[Discuss] Temporary position holders

[Eric Kenseth]

On 8/1/06, Justin Pope <jupo42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How people like to play should come before anything "the rules" say they
> > should play.  As Tom refuses to have written rules for this game, it is
> the
> > players who determine how it shall be played.  DA was re-elected King
> > because that's what the players and their characters want.
>
> Hm. If I gather a bunch of people (and their characters) together that
> want to see one of your characters dead, will that character need to
> die, since what the players want come before the rules?
>
> (Not that I do want to see any of your characters dead - it's the
> concept.)



How is that valid? That directly targets and hampers a single character and
player, not to mention doesn't really makes sence on all levels. As for a
perminant king, I see no way in which it truly harms anyone, and indeed
enhances many. All you have really stated are coined phrases like
'diplomatic stagnation' and 'low ruler turnover'. Other then that you seem
to be argueing for the sake of argueing and not really offering anything
new.

Has it ever occured to you that during the middle ages most kings held the
position for a long time, much longer then 1000 days, and diplomacy could at
times be so stagnate that wars could last 100 years or so? Perhaps we should
not consider BM a game and rather consider it a medievil simulation... wait,
wasn't that the plan to begin with?!?

A final consept-- since noone else is offering any new ideas in the last day
or so, heres one-- in (semi-)perminent ruler gevernments, rulers are able to
claim a hold to their position, assuming that when a position-dropping event
happens the realm votes that person as ruler still. Furthermore, this ruler
would have some more effects-- a king in prison has a very low chance of
escape(unless there is a battle in the capital), can not pay ransom (but the
realm's judge gets the option to do so at roughly 2000 gold or so), and the
7-day limit does not apply. Furthermore, whenever a ruler is not well, the
realm gets a large (30% or so) income penalty. Finally, the Judge(and
perhaps dukes) gains the ability to question the king, calling another vote
to see if the king hold the position.

Basicly, it allows kings to continue to hold their place, but with a penalty
to the realm, and at the discression to the realm. THEN add a little thing
about the king not being re-electable to ensure people to try to abuse past
this feature, and you have a balanced system that leaves everyone happy.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20060801/482aade2/attachment.htm