Strategic Secessions

[Stue (DC)]

You're the one that flat out dictated how every ruler in the game should act.

No, I ma not dictating anything, but it seems you will prefer to dictate players how to think.

I just present very basic common sense to show that, if the game is to stay as partly roleplaying game, those in power should feel responsibility to present at least basic sense to their acts, rather than just pressing buttons and caring for their ooc business.

the one who show blatant disregard to any in-game logic is certainly someone who puts his focus on ooc dealing, that was never different since i've been playing.

secession is violent act of disregard binding loyalties, and there is no any sense that ruler is involved in planning of such secession, and there is no any sense that such ruler will hope to retain power and influence over such duchy, that declared independence from his direct rule, logic is straightforwardly simple.

and i am not making any assumptions, i am referring to the original post in this thread, so would urge you to reread it to avoid diverting subject who-knows-where.

[Chenier]

Sometimes the ruler can't avoid the secession, and trying to prevent it will only hurt him more. It's therefore in his interests to go along with it, as even if he loses a little power it's less than if he confronts the concerned dukes.

[Stue (DC)]

Sometimes the ruler can't avoid the secession, and trying to prevent it will only hurt him more. It's therefore in his interests to go along with it, as even if he loses a little power it's less than if he confronts the concerned dukes.

original post is about planned secession, which is described in first post and i was curious to see that even such approach is defended on these forums which appear to become place for ooc advocacy too often, instead of promoting game principles (now indirik will probably accuse me that i want to dictate game principles to rulers, as if i designed it - though i find much sense in them and agree with them...)

going along with it is something completely different from organizing it.

[Indirik]

No, I ma not dictating anything...

Like hell you're not: "in game, ruler can hardly have good reason to willingly reduce his own realm - if region is hard to control he will put blame on incompetent lord (even if that is not true)."

You directly said right there that the ruler can't have a reason to want to split his realm, and that he has to blame  the lord for regional problems even if he know's it's not their fault. So even if the ruler knows that his realm is too big, has too awkward a geometry, and that it simply cannot be controlled, is falling apart, and that it will 100% fail and cease to exist, he must blame all the problems on incompetent underlings, put on his blinders, and crank up those taxes to compensate for it!

And then through the rest of your post here, you continue to tell us how rulers have to act, because it's the only way that makes sense, and implying that anyone who doesn't behave that way is only doping it because of OOC reasons.

...rather than just pressing buttons and caring for their ooc business.

Yeah.. because everyone who plans a secession as anything other than a bloody war is an OOC powergamer that never RPs, only cares about gaming the mechanics, and has no interest in engaging with people in IC interaction.

secession is violent act

Wrong. There is nothing that mandates that secession has to be violent, or lead to war. It may be a common (even the most common) result, but it is not mandatory.

of disregard binding loyalties, and there is no any sense that ruler is involved in planning of such secession,

Wrong. Even if you assume that secession should not be a peaceful thing, you are still missing out on many, many ways in which a ruler could be complicit in planing a secession in a completely IC, RP'd way.

and there is no any sense that such ruler will hope to retain power and influence over such duchy, that declared independence from his direct rule,

So who says the ruler has to want to keep the duchy under his control? Again, you're assuming that all rulers have the same motivations: The desire to control as much land as possible, and to be as powerful as possible. That's an incredibly narrow viewpoint that is just completely wrong.

logic is straightforwardly simple.

And yet completely wrong. The only reason you think it's simple is because of your amazingly shallow characterization of rulers as egotistical, power hungry, control freaks.

[Indirik]

original post is about planned secession

No it's not.

[Anaris]

logic is straightforwardly simple.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
~ H L Mencken

[Ramiel]

The only reason you think it's simple is because of your amazingly shallow characterization of rulers as egotistical, power hungry, control freaks.

I thought was a requirement to becoming a Ruler?

[Indirik]

I won't deny that it helps.

[Bedwyr]

So who says the ruler has to want to keep the duchy under his control? Again, you're assuming that all rulers have the same motivations: The desire to control as much land as possible, and to be as powerful as possible. That's an incredibly narrow viewpoint that is just completely wrong.
And yet completely wrong. The only reason you think it's simple is because of your amazingly shallow characterization of rulers as egotistical, power hungry, control freaks.

And, ah, even if you do assume that all Rulers are egotistical, power hungry control freaks that doesn't mean they wouldn't go along with a secession.  Hell, I'm planning a secession with Arcaea that is absolutely key to my plans to become more egotistical, gain power, and become even more of a control freak.  There are also some very strong RP reasons behind it.

[De-Legro]

I just present very basic common sense to show that, if the game is to stay as partly roleplaying game, those in power should feel responsibility to present at least basic sense to their acts, rather than just pressing buttons and caring for their ooc business.

the one who show blatant disregard to any in-game logic is certainly someone who puts his focus on ooc dealing, that was never different since i've been playing.

secession is violent act of disregard binding loyalties, and there is no any sense that ruler is involved in planning of such secession, and there is no any sense that such ruler will hope to retain power and influence over such duchy, that declared independence from his direct rule, logic is straightforwardly simple.

I've always had a simple metric for defining "common sense" and "Straight foward Logic". If you have to spend more then 30 minutes convincing a rational person that it is indeed common sense or logical, then you have probably stuffed up your assumptions and generated a "logical" piece of crap.

When you can put aside your rather irrational assumption that RP is somehow under threat in this game, then perhaps you can construct a logical construct that doesn't resolve around it. Until then is will be the same old rigid assumptions and a distinct lack of tolerance for any innovative or interesting character attributes that may actually enrich the RP experience so that you can peddle a narrow range of "required" attributes for positions that seem to all come from either watching too many poorly made History Channel documentaries, or mass produced fantasy fiction.

[Stue (DC)]

Secession is violent and self-righteous act of rejecting to recognize what is formal and legal binding.

Having ruler to convince dukes to secede, means initiate and plan such secessions for whatever reason is simply and straightforwardly awkward, in the same manner as planned rebellions, strategic capital movements and similar stuff.

i believe there is no need to make elaborate of that, as it is very simple, but the fact that you want to make even the most basic logic relative is your call and I would not waste time on it.

There are no any "rules that I am dictating", there are rulers set up by game creator and one of them is "play your characters within environment", meaning game environment, not ooc environment.

i can only say that it is saddening to see how ooc playing and metagaming is not only tolerated, but even encouraged through these forums.

[Sacha]

Tom's rules also include 'Friendly secessions are okay'.

And if you really can't think of any environment where a friendly secession is appropriate or even down right necessary, then you're just stuck in a rigid thinking pattern. You seem to think all players should adhere to a set of rules and guidelines on how to play.

[Stue (DC)]

And yet completely wrong. The only reason you think it's simple is because of your amazingly shallow characterization of rulers as egotistical, power hungry, control freaks.

I could say that must be a joke, but it seems you believe in it to some extent 

very little effort is needed, if you are not obsessed with some presumptions, to see that what you call "shallow characterization" is intentionally simplified presentation of in-world logic most could agree about.

however, if you seemingly completely disregard background and are willing to declare it proudly, than, of course, there are little means to agree about anything with you.

if rulers are not  egotistical, power hungry, control freaks, what else they should be in-game environment? they can hide their traits with more or less diplomatic and rhetoric ability, but if they do not have such traits, they are nothing but tasteless slots, creators of boredom, and lol, in that respect i can understand if you feel some of my thoughts as dictates - you simply do not want to be bound with any in-game logic, and than all that remains are fine buddies who do fine things and expect other to do fine things in return. which is nothing, no stories, no agendas, no troubles, nothing to do outside that "fine" agenda which in its core wants to avoid any clash in advance. perfect formula for 80-men realms where nothing ever happens.

calling ruler egoistical and power hungry is oxymoron, as you call priest "obsessed with spiritual subject" or soldier "someone prone to violence" i do not know whether you see how awkward such approach is.

again, secession is act of denying ruler's power, and it may or may not end in war, it certainly depends on circumstances, but saying that it is ok that ruler plans or initiates secession is in my opionion completly awkward and disregards very basic character traits, which in not my dictate, but "dictate" of game background.

and if you do not care for background at all, we have what we have on some continents - tasteless and shapeless slots who press their buttons in utter silence, and there are no means to do anything to fight against complete boredom.

you cannot play game ic if those around you or those in power have no any ic agenda (dictate).

[Sacha]

And yet despite that very elaborate post, Tom's own words remain 'Friendly secessions are okay.'

[Indirik]

very little effort is needed, if you are not obsessed with some presumptions, to see that what you call "shallow characterization" is intentionally simplified presentation of in-world logic most could agree about.

Uhh... No. "In-game logic" is not intentionally simplified. The depth and variety of characterizations is what makes the game more interesting. If everyone acted the same, and held the same IC beliefs and motivations, then how boring would that be?

if rulers are not  egotistical, power hungry, control freaks, what else they should be in-game environment?

Anything they want to be.

they can hide their traits with more or less diplomatic and rhetoric ability, but if they do not have such traits, they are nothing but tasteless slots, creators of boredom

So you can *pretend* to be have other traits and motivations, but at the core, our characters have to be what you say they are, or we're hurting the game. Because you're way is the only proper way to play.

you cannot play game ic if those around you or those in power have no any ic agenda (dictate).

Having an IC agenda does not require that the character behave in the way you proclaim is the only reasonable way. Nor does it require that every character should be motivated by the same things your characters are motivated by.