Rule Proposal

[Jake]

To reiterate, I'm not in favor of rules being added that allow a dueler to hold multiple Baronies.

I'm perfectly ok with Barons challenging each other directly, outside of the rules structure, with a gentleman's agreement that the loser give up their Barony. (I'm even ok with villains reneging on their promise to give up their Barony. It makes them more villainous.)

I do feel that in these circumstances, the Baron has the right to refuse the challenge.

One variant that I think would be ok, is that if Barons A & B voluntarily decide to fight each other, with the loser giving up their Barony, the winner could choose to claim the won Barony as their own. e.g., the Baron of Dockside is tired of dealing with dock-worker strikes and surly sailors getting into street brawls all the time, and offers challenge to the Baron of Seaside. Winning that challenge, and then taking Seaside as their Barony, while leaving Dockside vacated.

[Sylus Kurgen]

Can't say I'd really be interested in a Baron's tournament to be honest. That's not to say don't do it, of course.. whatever event makes people happy is cool.

As a general matter though, I think tournaments are overplayed. We already have a ton of them if you consider all the ones that DoF and DoM hold in addition what DoS does (since I think a lot, if not most, players participate in 2 or 3 of the games). I also don't like how long tournaments run, but that's probably just me. My favorite is DoS Madness because it's a long stretch of nights but doesn't totally suck down a night or two.

Anyway.. my point being that we already have over 2 tournaments a month just with the standard DQ, WLT, AMT, Panther, Talong, etc. If we want to do something new, then lets do something we don't already have going on every 2 weeks.

Hence having something like it once-a-year. But it has been brought up that once a duelist makes to the top two ranks in every sport what then? Where do they go? Teagan has been Overlord, she's held a couple Barony titles. What in the game is there left for her to do? She's not the first to consider this nor will she be the last. UNDER Warlord/Emerald/Mage has a lot of things available to do, but what about above that? A tournament every cycle, right to challenge (if they want it). Tegan has been through that riggamarow and is now saying she wants something more. Obviously 100 WoL clubs don't appeal to her or she'd be going for one of those as they take as much dedication and patience as anything else within the game. Same with Triple Crown.

What can we do to keep dueling interesting for Barons and the Overlord? Not everyone likes sitting around waiting to be challenged, and not everyone has the time or energy to make a story line. Like was brought up in a WoW reference, about all that's left is making a new character and starting all over again.

[G]

But it has been brought up that once a duelist makes to the top two ranks in every sport what then? Where do they go? Teagan has been Overlord, she's held a couple Barony titles. What in the game is there left for her to do? She's not the first to consider this nor will she be the last. UNDER Warlord/Emerald/Mage has a lot of things available to do, but what about above that?

And what happens when they've done whatever is left to do? What happens when they've held all baronies at once, won a barons tournament, etc. etc.

You can't anticipate every outcome. I know I certainly can't, which is why I rely on people coming up with suggestions.

That said, really, there's already plenty of things for her and everyone to do and go. There's tons of options available. Granted, it's their choice not to use those options. That doesn't mean they're not out there.

I cannot and really will not cater to one individuals whim unless it benefits the community as a whole. Now, this is not a target on anyone in particular mind you, because I mean it over many, many suggestions I've had in the past, and expect I'll get in the future. I've turned down suggestions several times over things that are only what one person feels they want.

This suggestion over a Baron holding multiple titles is not one that I see benefiting the community, just an individual. And that individual would be whichever Baron wanted to hold the multiple titles. In fact it would likely cause problems down the line if two or three people got together and decided to hold a monopoly of Baronies, making it difficult for anyone else to hold them. After all, if one of the three holds titles, and loses it to a Warlord, there's nothing to stop a second Baron from going in and challenging that new Baron to get it back.

No, that is not something I'd want to see happen in Swords.

[G]

What can we do to keep dueling interesting for Barons and the Overlord? Not everyone likes sitting around waiting to be challenged, and not everyone has the time or energy to make a story line

There's plenty of options available for the OL and Barons to use to keep it interesting. Not taking advantage of these options is something that saddens me. In turn, not everyone likes the idea of having new rules implemented just to alleviate boredom. Not everyone likes that people don't use the settings, Squire tourney, current options available to them. Most people don't like when Barons become absent.

Comparing to WoW, again, it's like saying "I'm bored now that I've hit 80, there's nothing for me to do." When in fact there's still tons to do like lower level quests for faction, trade skills, exploration, dungeons, going on raids still etc. Who's fault is it that the individual is bored with all these things available to them? Should WoW come up with something just to satisfy the bored player? Same thing here.

[Jake]

Hence having something like it once-a-year. But it has been brought up that once a duelist makes to the top two ranks in every sport what then? Where do they go? Teagan has been Overlord, she's held a couple Barony titles. What in the game is there left for her to do? She's not the first to consider this nor will she be the last. UNDER Warlord/Emerald/Mage has a lot of things available to do, but what about above that? A tournament every cycle, right to challenge (if they want it). Tegan has been through that riggamarow and is now saying she wants something more. Obviously 100 WoL clubs don't appeal to her or she'd be going for one of those as they take as much dedication and patience as anything else within the game. Same with Triple Crown.

What can we do to keep dueling interesting for Barons and the Overlord? Not everyone likes sitting around waiting to be challenged, and not everyone has the time or energy to make a story line. Like was brought up in a WoW reference, about all that's left is making a new character and starting all over again.

It comes back to the same answer tho'. It's a never-ending escalation. What comes after 50th level? Well, we can add 60th. What after 60th? We can add special 60th level prizes, and let you create new characters at 30th instead of 1st. What comes after I beat the final level in Soul Calibur? What comes after winning the Wimbledon?

Yes, we could keep creating new titles, and or tourneys, or special incentives, that will be usable by only a subset of our player-base, but at some point every player has to bring their own fun.

What keeps you playing/roleplaying/dueling year after year? What keeps you playing chess year after year? What keeps you playing tennis or softball? The burden of keeping people entertained/interested/playing can't be solely upon the game to add new features.

So this person isn't interested in the 100WoL club (I'm not. I've been around more than a decade and haven't reached the milestone in any sport.) That person isn't interested in holding the top title in all of the sports. Another person doesn't want to deal with having squires or managing a district. That's fine. No one can tell you how to have fun.

But it's a slippery slope to think that we can continually tweak the game to keep it interesting. We can't.

We have to bring our own fun at some point.

[Sylus Kurgen]

If my solutions to issues are over simplified, I would greatly appreciate being shown why they are over simplified. I've already asked someone to point out the glaring flaws in this idea. Be specific. Give details.

Just so no one thinks I've ignored this.

The glaring flaws have been brought up. Your idea messes with the balance of the game in generating too much potential power for one duelist. Dalamar held the Overlord seat for longer than any recorded duelist. Under your proposal, were another like him to come along and potentially hold all these titles that is 7 rings dead-locked under one person. Can we say it'll never happen? Yes. But Murphy Law likes to come and kick us all in the teeth.

You propose an addition to all ready complex rules and while adding a possible achievement for Barons to have, it ultimately devalues the Overlord title. Why hold one title when I can hold multiple Baronies?

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

What can we do to keep dueling interesting for Barons and the Overlord? Not everyone likes sitting around waiting to be challenged, and not everyone has the time or energy to make a story line

There's plenty of options available for the OL and Barons to use to keep it interesting. Not taking advantage of these options is something that saddens me. In turn, not everyone likes the idea of having new rules implemented just to alleviate boredom. Not everyone likes that people don't use the settings, Squire tourney, current options available to them. Most people don't like when Barons become absent.

Comparing to WoW, again, it's like saying "I'm bored now that I've hit 80, there's nothing for me to do." When in fact there's still tons to do like lower level quests for faction, trade skills, exploration, dungeons, going on raids still etc. Who's fault is it that the individual is bored with all these things available to them? Should WoW come up with something just to satisfy the bored player? Same thing here.

I don't agree with tweaking rules or gimmicks. I've been playing this game for the better part of a decade and haven't gotten bored yet. We have to "cater to the majority" as I saw it put in another OOC discussion. I agree that we've got a lot to keep the majority entertained, but minor things for instant gratification for upper slots might not be a bad consideration. Not out to look hypocritical by opposing one idea and offer another, just offering considerations. I'm an idea generator, it's what I do. Imagination is the only real limiting factor RoH has in things to do.

As to Tormay, Maria, Deathlord, and the other Barons, my comment about no challenges forthcoming being with the barons, that was "off base" as Maria put it. I apologize.

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

Hence having something like it once-a-year. But it has been brought up that once a duelist makes to the top two ranks in every sport what then? Where do they go? Teagan has been Overlord, she's held a couple Barony titles. What in the game is there left for her to do? She's not the first to consider this nor will she be the last. UNDER Warlord/Emerald/Mage has a lot of things available to do, but what about above that? A tournament every cycle, right to challenge (if they want it). Tegan has been through that riggamarow and is now saying she wants something more. Obviously 100 WoL clubs don't appeal to her or she'd be going for one of those as they take as much dedication and patience as anything else within the game. Same with Triple Crown.

What can we do to keep dueling interesting for Barons and the Overlord? Not everyone likes sitting around waiting to be challenged, and not everyone has the time or energy to make a story line. Like was brought up in a WoW reference, about all that's left is making a new character and starting all over again.

It comes back to the same answer tho'. It's a never-ending escalation. What comes after 50th level? Well, we can add 60th. What after 60th? We can add special 60th level prizes, and let you create new characters at 30th instead of 1st. What comes after I beat the final level in Soul Calibur? What comes after winning the Wimbledon?

Yes, we could keep creating new titles, and or tourneys, or special incentives, that will be usable by only a subset of our player-base, but at some point every player has to bring their own fun.

What keeps you you playing/roleplaying/dueling year after year? What keeps you playing chess year after year? What keeps you playing tennis or softball? The burden of keeping people entertained/interested/playing can't be solely upon the game to add new features.

So this person isn't interested in the 100WoL club (I'm not. I've been around more than a decade and haven't reached the milestone in any sport.) That person isn't interested in holding the top title in all of the sports. Another person doesn't want to deal with having squires or managing a district. That's fine. No one can tell you how to have fun.

But it's a slippery slope to think that we can continually tweak the game to keep it interesting. We can't.

We have to bring our own fun at some point.

Agreed. That's about all I can say to your points Jake. Both you and G reiterated the crux of the problem between Interest and Boredom within DoS. It's like owning a video arcade and not playing any of the games.

[PrlUnicorn]

No matter what game someone is playing, there will always be a point when they hit the wall and grow bored or disenchanted with it. What do they do when that happens? They start a new character and begin from the bottom or buy a new video game.

I'm not in favor of any one character holding more than one of the Baronial Rings at a time. Those titles as previously stated are already limited, why further limit the options of current Warlords, grant holders, etc. because Barons are under challenge from other Barons?

Baronial Tournament for free shot at the Overlord and possibly site silvers, that sounds fine to me.

[Kalamere]

The thing that interests me is the base concept, without regard to the underlying mechanics. That is: A way for one baron to challenge another baron within the guidelines of the rules. Everything else is details.

Jake mentioned this as an option outside of the rules, which it obviously is. The part I like about it being a more official thing though is that then there is some backing, some way to force it to happen. Yes, I know that's not really in the spirit of cooperative roleplay. Not everything we do is though, certainly none of the other challenge mechanics are.

If the concept is interesting, then maybe it's worth flushing out a system that makes it work and addresses the concerns so many have posted. If not, then so be it, but I don't believe Teagan meant to set out a chiseled in stone methodology here.

Am I really the only other person that thinks this would be interesting and is willing to at least discuss how best it could be done?

[Kalamere]

Regarding a Baron tournament:

Hence having something like it once-a-year

My point being that it's still more of the same, even if it is only annually. I don't mean to disparage the existing tournaments, their creators or the people who run them, sorry if I offend anyone. It is just another tournament in a sea of them though. Let's do something new.

The idea of some once a year event for Barons, where the prize is a shot at the Overlord is fine. I have no issue with that and, as a baron, appreciate you tossing out your consideration. There's got to be some more interesting thing that accomplishes the goal though. If you're an idea generator, I'm sure you could come up with something slightly more novel.

[Jake]

The thing that interests me is the base concept, without regard to the underlying mechanics. That is: A way for one baron to challenge another baron within the guidelines of the rules. Everything else is details.

Are you proposing this without the inclusion of a single dueler holding multiple titles?

If so, I'd suggest the mechanic is already there.

Borrowing from my own suggestion, let's say that Baron Rizzo decides he wants Baron Abercrombie's manor. Baron Rizzo challenges Baron Abercrombie for his title, outside the rules, in "gentleman's honor" sort of duel. Loser to return to Warlord, winner to keep the Barony of their choosing.

Baron Abercrombie, comfortable in his manor, elects to refuse Rizzo's challenge.

Rizzo decides that's not good enough. He elects to voluntarily resign his Barony so that he can challenge Abercrombie using the already existing challenge rules for a Warlord to challenge a Baron.

...

If Rizzo is challenging Abercrombie because he's bored, I think it's fair that Abercrombie get to refuse him.

If Rizzo really wants the other title, I don't think it's unreasonable that he resign his title and offer challenge via the regular rules.

...

Under this framework, no changes* to the rules are necessary. And if anyone wanted to try it, we'd see how popular it was (or not) and whether it's worth inclusion in the formal rules at some later point.

(*Other than a minor note that a Baron can take another Barony, giving up his/her current.)

[Kalamere]

Yes, we could keep creating new titles, and or tourneys, or special incentives, that will be usable by only a subset of our player-base, but at some point every player has to bring their own fun.

What keeps you playing/roleplaying/dueling year after year? What keeps you playing chess year after year? What keeps you playing tennis or softball? The burden of keeping people entertained/interested/playing can't be solely upon the game to add new features.

emphasis mine

I don't disagree, but I add emphasis to the quote as reminder that the statements do not rule out a games need to change and mature and "stay fresh" to those who play it.

* At what point is "some point"?
* Stating the burden cannot be "solely" on the game implicitly recognizes it is neither solely on the player.

It is a combination of both. Obviously the game can't bow to every whim. I've had my own whims shot down and as someone who helped run another long standing game, I shot down plenty of suggestions there as well. The line of "make your own fun" reasoning shouldn't be thrown out quite so strongly though, at least in my opinion. Of course every player needs to find ways to amuse themselves... but it's also our responsibility as the community to examine those ideas that are brought here to see if they might help the game.

Negativity cast on new ideas can be pretty harsh in this forum, I think this thread has been particularly bad for that. Not all new ideas need to be accepted; hell, most probably shouldn't. Nothing wrong with talking it through though. Too much teeing off on suggestions has a tendency to keep new ones from being offered in the future, which I think would be to our detriment.

[Kalamere]

If so, I'd suggest the mechanic is already there.

I don't agree, for two reasons.

1.) Having to give up one title first is sort of against the grain. On the one hand this is potentially a duel for honor, while on the other most would agree that forfeiting a title voluntarily goes against honor.

2.) More importantly, however, is that once Rizzo resigns the title he becomes a warlord. The thing about two Barons duking it out is that they are on equal footing. i.e.: equal number of fancies.

I also admit to liking the idea of one person having the ability to hold multiple rings, so would prefer to see that be available... though restricted. I wouldn't mind seeing squires play some kind of role in that arrangement either. Personally, I don't like the squire system, but it could be an incentive for others to use it. Maybe something to the effect of: A baron with a squire can put his squire up first as a sort of test of worthiness (whereas, a baron without a squire would have no such option).

[Jake]

Yes, we could keep creating new titles, and or tourneys, or special incentives, that will be usable by only a subset of our player-base, but at some point every player has to bring their own fun.

What keeps you playing/roleplaying/dueling year after year? What keeps you playing chess year after year? What keeps you playing tennis or softball? The burden of keeping people entertained/interested/playing can't be solely upon the game to add new features.

emphasis mine

I don't disagree, but I add emphasis to the quote as reminder that the statements do not rule out a games need to change and mature and "stay fresh" to those who play it.

* At what point is "some point"?
* Stating the burden cannot be "solely" on the game implicitly recognizes it is neither solely on the player.

It is a combination of both. Obviously the game can't bow to every whim. I've had my own whims shot down and as someone who helped run another long standing game, I shot down plenty of suggestions there as well. The line of "make your own fun" reasoning shouldn't be thrown out quite so strongly though, at least in my opinion. Of course every player needs to find ways to amuse themselves... but it's also our responsibility as the community to examine those ideas that are brought here to see if they might help the game.

Negativity cast on new ideas can be pretty harsh in this forum, I think this thread has been particularly bad for that. Not all new ideas need to be accepted; hell, most probably shouldn't. Nothing wrong with talking it through though. Too much teeing off on suggestions has a tendency to keep new ones from being offered in the future, which I think would be to our detriment.

My wording was deliberate, and I did mean to suggest that it's a shared burden between the players and the staff. Not solely on the staff, and not solely on the individual players.

I pretty much agree, but would also point out that there have been several changes over the past couple of years.

Addition of the Squires, and the Squire tournies.

Addition of the rule that allows the Talon to fight in the WLT, (which in turn got us our first commoner-Overlord).

Adjustment just recently of the rules regarding challenges with the inclusion of SOA, and the rules regarding Loyal and Renegade status and whether the Overlord is directly challengeable.

So...in counterpoint to your argument, there has a very *active* discussion over the last couple of years re: DoS rules, and several significant changes. In the interest of keeping the game interesting, there *have* been changes, and recently.

So, does DoS need *another* tweak so soon?

Regarding the initial proposal from Teagan, I still favor the essence of it (the ability to hold multiple titles) as more appropriate/more interesting for DoF, and would like to see it tried there.

For the Baron vs. Baron thing, it was my impression that part of the discussion around the SOA was concern about the frequency of challenges, so if SOA was implemented to slow that down a little, it seems contrary to implement a new rule now that provides yet another avenue for Barons to see challenges they cannot refuse.

...

Summarizing:

I don't feel allowing people to hold multiple titles in DoS is presently desirable (but do feel it might be fun to try over in DoF).

I'm not opposed to Baron vs. Baron challenges, where the winner loses their title, and the winner keeps the title of their choice (the leftover title going into a tourney), however don't see that this is something that needs to be added to the formal rules (at least not at this time).

[Jake]

... but it's also our responsibility as the community to examine those ideas that are brought here to see if they might help the game.

Negativity cast on new ideas can be pretty harsh in this forum, I think this thread has been particularly bad for that. Not all new ideas need to be accepted; hell, most probably shouldn't. Nothing wrong with talking it through though. Too much teeing off on suggestions has a tendency to keep new ones from being offered in the future, which I think would be to our detriment.

And hopefully Teagan doesn't feel that I've attacked her, or attempted to be negative to the proposal and discussion of ideas.

You, having debated ideas with me for many years, would know I've never had any problems discussing new ideas.

[Kalamere]

I know the wording was deliberate, Jake. You're not really the one I was trying to point it out to.

I'm familiar with rules changing. Some good, some bad. I don't mean to ignore that things do get tweaked, though it does bother me that it can be such a fight just to get a civil discussion on things. I don't see any harm in mapping out a great plan on how this would work and then getting to the end and saying "cool, maybe some day we'll do this".

Recently it's being suggested that we don't need changes "so soon" since the last ones. That's a pretty subjective measure of time, but sure I can go along with that. There's still no reason it can't be settled out and held in the back pocket for whenever it's been long enough to make a new tweak.

I don't see the SoA thing the same was as you do. To me it is not the frequency of challenges overall. It is more about (a) the frequency of challenges from the same person and (b) the lesser of evils as compared to peer wins.

As to formal rules, there I disagree. I know you have issues with the inability to refuse a challenge in general, but that's one of the things we don't really see eye to eye on. As with normal challenges, I think this too would have to be mandatory in order to be worth having at all.