Intercessions?

[Andrea Anderson]

If there's a considerable amount of people held back specifically by the potential for Overlord intercessions, then to me the idea should be to tweak that specific element. Limit the amount of intercessions per cycle for the Overlord, so they're forced to pick and choose which of their Loyals are most valuable and deserve their sword.

Could limit it 1 per Baron during their reign. That way Barons have to pick and choose which challenge is best to request an intercession. I recall hearing the idea from someone but I can't quite remember who.

Reigns don't have static timetables. To limit intercessions per reign can severely handcuff a Baron if they, or the Overlord, have an extended reign.

The idea of limiting an Overlord's intercessions per cycle is to further create interactions between titleholders. If the Overlord is limited to, as an example, 3 intercessions per cycle then the Barons have to vie for them, and prove their worth. Intercessions then become a reward for Loyalty that has to be earned, rather than simply given away whenever requested. If the Overlord has a reliable Baron that always Tests, they can reward them and intercede in up to 3 challenges they have in a cycle to keep them around, just as an example. I think the idea of favoritism in the upper ranks has the ability to further distinguish Loyals from one another and spark some interesting RP. Being Loyal becomes more than just saying, "I'm Loyal" then not being required to do anything else for your tenure to reap all the benefits.

To balance out lessening the amount of intercessions available to the Supreme Duelist, you strengthen the intercession itself, and no longer allow Renegade Barons to champion a challenger when the Overlord intercedes. Essentially, Overlord intercessions would be absolute, but limited per cycle. More powerful, less frequent.

Obviously, anything you do in DoS has far reaching effects. I also think you have to remove intercession free challenges if the Overlord is already limited in the scope of their intercessions, or severely limit them to possibly a Madness prize each year. Potentially giving one out every WLT becomes entirely too many IC free challenges.

True. It would go hand in hand that if you drop intercessions to, let's say 3, you will have to give up intercession free challenge grants. There's no reason to have one if the other has been nerfed. But that's jut IMO. A limited number of intercessions per cycle would seem more balanced, and that's true -- it may create more RP / drama. A Loyal Baron dislikes that the Overlord did not use their intercession on them? Loyal Baron still defends? Gives the Baron a reason to go Renegade as payback and challenge. Could make useful drama.

[Fourth]

You know, I think that's the best idea. I think intercessions could be limited. That makes real conflict and forces the Overlord to say "Is it best for me to intercede here and then run the risk of not being able to later?" I don't know how it'd work, but I think that's a great way to create a wonderful chance to write!

[Kalamere]

Unlike Fists and Magic, the challenge system is designed to make results important to more than just the 2 people fighting for the title. Each title change is potentially meaningful, giving the Overlord more or less power; possibly giving the challenger's champion a title or at least a quick shot at one, etc. There are a lot of possibilities in the way things unfold.

In the last couple years I've think I've grown to like the game play of DoF more than DoS. Once I finally got around to understanding the matrix, I just like the way the duels play out more. Also, the Opals are interesting and open up a nice avenue for individual story telling. When it comes to the challenge system though, its just an entirely different animal. DoF challenges are almost always a one on one affair with no ramifications felt outside the individual challenge. Now and then somebody goes out of their way to write a bit of SL that makes their winning/losing of an opal important, but that's fairly rare and it takes a good deal of effort.

Every challenge in DoS has the potential to involve 4 people though and many can impact the other title holders as well, or others hoping to go after titles soon. Unaffiliated characters can often find themselves more interested in the outcome more quickly than if it's just a matter of me going for another opal to add to my collection.

Each has their place. I'd no sooner see DoF's opal system change than I would the DoS system. I personally find the DoS system a much more compelling avenue for driving community story telling though, whereas I think the others are more about individual accomplishment.

[Kalamere]

Personally I kinda like a system that makes people think about whether or not they should issue challenge and sometimes even dissuades them from doing so. Being part of the DoS community the longest, I've always felt that if going for a title there should be a reason for Kal to be doing so and presumably that reason outweighs whatever forces discourage it. This is why Kal has only challenged 5 times in his 20 year career.

I don't expect everyone to take the same path. For some, challenging for that title and holding one is what makes their time here interesting. It does tend to color my thinking on the matter though I guess.

Anyway, that said, I think it would be better to think about adding a downside to the intercessions, rather than a cycle limit. If an OL actually knew what challenges were on the table and had to pick between them, that would be cool... but it's not the way it generally works. There's no knowing in month one of a cycle what challenges might come up in month 3, or if there will even be any. The impact to the OL is also somewhat indirect.

What if, instead, each use of the OL's intercession ability reduced the SoA it took to challenge them. Maybe by 3. Reset to 15 at the beginning of each cycle and maybe make a minimum of 3 (though, dropping to 3 wouldn't mean the OL could no longer intercede, just that a challenger would always need at least 3 SoA).

eg:
* Beginning of the cycle, a warlord needs 15 SoA to challenge Morgan.
* Morgan intercedes on 1 challenge. The SoA to challenge her is now 12.
* Intercedes on a 2nd challenge. SoA to challenge her is now 9.
* etc.

ETA: I'd add in that if the SoA dropped to 3, the loyal wall rules no longer apply.

[Goldglo]

I like the idea of limiting the number of intercessions per reign/per cycle (probably the cycle option). I think in the here and now, it's a system that makes a great deal of sense.

--Matt

[Teagan]

I think it's weird that this came up after an intercession that was obviously a failure. It's proof that it's not a broken system at all.

If I recall, during my last OL reign I had two instances where Teagan interceded for a Loyal baron and that baron ended up losing their ring. There were already reasons to intercede as well as risks. She offered her loyalty to the Barons who offered it back, but there was always the fear that if she failed and her baron lost their title, the new baron would go renegade out of spite for the intercession.

Removing or reducing intercessions just feels like the next step in dumbing DoS down even more, after the recent surge in handing intercession free challenges out like candy. Morgan mentioned that DoS tends to cater toward the gamer/competitor role player more than the other sports, and I think destroying the intercession politics removes one of the primary role play aspects that keep DoS at least in a balance.

DoS without the possibility of any interference or interaction in challenges would be dull for me. Would professional wrestling be very entertaining if it was just one guy against another and that was it? Not really. It's the possibility of what else could happen that keeps things interesting. Who uses power to be a tyrant? Who steps up for the underdog? Who turns on their friend for the chance at a reward? Who gets pissed off because they feel short changed?

[Hope]

I think it's weird that this came up after an intercession that was obviously a failure. It's proof that it's not a broken system at all.

All that this really *proves* is that in two circumstances an intercession failed. Nothing else.

If I recall, during my last OL reign I had two instances where Teagan interceded for a Loyal baron and that baron ended up losing their ring.

Which puts the tally, if I'm not mistaken at at least 4 successful intercessions to 1(Shadow's challenge as far as I can see was the only intercession which was not successful* if I missed the other I'll gladly redact this) failed. Those aren't bad odds at all and if it hadn't been for those damned *shakes fist* intercession free grants, there may not have been half the new barons we saw in the past year.

I think destroying the intercession politics removes one of the primary role play aspects that keep DoS at least in a balance.

I don't think anyone wants to destroy the way the system works. Reducing the amount that are available for an overlord to use makes it the case where you can't just laugh and intercede six(five*) times for your barons at will. Intercessions could be argued to destroy the competitive nature of the sport when only one-third(one fifth*) lead to an actual challenge between the challenger and the incumbent.

I hope this doesn't come off venomous- it's not my intentions at all. Maybe if there's anyone familiar with the overall statistics we could get some nice number crunching going on.

[Kalamere]

Which puts the tally, if I'm not mistaken at at least 4 successful intercessions to 1(Shadow's challenge as far as I can see was the only intercession which was not successful* if I missed the other I'll gladly redact this) failed.

Then you should redact it. Earlier this month Aya stepped in as a renegade to allow Claire's challenge to Kal go through without intercession. I may be mistaken on the count, but I believe that Morgan has stepped in on 2 challenges so far during her reign (Kal and Shadow). Both of these saw renegade barons get involved. In both cases the renegade won and the challenge moved forward.

I think destroying the intercession politics removes one of the primary role play aspects that keep DoS at least in a balance.

I don't think anyone wants to destroy the way the system works.

Actually, that is exactly where this thread began. That we're now looking at the "compromise" position doesn't mean there aren't still some remaining opinions that it ought to be destroyed entirely.

Intercessions from the OL don't need limiting. This topic is coming up now after a mere 2 intercessions in a cycle. It is the existence of this rule, not some extreme commonality of its use, that has the discussion taking place.

We're also only looking at one side of the coin. The balance to the OL's right to intercede is the renegade's right to step in on it. I do not believe 1 should be modified without the other.

[Andrea Anderson]

Which puts the tally, if I'm not mistaken at at least 4 successful intercessions to 1(Shadow's challenge as far as I can see was the only intercession which was not successful* if I missed the other I'll gladly redact this) failed.

Then you should redact it. Earlier this month Aya stepped in as a renegade to allow Claire's challenge to Kal go through without intercession. I may be mistaken on the count, but I believe that Morgan has stepped in on 2 challenges so far during her reign (Kal and Shadow). Both of these saw renegade barons get involved. In both cases the renegade won and the challenge moved forward.

Read:

If I recall, during my last OL reign I had two instances where Teagan interceded for a Loyal baron and that baron ended up losing their ring.

during my last OL reign

my last OL reign

It was directed to Teagan's reign alone, in response to Teagans post. Not related to any Overlords after Teagan.

Shadow challenged Mur. Mur aske Teagan to step in. Shadow won the intercession and proceeded to fight Mur. Shadow then won and gained Dragon's Gate. Queen's response had nothing to do with the Battlefield Park challenge or any challenge outside of Teagan's reign. Teagan's reign alone had 4-1 Intercessions.

Link to Challenge.

I think destroying the intercession politics removes one of the primary role play aspects that keep DoS at least in a balance.

I don't think anyone wants to destroy the way the system works.

Actually, that is exactly where this thread began. That we're now looking at the "compromise" position doesn't mean there aren't still some remaining opinions that it ought to be destroyed entirely.

Point of the Thread:

So my question is this, really. What point does it serve and does it keep people from being interested in DoS or is it just me? New players, would you bother with a challenge knowing you'd have to fight an intercession? Or would that prevent you from challenging?

Asking newer players. Players who have been here, I'd assume, a year or less if the intercession rule is the reason why many seem uninterested in participating in Duel of Swords. While there seems to be an upswing in new players trying / ranking in DoF -- DoS has stagnated when it comes to truly new Warlords. Only two *truly* new Barons have taken the title in the last year. The rest are alts of older players.

[Kalamere]

It was directed to Teagan's reign alone, in response to Teagans post. Not related to any Overlords after Teagan.

I apologize. The reference to a Shadow vs. Teagan fight brought to mind the most recent challenge, rather than her intercession for Mur last year.

I would maintain though that we're talking about scaling down a thing that has only happened 2 times in the most recent cycle, both or which played out with renegade involvement allowing the challenge to go through.

As to the point of the thread comment, it's nice that you picked out the end question and all, but the opening paragraph makes it pretty clear where it was actually directed.

[Lilly Hyde]

I think that discussions on rules is good. I think that people should keep in mind that not everyone that enjoys dueling will enjoy slogging through a rules discussion.

That any options that come up during these discussions should see a vote done before they are implemented. I like the Loyal system, could it use some changes? Maybe, I like it the way it is but that doesn't mean that I'm completely opposed to a reasonable change.

I don't like the Best of Three in Fists, has kept me from challenging for 15 years, do I think they should change the rules to suit me? Nope. Gives DoF flavor that makes it different from DoM or DoS.

I think putting some numbers around this would be a good way to moderate any changes but I don't think that numbers can measure the additional layer of RP that goes along with the Loyalty system.

[Andrea Anderson]

I would maintain though that we're talking about scaling down a thing that has only happened 2 times in the most recent cycle, both or which played out with renegade involvement allowing the challenge to go through.

This is only due to the new uprising in Renegades. Most problems seem to arise when there is a loyal wall. If there was a workaround to allow another means of countering intercessions with a loyal wall in play ( outside of more intercession free challenges ), then maybe the issue could be fixed. With the Renegades currently in play challenges can be seen as more balanced, though in the end Barons are still favored in the process.

As to the point of the thread comment, it's nice that you picked out the end question and all, but the opening paragraph makes it pretty clear where it was actually directed.

Stating that the system is bad is not downright saying it should be dismantled.



"But really, the intercession thing? I think it's a bad system."

An opinion. But not downright saying it should be done away with.

"I know my stance is radical, but let me ask you this. Why does it exist in one sport, not the other two? Is it really called for? What purpose does it serve?"

"In that sense, it's keeping at least me from the sport. Does it keep anyone else from the sport? I'm just curious, so please feel free to comment."

Follows into the true question / intent of the thread. All points lead up to the main topic. How newer players felt about the situation.

Questions. Where does it say the rule should be done away with? If we're going to assume I'll assume that the intent was to open discussion of possible changes or to gauge the newer playerbase for their like / dislike of the system. Not downright asking for it to be taken away. The topic brought up good ideas of changing to keep the DoS Political System in play but also making it more fair to the challengers.

[Andrea Anderson]

I don't like the Best of Three in Fists, has kept me from challenging for 15 years, do I think they should change the rules to suit me? Nope. Gives DoF flavor that makes it different from DoM or DoS.

DoM has forced best of three format as well.

[Lem DeAngelo]

What if, instead, each use of the OL's intercession ability reduced the SoA it took to challenge them. Maybe by 3. Reset to 15 at the beginning of each cycle and maybe make a minimum of 3 (though, dropping to 3 wouldn't mean the OL could no longer intercede, just that a challenger would always need at least 3 SoA).

eg:
* Beginning of the cycle, a warlord needs 15 SoA to challenge Morgan.
* Morgan intercedes on 1 challenge. The SoA to challenge her is now 12.
* Intercedes on a 2nd challenge. SoA to challenge her is now 9.
* etc.

ETA: I'd add in that if the SoA dropped to 3, the loyal wall rules no longer apply.

Just my opinion: The politics of DoS have always been more interesting to me than the game of DoS. If an Overlord has a policy to intercede on every challenge, there will likely be some characters who disagree with the policy and they can A) step in if they are a renegade baron or B) get SoA and challenge the OL, or C) get SoA and challenge a loyal baron while making a deal with a renegade baron to intercede if needed. The rules of alignment encourage more character interaction and can potentially create interesting reasons for challenges.

Kal's suggestion quoted above sounds interesting if a rule change is desired.

I suppose another option could be to add an intercession free challenge option if the challenger submits 20 SoA as opposed to 10. I personally think I like Kal's suggestion better because it would add more risk to intercessions. I can imagine the drama if an OL declined to intercede for a baron because they did not want to be open to challenge at only 3-6 WoL during a cycle.

That said, I wonder if some of the different views on intercessions may be due to the current view of the duels being more similar to sporting events between star athletes. In sports, you just need to keep winning in order to get a title shot. Back in the 90s, it seemed like most viewed the duels as being in a medieval setting with lords and ladies and dueling houses. If I were new to the duels and viewed them similar to modern sports, I'd probably be confused about things like "test of worthiness" and "ladies of honor."

[Kalamere]

Most problems seem to arise when there is a loyal wall. If there was a workaround to allow another means of countering intercessions with a loyal wall in play ( outside of more intercession free challenges ), then maybe the issue could be fixed. With the Renegades currently in play challenges can be seen as more balanced, though in the end Barons are still favored in the process.

The loyal wall rule has no real impact here. That only prevents a challenge to the Overlord. Since the OL is already infinitely more challengable, even with the Test of Worthiness rules in place, than is the Diamond or the ArchMage, I have to assume that is a non-issue. If you mean just that with no renegades in play, the challenger has no hope of support... that's sorta by design. Get a baron on your side and flip them.

Has anyone getting behind the idea of intercession limits actually looked at the count of intercessions per OL / per cycle?

Since the beginning of Candy's reign in Aug. of 2012 there have been 13 OL intercessions.

* No OL has interceded more than 3 times in a given cycle. Only Teagan has more than 2 and her count was likely inflated due to the number of Hydra related challenges going on at the beginning of her reign.

* In 7 of 13, a renegade baron stepped in. Teagan's reign is again and outlier in this because she did it 5 times and not once did a renegade get involved. Remove her from the equation and instead you see a renegade stepping in 7 times out of 8.