules, and my interpretation is correct, this move should be wiped out.

[ULC]

Hmm...this could be quite the event that would split people into two camps, and I'd find it interesting on how far each side would take to push their views.

However, that may render the rest of the game as mildly anti-climatic

[OverKnight]

However, all this assumes that OK is willing to play ball and if he is too frustrated by it all OOC, I can understand. Past Chancellors in past games would definitely have felt put out (I remember getting wrapped knuckles from them a couple of times for trying stuff beyond my pay grade) and none had to contend with a King like Tristan.

I'm not playing ball on this one. Only Seneschals can move agents, only Seneschals can therefore engage in diplomacy and only Seneschals can spend money, about 5000 florins was spent on this. If we allow this to be retroactively allowed the game will quickly devolve into grabbing the save and making changes to it justified by an individual's interpretation of authenticity or what he thinks is right.

How can I play the game if the ground keeps shifting under my feet? If I had known such lattitude was allowed, I would have played this turn differently. We have rules, that we all agreed upon, even if just with silent assent. This isn't Calvinball, we're not making it up as we go.

If the King is so disgruntled about losing, he can declare war on Hugues, kill him and then assume the vacant office of Seneschal, which he then can abuse as he likes until impeached, if anyone dares to do it. All of which is allowed within the rules.

If we played the game "authentically" and just had an absolute Monarch, it would quickly grow stale. Unless one was playing the King that is.

So changing your vote within the voting period is not allowed retroactively, but violating several specific rules would be? I don't get it.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I'm with OK on this one. KotR people will remember me, as Kaiser, taking the save once to do something unauthorized - and that was because we were in the middle of a session, and my avatar just so happened to be in the city where we were having our IC deliberations. Even then I got a "well, it's only okay because of [the previously-mentioned circumstances]". I wouldn't have dreamed of altering anything beyond my character.

[OverKnight]

Here's the save in question if anyone is interested.

The exchange with Tristan that lead up to this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Duc de Lorraine,
Sénéchal,
Hugues,

Félicitations for your victory in the election. I promised you a fair run in the election and that I have given you... But can you say so, yourself ?

I come to you because I intend to rid our borders of Maximilian's presence but I may need some reinforcements as I intend to leave to your vassal St Amand part of my command to help him defend Frankfurt and our nothern frontier against further German aggression.

I know that there are a lot of mercenaries to be recruited in the German lands and I'd like you to allocate some funds to that end.

In exchange, I will allow you to recruit men from Paris to send wherever you feel they might be needed.

One last thing : would you allow me to conduct business with my cousin Guillaume or do you wish to do it yourself ?

I wish you well in your endeavours for the Royaume and I hope we can work hand in hand in the years to come.

Par la Grâce de Dieu

Philippe,
Roi des Francs

Mon Roi,

I promised you a bit of sport, and I hope I provided some entertainment. Respectfully, the position was yours for the taking, but your Majesty chose to participate in a contested Election instead. I would have conducted the same campaign against anyone who ran against me, sharp elbows and all. It seems we both ended up with more than we bargained for.

Still, your Majesty showed restraint and wisdom in the conduct of the election. You have my grattitude and continued loyalty, as always.

Now that that unpleasant affair is behind us, we can move on to the business of the Realm.

First, the request for Mercenaries; what exactly do you need? If I knew more about your Majesty's requirements for troops and plans to engage the Kaiser, I would be more likely to grant the funds in a timely manner. My guess would be that your Majesty needs more spearmen? Am I wrong?

Second, the negotiations with King William. This is a bit tricky, we have edicts calling for these talks but also edicts restricting what can be exchanged. If I cede all negotiations to you, and an edict is violated, well. . .things could get awkward. The Conseil would raise a stink, rightly so, and steps would have to be taken to rectify any breach of an edict.

On the other hand I do not wish to insult your Majesty's authority or dignity. And I did say that I would do this. Of course I said this before realizing that your Majesty had pushed so hard for an alliance.

How about this? Please feel free to conduct negotiations with the English, but as Seneschal I would need to check any final offer before it is accepted, to make sure no Edicts are violated. (OOC: Feel free to sound out the English and come up with a deal, but I would have to finalize any offer. The diplomacy mechanic wouldn't handle shared diplomacy well, but we can work around it.)

I look forward to a fruitful term.

Your servant,

Duc Hugues

Hugues,

I know that yours is no easy task and that you have a lot to manage at once. I have not heard from my quartermaster yet but let me offer you this in exchange for the recruitment of mercenaries to help me in defeating Maximilian.

For every mercenary company that you agree on recruiting, I'll enable you to recruit two companies of spearmen in Paris for as long as is needed to compensate. So should I require 3 companies of mercenaries, you'll be granted 6 companies of spearmen from Paris to be sent to whatever theater you see fit. That could even start with the companies already garrisoned in the city that would be put into your command or the command of any noble you saw fit to command them.

What do you say ?

As to the diplomacy, I'll do as you request.

Par la Grâce de Dieu,

Philippe
Roi des Francs

Mon Roi,

I have made a proposal in the Conseil, I await to see if it is to your Majesty's liking.

Your servant,

Duc Hugues

Here's the save

Lots of things happened :

Bought one company of Merc spearmen and one of Merc Xbow for a total of 1520 fl.
Disbanded part of the mercenary units in Caernavon (2 Welsh spearmen and 1 merc Xbow)

Fought and killed Maximilian and ransomed his second in command Tancred von Heidelberg and the rest of his army for 4798 fl.

But the most important thing is that I concluded an alliance with England (OOC : I checked the move with Zim) with the trade of Caernavon and Valencia for Caen and Angers, with a lump sum of 4878 fl. which equates the German ransom and the money left from the 1600 fl. you forwarded me.

I didn't authorize you to conclude a deal, only to have one for me to conclude if it passed muster. The link you gave me also seems to be baby pictures.

An alliance with England violates an edict. I did not give you use of the save to conclude one.

I hope you have a save where you fought the battle but didn't do the deal, because I'm not taking this one.

OK

Sorry about the wrong link...

Here's the right one

I'm also forwarding you the PM Zim sent me as answer to my inquiry.

I know full well I went over what you allowed as a possibility for dealing with England and I'm prepared to take any IC heat for it but after checking with Zim, I can find no OOC rule violation.

Zim's PM is on its way

Note, I did not get a copy of Tristan's originial PM to Zim, this what I got from Tristan:

As it stands there's not really any rule that says only the Seneschal can conduct negotiations (that I can find). It's just always been sort of assumed by his monopoly on controlling diplomats (wonder if Felix ever thought to perform a negotiation by himself back in LOTR...)


From an OOC standpoint Overknight would need to make the move in the save, or ask you to do so. Any IC explanation of the action is fine, if you'd like the King to be the one to officially make the negotiation (and take any fallout).

I'm not sure how this would circumvent 2.10, since it's binding on more than the Seneschal, but those rules were meant to be enforced IC anyway (did AG ever send a diplomat to Scotland last term?).

Perhaps I should have spelled out what I mean by "sounding out" the English. I assumed that Tristan was using a current save to research possible deals, as he seemed to have done with AG. I would have considered anything he sent on to me, but I was going to conduct negotiations myself. Mostly I made the offer to stop the King from pestering Hugues, but in a diplomatic fashion.

[flyd]

I'd like to offer a legal opinion on this, for Master Zim's consideration.

The rules assume that the Seneschal does have the monopoly on every power not given to someone else. The main reason, I think, why the word "only" is missing from the agent-controlling rule is that the rules for each game were copied from the previous one, and then edited. In the olden times, the proto-Senechal had all the power. Powers were slowly taken away from him one at a time, and when each one was taken away, it was written into the rules in some other section.

The way the rules are constructed is: the Seneschal can do everything except: <insert long list of rules>

Not everything in the rules is explicit. For example, where does it say in the rules that the Seneschal has to honor any particular save? Could he keep it open for 24 hours, and then press "end turn" on the one he himself posted 24 hours ago? Of course not. That's because he would be, in effect, undoing other player's moves, and thereby infringing on their reserved powers. But what happens when a player exercises a power that was not granted to him? If the Seneschal undoes the player's move, has he infringed anything?

There is also the sanity argument, which goes that the intent of the rules was not that anyone can control agents, because that would result in chaos.

In summary:
The Seneschal-can-do-whatever-he-wants rule is supreme. Other rules limit it.

The exception, of course, is the GM-can-rule-however-he-wants rule.

[Zim]

If Tristan made the change himself and didn't have permission then the move wasn't valid.

I was trying to express in my pm what the OOC rules are (Overknight would need to make the move, or at the least Tristan would need explicit permission. The latter would technically be bending things a little, but we'd already allowed players other than the Seneschal to "check out" possible dealings, so there's some precedent for allowing the Seneschal to give permission to move an agent), and that any IC explanation for the action they wanted was ok so long as the OOC rules were followed (ie, the King signing the treaty without Hugues' knowledge, even if OOC Tristan and Overknight had planned it together).

The missing factor in what happened was OK finalizing the decision. I accept any responsibility if my pm wasn't clear. There may also have been some confusion over what Tristan's being allowed a certain level of negotiation might have meant. If the current save cannot be reconciled in any way, I say we should just continue from the previous save as if this never happened.

[econ21]

... I say we should just continue from the previous save as if this never happened.

Thanks, Zim.

I agree that given the rules and your ruling, we should go back to the previous save.

But is there any appetite for trying to square the in character stuff - Tristan's PMs and Conseil post - with the previous save?

One narrative would be that the French King reached a deal with the English King and informed the Seneschal. The Seneschal has a choice whether to accept the deal (keep latest save) or disown it (go back to previous save). That way we keep to the games rules and keep all the (potentially) fun role-play stuff.

If - as I assume - Duc Hugues wants to decline the King's deal, then there might be a case for engineering a relations hit with England to simulate the diplomatic fallout. (e.g. by Zim making a French-English alliance at the end of the turn and then breaking it at the beginning of the next).

If there is no appetite for this, then Tristan's Conseil post and the reaction to it should be deleted. But this does seem an opportunity for IC drama rather than just OOC drama.

[Ituralde]

Ah what would these games be without Rules Disputes!

Zims further elaboration was the first thing I noticed while reading the PM he sent to Tristan. Sicne OK didn't finalize it OOC the rules issue is clearly decided. However I agree that playing it out along the lines econ21 suggests sounds like a good move. The IC intentions of all characters are quite clear now and I'd really like some conflict generated out of this instead of just calling 'nothing to see here, move on people'.

[Zim]

While continuing with the save as is and coming up with an IC explanation is an interesting way of solving the issue, let's not forget that it's OK's decision. He's already mentioned once he was uncomfortable with going on as is.

What I mean is I don't want him to feel any pressure to accept something that was against the game's rules. If he thinks it would be interesting to go on as is great, if not there will be plenty of other conflicts that will make for good IC stuff, I'm sure.

[Ituralde]

My last comment was aimed at the Magnaura posts not at the save.

[Zim]

I understand. I was just worried that Overknight would feel some pressure to accept the save when it's entirely his decision. After presiding over one mistaken idea about what the Seneschal should accept (entirely my fault) I didn't want to do so over another.

[KnightnDay]

I do think we should clarify if any princess can conduct diplomacy without permission of the Seneschal. Spending money is the responsibility of the Seneschal and under the rules, cash can't be a consideration without his permission. But if only the Seneschal can conclude diplomatic negotiation, shouldn't we have the rules state it as such?

[Zim]

I could post a poll for a rules change if need be.

I was only kidding in the pm (which I never expected to be posted) that since other than the Seneschal only players playing the princess would be in control of an agent capable of making any deals that the player playing them could do something... TheFlax wouldn't ever do something like that and noone else has volunteered to play a princess.

[econ21]

I was just worried that Overknight would feel some pressure to accept the save when it's entirely his decision.

I agree with that. In fact, I'm not pushing for him to accept the new save at all - given what has transpired, I think it would be better for him to follow his gut and revert to the old save.

But what I'm wondering is whether OK has any appetite for the Tristan/OK disagreement remaining "on the record" in terms of the game narrative so that it remains an IC source of tension, rather than just an OOC rules dispute that was quickly resolved. We'd end up with a Kingdom still geographically divided by English lands, now politically divided by conflict between the King and Seneschal, and - ideally - taking a diplomatic hit with the English (and maybe other nations by reputation) too.

I'm just trying to stirr things up IC - I agree OOC we want calm seas and to follow the rules.

[Zim]

I understand all the IC reasons for keeping things as they went, I was just afraid OK would see all the posts in favor and think that meant he should just accept things, and wanted to provide an alternate viewpoint.

[_Tristan_]

I fully apologize to OK if he feels I reached too far and impinged on his powers and ruined the fun he might have ingame...

Though the result may not seem what it is, my only intention was to use what little freedom OK granted me over the save and grab it to try and create a situation which would create some IC drama... I never intended for it to become some OOC drama as well (though that seems a poor choice of words, in retrospect...)

Once again, I apologize to Overknight and would agree to start playing anew from the previous save (I don't know if I have a savegame post-battle... If not I'd kindly request to be allowed to fight it anew...)

Sorry all for the bother, but as King I feel a responsability to make the game interesting and create some strong character interactions (hence my tirade against Alain or my running in the Election against Hugues)... All this stems from a good sentiment and not from some will to create a game of my own...

If need be I'll edit my post in the Conseil to reflect the changes wished by the GM/the players.

[Braden]

Spotted this late last night and didn't respond (too late on).

1 - If the move had IC motivation and supporting presidence (i.e. some build up stories) then I'm more inclined to sit in the "sort it IC" camp.

2 - I will stand by the ruling Zim has put forward OOC

3 - This "can" pose an interesting debate IC with the Seneschal over-rulling the King (Cromwell vs. King Charles anyone?), IF the two opponents want to run with it IC.

4 - Using the previous save does not infringe on working on point 3. It could be the King has moved, unauthorised towards an agreement with England but the Seneschal found out and put a stop to it. This doesn't me the opposing Kings haven't made a backroom agreement that may yet come into fruition at a later date...

5 - Last night I had visions of me putting on my Trial hat again as the Council put the King on trial for treason! On a side note, I'm happy to do that again for this PBE if needed...an Inquisitor though might be needed to convict a King however (Alfonso De Torqumada might be on duty).

In the end, think I'll agree that we run from the previous save (after I moved Henri to Metz I believe) but we have a vein of IC conflict here we can mine...try to use it.

[AussieGiant]

This move has more OOC rule breaks than I care to list.

If anyone wants me to list them, then just ask. I'd even say I'd be able to push TC's legal brain in a corner of legal certainty on this.

The "meaning of the entire rule as understood by the average person" would be my immediate focal point and not the legalise version so prevalent in some parts of the world i.e. USA.

Suffice to say there is more than enough grounds for OK to decline the save if he so wishes.

Therefore it's up to him at this critical point which direction we move in.

IF, he accepts the save, then we do have ourselves a humdinger of an event that would rapidly take most of our time in an emergency session of some magnitude.

IF, he doesn't then he can take the save and move on right now. He's given everyone over 24 hours already so he is well within his rights to simply move forward and let ANYONE do what they want NEXT turn.

-----------------------------

My question is, can we refer to the OOC rules as our IC "charter" as part of the deliberations?

I've never seen anyone other than the Chancellor, Megas, Seneschal move or conduct actions based on Agents in three games. That indicates to me that everyone understands the meaning of the rules in question.

If you want to nit pick and use arguments like "Only" in a sentence, then we will rapidly have ourselves an OOC rule debate that will stop this game in it's tracks. Why, because you will need to do exactly what the US legal system does. That is write a rule of one sentence, and then provide 4 pages of explanation so every single loop hole of language is addressed.

It will get ugly.

-----------------------------

So how about we just get OK to make a call on this?

The only other person I can see here intervening is Zim.

-----------------------------

EDIT

Keep in mind the opportunities and actions some of the more medievally minded people here could make with a legal system in which specific mean is not addressed in the rules!!!???

[OverKnight]

Zim and TheFlax may make this an event if they want as has been mentioned:

(e) - Events: Whenever they desire, but no more often than once every 10 turns, Zim, TheFlax, or anyone they choose may create an in-game Event. Events are not limited in scope, subject matter, or method of implementation. All game rules can be violated to implement an Event. The players can prevent the implementation of any single Event through a simple majority of unweighted votes.

Of course we could then vote on implementation.

I'm going to take a look at the save.