A (Minor) Rules Proposal

[G]

I will also add that this is why being a Baron or Overlord has it's privileges. Special rules for a special rank, and why those ranks are only available via challenge.

If the Warlord gets angry at the Baron, they are able to challenge that Baron.

[Marc Franco]

but let's say... some day when anubis is still overlord and sal becomes warlord, maybe he decides to challenge again. and because he likes fighting anubis so much (since he's a psychopathic masochist), he challenges a loyal in the hopes that the bastard does intercede.

those who know sal understand that he has no interest in actually earning and holding a barony. his only reason for challenging is the sport, the fun and the sick challenge of getting his butt handed to him in a ring. so if he did challenge a loyal baron, and anubis interceded, and then some renegade stepped in because he or she wanted to champion him and fight anubis themselves... he'd be pissed. in fact... right then and there chances are he'd forfeit his challenge. no point to it for him if he can't fight who he wants to fight.

and that's my opinion from an ic standpoint

Let him be pissed. Address it from an IC perspective. Go after the renegade who wants to step in. This is exactly the sort of drama that this rule creates. The rule is GREAT for the forum because it creates roleplay. When people talk about the "politics" of DoS, this is exactly what they're talking about. It makes awesome IC drama and it keeps characters talking and having conflict.

Quite a few of the OOC rules are there to create IC drama. This is one of them. I'm so so so against changing those rules in order to avoid IC conflict. We should all want IC conflict. It's what the forum thrives on.

[Anubis Karos]

Thank you, Marc. We need to remember the main goal, which is enjoyable RP.

Nothing much to add here to everyone's wonderful thoughts. Guill...the rules of the Duel of Swords are fine. When you say that you are not one for messing with the protocol...we all know that's not true. You always have a new rule or an idea to circumvent tradition.

Please stop trying to be clever. Right now this forum is going through an excellent period....obviously, things are working fine. Believe it or not...you don't know better than the rest of us.

[Joex Rodlain]

Thank you, Marc. We need to remember the main goal, which is enjoyable RP.

Nothing much to add here to everyone's wonderful thoughts. Guill...the rules of the Duel of Swords are fine. When you say that you are not one for messing with the protocol...we all know that's not true. You always have a new rule or an idea to circumvent tradition.

Please stop trying to be clever. Right now this forum is going through an excellent period....obviously, things are working fine. Believe it or not...you don't know better than the rest of us.

Yikes... Ok guys, I feel like this is getting a little personal and probably unnecessarily so. The bottom line here is that Guill's player had an idea to improve the rules (which do undergo change from time to time, most notably and recently the idea of getting rid of peer wins for challenges) and that idea happened to not work with the system we have.

Ultimately, I agree with most folks here that the intercession system is a good one and should be kept for RP purposes. That being said, coming down this hard on Guill's player only serves to alienate a member of our community and squash any creative potential for possible ideas in the future... If those ideas aren't good ones in the eyes of the community, they can be rebuffed here, but on the odd occasion it's a good idea, I don't think it's a good idea to have folks feeling like they should censor themselves for fear of being ostracized in the community.

[G]

I need to mention that hey, ideas aren't bad. Keep them coming because fresh ideas do help keep things alive. Not to say they'll all be adopted, but talking about stuff isn't a bad thing.

[Goldglo]

I need to mention that hey, ideas aren't bad. Keep them coming because fresh ideas do help keep things alive. Not to say they'll all be adopted, but talking about stuff isn't a bad thing.

Definately, what G said. New ideas are good; new(er) players can bring a fresh perspective, a new way of looking at things, and a ideas that can benefit the games (not to say that older players can't do those things).

Please, even if the idea you (generic you) present isn't adopted, don't be discouraged from making your thoughts known. Ideas are welcome; discussion is encouraged. Keep it coming

--Matt

[Delahada]

Let him be pissed. Address it from an IC perspective. Go after the renegade who wants to step in...

I can do that - really, it's no problem. but see... from an IC perspective that's easy. I can have Sal be pissed. I can have him forfeit his match right then and there, which he likely would, if it happened. would he go after the renegade stepping in instead? I don't know.

Sal said it to Sin himself really, in game once - "I like fighting him..." Anubis "...but I don't want to be Overlord." the only reason he's ever picked him for challenge has been personal. the first time was just to be an ass about it because of Anubis threatening to take any titles he won from him. so he wanted to test him himself, Sal test Anubis, to see if he even had a chance. clearly he didn't, but he's still determined to change that by pressing his luck.

OOCly, however... before this thread? I didn't know about that rule. and I think, OOCly, I, the player, would have been just as pissed if some renegade stepped in without asking me ahead of time if it was okay.

I think it shouldn't fall only on my head to ask all the barons who might intercede not to do so. I think it's only fair that the barons also ask me if I don't mind. though all in all, I'd never ask anyone to play against their characters.

for instance... Jaycy asked me ahead of our match if she should do a best of three or single elimination format. I told her to pick what her character would pick, and not to worry about it. to me, the IC is more important than the OOC, but I still think it's only polite to always work with people OOCly anyway. just to make sure.

[Rhiannon D Harker]

Probably already been said, but:

If you take away a Renegade Baron's right to intervene on an Intercession or Test of Worthiness, what is the point of being Renegade? Other than being allowed to have your challenge to an Overlord take precedence to others, that is.

The point is that under the rules it is their RIGHT to intervene just as it is the Overlord's right to intercede on behalf of his/her Loyal Barons.

You don't want anyone to step in to assist you? Then challenge a Renegade.

As for honor in the IC perspective, it might be honorable to earn the ring on your own, but wouldn't it be a dishonor committed against a Renegade Baron to demand that they not step in? Not to mention a dishonor (cowardly act) to back out of the challenge that was issued just because one can't get their own way?

[Artemus Kurgen]

Boy, did this take off.

I'm kind of on the fence with this topic as I can see both sides.

In the case of Loyals an intercession kind of breaks down like this.
"I'll fight this punk so you can take on the real boss."

Whereas a lot of the Renegades who intercede it comes off as this...
"I don't think you can beat this guy so I'll do it for you."


The one is a team effort while the other can come off as a BIG insult. Now, it is a given that more intercessions work like the first example whether the interceding party is Loyal or Renegade, but the challenger having the option to say "No, let me, this is my fight". Should be a valid choice. But that is something that should be done IC. Jaycy steps in against Anubis but the challenger says, "Wait, if I don't do this on my own how will I know where I stand against him in the future?" IC context "You stepping in for me just belittles me in my own eyes."

That is just one possible scenario as both examples are coming off as someone has stepped in for both parties.

[Delahada]

exactly what Artemus said!

I'm not saying that the rules should change to take away the right of a renegade baron to challenge, but I see Guill's point that it seems inherently unfair to the challenging warlord to be forced to allow a renegade baron to step in.

"No, let me, this is my fight". Should be a valid choice. But that is something that should be done IC.

should be a valid choice is exactly what I'm saying. I don't know how to suggest rewording the rules for a change if one were to even be made. all I'm saying is that where a lot of overriding veto power is given to the renegade barons, there seems to be nothing that protects a challenger's (warlord's) right to even challenge in the first place unless he or she goes up against a renegade.

in cases like the current hierarchy though - ICly it makes little sense for many of the present warlords to go up against a renegade. most of the duelers are "good guys" whereas the present overlord and loyal barons are the "bad guys" - if you want to look at it that way. the controversy on the seaside challenge is what happens when you have rules that say renegades barons can intercede no matter what and nobody can say anything about it if the overlord steps in to intercede for his loyal baron.

yes - all this can be handled ICly. but I think OOCly it also kind of forces us to play our characters in ways that goes against their character.

[Rhiannon D Harker]

Everything has a balance, though. Why should someone be allowed to refuse the intervention of a Renegade Baron if Loyals are obligated by the rules (6. Loyal Barons may not refuse an intercession from the Overlord.) to accept the intervention of the Overlord if he chooses to act on their behalf?

If one of those things changes to being an option, the other should as well.

[Marc Franco]

should be a valid choice is exactly what I'm saying. I don't know how to suggest rewording the rules for a change if one were to even be made. all I'm saying is that where a lot of overriding veto power is given to the renegade barons, there seems to be nothing that protects a challenger's (warlord's) right to even challenge in the first place unless he or she goes up against a renegade.

It's not as if the Warlord would never get into a ring. If the renegade steps in and beats the Overlord, the Warlord goes on to face the Baron that he originally challenged. If the renegade steps in and loses to the Overlord, the Warlord must then face the Overlord and win in order to face the Baron.

Their right to challenge the baron that they issued the challenge to is protected but they do not have the first shot to face the Overlord who is interceding.

yes - all this can be handled ICly. but I think OOCly it also kind of forces us to play our characters in ways that goes against their character.

Your character just has to react to the IC situation provided. It doesn't force them to react a certain way. They don't have to sit there and like it. They can do exactly what Guill is doing and challenge renegade barons who do not allow them the chance to proceed with their challenge.

The Rules of Rank are complex because it creates roleplay. It created this situation. It created Guill calling out the warlords, barons, and overlords who have used the test/intercession, acted as a champion, and accepted a champion. Who can't say that they're a lot more interested in this challenge than his challenge for Dockside? This is interesting. This created drama. No characters were talking about the challenge to Dockside. Every character is expressing an opinion on the challenge to Seaside. I'll probably make a point of making sure I'm at this one where I didn't care at all about being at the other.

That's what this place is about. Drama. Political strategy. The tables of the Arena are known for places where warlords/barons/overlords sit after matches, drink ale, and plot ways to rule the Arena through the complex Rules of Rank. Historically Swords has always been the most popular and I believe it's for just this reason. The number of SLs that came erupt out of the rules are endless and complex. It's about the intrigue.

This is exactly why the rules of each Swords, Fists, and Magic aren't the same. If you don't like the element of political intrigue to Swords, concentrate on Fists where your character can face who they want without intervention.

If there is somebody specific that your character wants to call out then call them out! Grudge matches don't have to happen in a challenge ring. Those sorts of matches have happened for years during normal dueling hours. You just have to find your own stakes.

This is no minor rules change as the subject suggests. It would effectively destroy the power of the renegade rank. I see no reason to change rules that have created countless amazing SLs over the years in order to avoid IC conflict. IC conflict should be exactly what we're looking for.

[Vanion Shadowcast]

First off, there's no reason to bash Guill for bringing up an idea, even if it may not be a popular one. New ideas are good and oftentimes overlooked for tradition. Recently, there've been more and more changes to DoS, which I believe has been an excellent string of events. Sometimes, rules are due for an overhaul to make the game either more appealing, or more fair.

Here are my thoughts on the matter.


1) I like that Renegades can intercede if they wish. I'll give an example of something one of my characters (a Renegade Baron at the time) did once. A somewhat shady Baron was challenging the Overlord, and my character was a self-proclaimed paragon of good. When the Overlord chose to test them, the Baron declared an even shadier Champion. My character went as far as to intercede on behalf of the Baron to -keep- the villainous Warlord Champion from having a chance to acquire a Barony of his own. When my character's intercession was successful, the other Renegade Baron promptly became Overlord (to which my character declared himself Renegade) and then exacted a large bounty on my character's Barony. The result was a string of enjoyable roleplay and challenges, until I was beaten.

Giving Renegades the ability to do things that other characters may not like, for political reasons, creates intrigue and roleplay. It's not really OOCly fair ... but this mirrors real life sports, which are oftentimes much more political and unfair than they seem on the surface.


2) With that said ... there is merit to Guill's idea. What if, for instance, a Renegade Baron interceded unwanted and the Warlord was able to challenge the intercession with a singular duel. Should the Baron win, they would continue with the intercession - and should the Challenger win, they may continue as they wished. Of course, this does the Challenger no favors in terms of difficulty to their claim; perhaps, if the Challenger was to successfully shut down the intercession, but still lose the original challenge, they would be allowed to immediately challenge the interceding Baron and ignore typical waiting times.

This idea is not particularly fleshed out, but shows how even more intrigue and roleplay could be drawn out of Guill's idea, as opposed to shutting the idea down and saying 'no thanks, not gonna happen'.


3) As always, a positive community is better than a negative community. Mob mentality is not kind, but is oftentimes entirely accidental. A lot of folks put a lot of time into thinking up creative new things for the benefit of others, and a lot of folks have good ideas (or ideas that merit further discussion). Let's always remember to respect those people and value them.


4) My best advice when conflict roleplay comes your way, and you don't particularly like it OOCly, is to take a step back and ask yourself the most important questions:

How can this help my character grow and develop? How can I turn this into something interesting for both myself and those around me? How can I make this fun?

I play a character here that a lot of people avoid ICly, due to him being a bit of a jerk/psychopath/murderer. It might even OOCly nudge some people away from wanting to roleplay with me. Still, I always ask myself those questions, and I almost always have fun rolling with the punches. I think you're on the right path, mate.

[Delahada]

This is no minor rules change as the subject suggests.

Guill's suggestion was just that, though... a suggestion. he thought on it long and hard and that's what he came up with. I really don't think what he's saying is: "I want THIS and ONLY THIS as I have worded it, no alterations to the way I have written it whatsoever! It must be this way or I'm not happy!"

and Vanion said everything so beautifully that the only opinion I have right now is his - rofl.

there's really no need for everybody to get so defensive about it. Guill made a suggestion. people are here explaining why things are the way they are and have been that way. don't shoot him down out of the starting gate just for making a suggestion.

I think many of you have done a wonderful job explaining, but at the same time feel like I'm being reprimanded for being an ignorant newb. yeah, I'm new to the duels compared to many of you, and I'm still learning many of the more intricate details of the rules, the politics, but c'mon.

I'm not saying: "Your way sucks! OMG! Change the rules now!" and I really don't think Guill is either.

[Napoleon Bonarat]

I think in these sorts of special instances, it should be resolved via RP, not permanently changing the rules. Though I'm not saying we shouldn't periodically look at the rules to see what works, what doesn't, what could be better.