Aftermath Reborn Rules Discussion

Is anyone averse to this? We did the same for manpower after all.

I am against this as my county then looses even more worth, I got downgraded to mediocraty already because the manpower was raised to 5.

Now that I think about it...if Tysha is the only one gaining something through this increase then I'll allow it

That should have been done from the beginning.

Consider it done then, Wealth 2.

So then... what about Paranoid/Fierce Friends changes?

And Sly must be removed. (Refunded, but gone.) With a small player base, it's an insane advantage... not to mention being pure OOC, and abused. More over, since we vote on largely OOC game measures, it's inappropriate.

Tysha wrote:being pure OOC, and abused.

Jee, thanks.

It is an OOC quirk... we all know who the voters are, and an extra vote can't be explained IC.

Tysha wrote:It is an OOC quirk... we all know who the voters are, and an extra vote can't be explained IC.

Still, your proposed change to the fierce friends and paranoia quirk is for to fit OOC mechanics..while having an army around you at all times is slightly exaggerated for its IC purpose.

..and you're the one that told me to get that quirk.

I know, and it was a mistake. The only part that is about you is how you tried to force a tie, for the sake of having a tie, because you were bored.

The quirk itself is not suited for the game, or the RP.

Tysha wrote:The only part that is about you is how you tried to force a tie, for the sake of having a tie, because you were bored.

Please, it's all because you lost because of it. Valdir actually didn't know who to vote for anymore, so why wouldn't he use his 'skills' to lure out the true character behind the noble masks?

It is an OOC quirk.. and I honestly wouldn't care much is Mordred decides to remove it. Just leave the abuse out of it..it's getting old.

Fierce Friends = 20 Order Knights
Paranoid = 35 Adventurers

I am leaving Sly as is though, that it is used OOC isn't enough at the moment, the defence is that others get the quirk themselves to counter it, or else denounce it at the Council (so it has to be used with caution).

Alternatively we could attach limitations to its use, for instance a 25% chance of being caught and fined X Prestige, or that it may not be used for voting for Governor.

A governor vote is not the main issue. That we vote on rule changes and the like through the Council, and it's illogical IC nature are the problems with its continued existence.

I think I agree. I don't begrudge anyone using it because it's a legit game mechanic currently. But it just seems like it introduces a balance problem. With only 7 active players, one person with that quirk essentially has 1/4 of the vote for IC and OOC matters. Sure, we can all get it too, but I'm not really certain why you'd want to add that element in the first place. Seems weird to reward success (30 prestige) with more say over the actual game (not the case with Valdir obviously but it applies to anyone who buys it).

But that's just me.

I'm confused..

what is a Marquis for rank?
We can either be a Count, Earl or Duke.. yet a Marquis is added for prestige bonuses etc? (I was under the impression that the Marquis would replace the Earl in the hierarchy)

It has, I've not updated the rules yet.

So, I've been thinking about something!

I've noticed that despite the rules describing the Steppe as a place steeped in a violent culture, very little of this occurs between players. Personally, I find this rather immersion breaking; my original impression was that this RP would involve a great deal of intrigue and conflict, but it's really only delivered on one of those. Weirdly, it seems there's extreme resistance to any kind of conflict which is out of place imo.

With that said, I'd like to propose that we implement a penalty for extended periods of peace. For example, -5 prestige for every turn that no conflict (i.e. raiding, defending, or attacking) occurs. This penalty could easily be negated by a patrol each turn. However, I am no expert with game mechanics so this might not be the best way; alternatives should be considered!

It should be said that this would require that players look at raiding quite differently, but I feel this is more in line with the description of the Steppe in the rules. No one should be happy that they are raided but I don't think it should be seen as such an offense (being attacked should be, but not necessarily by everybody else). It's simply a way of life on the Steppe and denying this should cost something. The people who live there surely would find denying this tradition as reason enough to rebel and that should be represented in the mechanics.

I understand that this suggestion might be unpopular but it's something that I think this game sorely needs to accurately portray the setting.

I agree.  Even treating full-fledged invasions by counts against other counts (as is occurring now) like something that should trigger steppe-wide war seems like the wrong approach.  It might raise alarms and responses (to a greater extent than raiding, of course)...but it is status quo.  Indeed, the rules are written to encourage finding ways to improve our standing through raids and annexing neighboring counties to gain better titles.

If we're finding ways to avoid interplayer conflict (take the proposal for a steppe-wide non-aggression pact, or just the general attempts to form alliances for fear of engaging in conflict), it just ruins the atmosphere.  I'm defensive by nature and expected to have to repel quite a few more raids than I have.  I had to start taking action (which is really against Laisha's personality) for things to happen.  And don't tell me you're all defensive players.  I know the lot of you are far more aggressive (and cunning? Nah.) than I am.

Personally, I'm more of a cooperative player by heart. Player vs Player is typically something I shy away from (hence Simon's focus on the Mystmountains and retaliation efforts against NPCs).

However, in saying that, currently Simon Lane does have reasons on why he dislikes Steppe conflict. For one, it distracts from his goal on reclaiming his northern home, and the second is why protect the northern border if everyone behind the walls are killing each other.

Either way, at the rate the roleplay is going, Simon Lane may revert back to his isolationist ways and focus exclusively on the Mystmountains or retaliating on those who bother him. Chances are someone will tick him off besides Hernando and then he'll be knocking at the front door or making a last stand.

* * *

However, if this is a great issue, it would be wise to take this further and host a serious discussion on how we want this roleplay to play out so its fun for most, if not all, the players involved.

Interesting discussion, and one that badly needed to be had. I'll keep an eye on this for a while before I make any comment.

Sir Nickolas wrote:However, if this is a great issue, it would be wise to take this further and host a serious discussion on how we want this roleplay to play out so its fun for most, if not all, the players involved.

This is my intent. For me, encouraging conflict is essentially to my enjoyment. However, I have a feeling this is a minority view. I'd give you a more thorough rebuttal but I want to see what others say first.

I agree that we should raid each other more.. I was anxious for it since I started with a 3 MP hex and lost all my starting gold with the Poinsbruk affair.

Now that I've gotten a small taste of raiding Adelaide..I realise that it's much more fun to base orders on raids than investment and intrigue.

But, regarding the siege; I think the reason why we react the way we do is simply because you're the first to vassalize something with an army that's much bigger and stronger than I would've anticipated. The fact that the others see this, too, is an interesting IC situation.

What should come now is passing favors..make sure that the besiegers have enough nobles on their side to withstand a destroying council vote. That's part of the game as well.

From an IC as well as an OOC perspective, that Quiris didn't join the siege is paramount. That extra PC would've changed everything.

Another "problem" (for me) is that no one has declared alliance with anyone. We see one approaching with Laisha, Tysha and Rolando but until then I was NEVER sure if the things we talked in meetings were true and would be followed, Vincent still considers everyone in the steppe a possible enemy because there is nothing keeping anyone from breaking promises. And since everyone is scheming with everyone else no one can be sure of these things. Right at the beginning I wanted a sort of Alliance with Laisha which could have then developed into something more but It didn't work out.

Just imagine a steppe with 2 Alliances and maybe 2 or 3 free Lords who then could be won over, there would be more raiding and fighting.

I as well thought about other Alliances but the best ones would have been Laisha or Eadburgha...and that didn't work out

Alright, voting patterns showed two clear camps in the steppe. That's why I had my little 'Sly' experiment..the main reason it's been removed, I'm afraid. I'm not saying you should've noticed that since you're in a terrible position on the map (raided from two sides..ouch).

Although the alliances are never that binding or publicly declared...we could say that we now have 2 alliances in the Steppe, both wavering a little under pressure.

I don't see the two sides as alliances. At least not the side I seem to be on. I do not count myself to any side right now. It just right now happens that the things I want to do are almost the same the majority of other Lords want to do. During the council I never thought myself in an Alliance and agreed to things "my side" wanted, I just did what my Character wanted....

My concept of an Alliance would be something that does not waver and really sticks together, that of course needs someone who wants to do it. An alliance of one person looks stupid...

Psychozoa, I should point out that we never formed any pacts because you never followed up from our brief talk after the first council meeting.

And I'm not saying that the reactions to the invasion are uncalled for...but very few seem to be taking an attitude appropriate to the setting.  The reason I've played Laisha as I have is that she's a pre-existing character and thus has a personality preceding this game.  Most of you don't have that underlying characterization limiting how you act and how you perceive aggressive actions around the steppe.