A (Minor) Rules Proposal

[Artemus Kurgen]

The rules have been changed before, and rephrased to make them easier, but this sport is still more than a decade and a half old. Those that have been around since the game's conception will stand by what they know because it is how things have always been. Many things have been suggested and many options offered.

Why not make an addition to the rules where the Challenging warlord/baron can Contest an unwanted intercession on their behalf via a separate duel? The Warlord/Baron wins the Contest then has to go on and face the interceding Overlord/Baron fpr their shot at the original target.

This way the Renegade's power is not taken away, but they have to possibly fight the Challenger to do so. Renegade has their right to intercede but now the Challenger has a wild card option beyond possiby being a new face to the arena.

[Tasslehofl Momus]

Simply put.. this will be the last from me..

Art, what you suggest has it's fair share of downfalls. It DOES take away from the Renegade's ability to intercede, cause they are interceding based on the OL's choice to step in, not because of the WL is issuing a challenge.

More than likely, the Renegade doesn't care (I know I don't) who the WL challenges. They only care that the OL stepped in.

I understand that rules need to be updated and changed as time goes, but it would be counterproductive to make an already complicated rule even more complicated by adding more conditions and loopholes than are needed. Not to mention that the addition of this change would make an already long night of challenge that much longer.


And, on the flip side... All I'm seeing is how "the WL is being cheated by not being able to deny a renegade from interceding." Might I suggest you look at it from the Renegade's side? Perhaps there's a reason why they are stepping in (besides the apparent one everyone keeps saying.. that the Renegade is just being a prick and doing it cause they can). Perhaps there is a RP reason.


If the WL does not want someone to step in, I see no issue with them going to the Renegade Barons and talking with them, IC and/or OOC, instead of changing the rules. They just need to be prepared for the answer to be No.



And that's that.

[G]

When all is said and done, and after careful consideration of all proposals offered, I see no real reason to make any changes to this rule. If we take into consideration the poll, a vast majority(and granted, not everyone in the forum voted) also doesn't want this rule to change.

I also see no reason to further complicate an already complex challenge system. It fosters RP, it brings a more political aspect into this, and it also encourages more challenges.

The Renegade will remain able to step in against the Overlord should the Overlord decide to intercede on a challenge to his Loyal Baron. Neither Loyal Baron nor challenging Warlord will be able to refuse these intercessions. If it is unwelcome, IC, then the Loyal is able to turn Renegade and issue challenge to the Overlord. The Warlord will be able to rescind their challenge(So long as it is before the first round of any of the matches are called) and may issue challenge to the Renegade Baron. All these challenges still must follow the Universal Terms of Challenge.

[Sartan]

The rules have been changed before, and rephrased to make them easier, but this sport is still more than a decade and a half old. Those that have been around since the game's conception will stand by what they know because it is how things have always been. Many things have been suggested and many options offered.

Why not make an addition to the rules where the Challenging warlord/baron can Contest an unwanted intercession on their behalf via a separate duel? The Warlord/Baron wins the Contest then has to go on and face the interceding Overlord/Baron fpr their shot at the original target.

This way the Renegade's power is not taken away, but they have to possibly fight the Challenger to do so. Renegade has their right to intercede but now the Challenger has a wild card option beyond possiby being a new face to the arena.

This isn't a sport, it's a game. Rock/paper/scissors has a lot more in common with dueling than football does. Having clarified that, I haven't been around since the game was conceived so, clearly, I won't be sticking by what I know just because that's how it has always been.

I really don't have much to add, for anyone interested in my opinion I mostly agree with Marc's player's last post. However, I thought the passive aggressive nature of that quoted post should be pointed out. Comments like those are just as harmful to constructive dialogue as the ones Anubis's player added at the end of his post.

[Artemus Kurgen]

The rules have been changed before, and rephrased to make them easier, but this sport is still more than a decade and a half old. Those that have been around since the game's conception will stand by what they know because it is how things have always been. Many things have been suggested and many options offered.

Why not make an addition to the rules where the Challenging warlord/baron can Contest an unwanted intercession on their behalf via a separate duel? The Warlord/Baron wins the Contest then has to go on and face the interceding Overlord/Baron fpr their shot at the original target.

This way the Renegade's power is not taken away, but they have to possibly fight the Challenger to do so. Renegade has their right to intercede but now the Challenger has a wild card option beyond possiby being a new face to the arena.

This isn't a sport, it's a game. Rock/paper/scissors has a lot more in common with dueling than football does. Having clarified that, I haven't been around since the game was conceived so, clearly, I won't be sticking by what I know just because that's how it has always been.

I really don't have much to add, for anyone interested in my opinion I mostly agree with Marc's player's last post. However, I thought the passive aggressive nature of that quoted post should be pointed out. Comments like those are just as harmful to constructive dialogue as the ones Anubis's player added at the end of his post.

Not to nitpick, well yeah, to nitpick. In that post, I referred to it as both. For a lot of characters it is a sport, for us players it is a game, so I treat it as both. A sport and a game. The rest pointed out how, in fact, many of the posts that defended the current rule set came off as defensive ( at least to me they did ) rather than speculation from the "What if" place where this discussion should be held. Yes, there are pitfalls to every suggested change, did anyone expect a change to happen? No. It is all merely discussion. Nothing passive aggressive about it.

[Sartan]

Those that have been around since the game's conception will stand by what they know because it is how things have always been.

I took that to be a backhanded shot at the rationale of some of the people posting moreso than constructive criticism, which is what prompted my response. If I was the only one who took it as such, I do apologize for misreading.

You did refer to it as both a sport and game, I was just limiting my definition to an OOC context since that's where this discussion is taking place. To my characters, dueling is a sport. When it's me talking, dueling's a game.

[Marc Franco]

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.

I'm pretty sure Guill knows that I'm not hating on him since he's dropped me a couple lines since then. I'm discussing the idea, not the person, as I think most are. I'm discussing why I don't think the suggestion would work. I like Guill and I think the switch in challenges has created a lot of RP.

I know that when I worked with the admin team and a new rule was proposed, I always asked myself "How will this encourage/create/enhance RP?" I don't see how it will do any of those things.

If there is some sort of SL reason that you really want to see your challenging warlord face the intercession without a champion, I think this can be addressed. In this particular situation, I think it would have been amazingly cool if, maybe, the Overlord sent a gang of thugs to bust Jaycy's kneecaps on her way to the Arena and made it look like a random robbery. Thus, we've solved the OOC problem of Guill's player wanting to handle the match without a champion while still not asking Jaycy's player to change the way she plays her character and we've avoided diminishing the role of the renegade baron by a rules change. Plus, what a cool SL that would be!

The rules that are in place have been play tested for years and have created some incredible SLs. I would hate to see the admin team go messing with them because of a couple individual situations when it would be easier to work around them by cooperating with one another OOC.

[Napoleon Bonarat]

Art, a lot of things have chanced since the game started, so I don't think it is fair to say that just because some of us have been dueling for a long time that we'd rather keep things as they are.

When dueling first started there wasn't an OL, barons, tests, intercessions, and a WL could use their fancies to score an automatic .5 regardless of the combo. We've had 9 baronies, then 13, then back down to 9. We've required peer wins (and the method of obtaining peer wins has changed over the years), then not. We've restricted the OL and barons on fancies against lower ranks then removed the restriction, etc.

A lot has changed; some for the better, some for the worse. I'd say that most of the changes have been for the better.

A renegade who steps in on an intercession or test is either doing it for the benefit of the challenger or to protest the OL--something I'd expect a renegade baron to do. This was specifically added as a way to add flavor to a duel when the OL tested or interceded and to add some balance. I don't see a benefit to taking this feature away.

If someone like Guill wants to hold his character with strict codes of honor and ensure the least likelihood that someone will step in on his behalf--his best bet is to always challenge a renegade baron. So it's not like he doesn't have an option for challenging that will maintain his character's specific rules of integrity. Since he has an option for challenging that fits his concept--and it is rather narrow (as is his right to decide)--I don't think there's really a need to change the rules at this time.

[Artemus Kurgen]

This is an OOC discussion, yes, but the topic effects both. It's alright Sartan-mun. I try not to speak for anyone but myself anymore, but I've had some conversations in the past where it was brought up how the "Old Guard" seems ever reluctant to hand over the reigns to the newer individuals of the game/sport. That's what was implied with that quip about standing by what has always been. It is human nature to an extent to resist the idea of a change without mass need. Is there a need to change the rule? Not really, though it has been brought up repeatedly that this discussed rule while fostering RP complicates matches ( and gives caller's headaches BELIEVE ME I KNOW! )

I know that Tasslehoffle's player wontt speak any more on this topic, but my first post covered reasons why either Loyal's or Renegade's challenge and noted how it's usually the first over the second. The renegade normally doesn't care about who the challenge is to; but steps in to thwart the other intercedent. In all situations the Challenging Warlord/Baron fights who they intended, but if their own intercedent fails it is a longer road. That is not being disputed. What is, is that ICly, not every duelist is going to think of "Hey, maybe I should talk to the Renegades to get them to butt out if possible." I even mentioned how it is an IC thing that a challenger could/should/would attempt to talk the Renegade out of it and let the chips fall where they may.

Furthermore, G has stated that he thought over this, and I'll take him at his word as I have supported his position and resume` to perform his job well, and flat out said nothing will be changed. This topic is done with on an official channel, anything from here on is players talking to players about something that can either be further simplified, or added to for MORE Role Play possibilities.

[Delahada]

In this particular situation, I think it would have been amazingly cool if, maybe, the Overlord sent a gang of thugs to bust Jaycy's kneecaps on her way to the Arena and made it look like a random robbery.

lol! oh man - that would've been awesome.

sorry, marc. I'm not trying to make you look like the bad-guy here. actually what you've had to say so far has helped me put a better perspective on it all. though in the long run, like Artemus, I feel in some places that some people have come across with the "passive aggressive" "lol stfu newb" attitude in response to guill's suggestion.

all I did was offer an IC perspective, and that's it. OOCly I can see why the rules are the way they are, but... I think what I'm trying to say is that maybe the rules need rewritten a little to help clarify why ICly they are the way they are? we all know why OOCly, but why ICly?

[Tormay Eludes]

I would just like to say that the idea eveolved very well, but I agree that it would just not work out very well.

G already said that this one was a no go, but I would like to encourage more discussions like this one. It was constructive and well thought out, and no nasty bickering! That's awesome, I like that.

Any other ideas that people come up with should be discussed like this one just to see what may comeout of it. If nothing else, this one seems to be generating some neat ideas RP wise that can stay within the rules we already have.

The busting kneecaps one is especially cool.