Bottom Up Battlemaster

[Bedwyr]

I will preface this by saying this is more in the way of a "discussion of a fun possibility" than any serious effort to craft a feature request.  This is certainly not something that could be done in the next year, or even the next couple of years (at least I would guess that it can't), but I thought it intriguing enough that I wanted to see what others thought and if they could improve on it.  I think this would build nicely with Tom/Barek's ideas on more fluid hierarchies and geographies, but could conceivably work without those.

The basic premise is that everyone has political power, and everyone can cede that power to their liege, possibly with gradations (full vs. conditional support, more on this later).  Whether you kept or ceded power would be codified in your oath (now a formalized, game-mechanic construct) along with a few other things, and the effects would be...Interesting.

First, the strength of the Ruler and Council (central government) is dependent on how much of the realm's political power flows all the way to the top.  If you can convince all the knights to cede power to their lords, all the lords to cede to their dukes, and all the dukes to cede to you, congratulations, you are a very strong Ruler (Tyrant, in the traditional BM parlance).  What this means is where it gets interesting.  My initial thoughts are that strong central governments would have appointed Council and Dukes, and very strong ones might even have the Council serve at the Ruler's whim.  Strong central governments could control what tax rate regions/duchies/whatever pay to the realm, issue bans and fines at whim even to those in good oath standing, and if tied to Tom's idea on making a separation of regions/duchies held by lords and Dukes in their own right or in fief to their liege, regions and duchies would be held in fief to the central government.  The Ruler would hold the position for life as current Monarchs due, and maintain full diplomatic control.  Food could be controlled by the Banker, and the General would have more control over armies (possibly just a textual change to indicate that orders from the General take precedence to all other orders).  Regions in strong central governments have higher realm control, but estates will have efficiency penalties, requiring more nobles to run regions well.

Weak central governments might have elected Council members, and require them to face periodic elections.  Regions and duchies might be held in their own right instead of in fief, and various decisions would be required to be put to vote, including things once reserved for the Council like changing diplomacy, banning, fining, tax rates, etc.  However, the local control would keep everything running amazingly on production, but keeping everything in the same realm when there isn't much to the "realm" in the first place is difficult.

Holding in fief vs holding in your own right would, I think, have a number of effects, but the biggest one is that oath-breaking is treason if in fief, and not if in your own right.  So, for example, if you secede with a duchy you hold in your own right, you set up your own realm and everything as currently works.  If you secede with a duchy you held in fief, you receive an auto-ban like in the old system.  Same with switching to a new realm.  And if the oath is broken by your liege, if you hold the duchy in your own right you secede as current, or lose the duchy if held in fief.  Region lords become dukes in their own right of their new one-region duchy or are forced out.  In addition, regions/duchies that defect automatically join new realms as held-by-right, making accepting them somewhat risky as they can leave easily.

Now, full vs. conditional support.  Ordinarily, one offers conditional support to one's liege.  So, half your political power goes to them, and you keep half yourself.  A "typical" realm might have everyone this way, leaving the Council with half the power and the rest scattered in a fairly normal spread.  But, perhaps a really rich townsland lord wants more power, and offers a lot more gold in exchange for full support.  Or, a really charismatic King talks his Dukes into offering full support so he can act more efficiently.  On the other hand, a Duke that you talked into defecting to you might not only hold his region in his own right, but might keep all of his political power, leading to a semi-independent position within the realm.  You could have a "confederation" style realm with each Duke holding all their power and a weak Council, or a Democracy with each noble holding everything themselves, or a Tyranny with the Diktat holding everything, or anything in between and a mish-mash that allows negotiations based on relative positions and offers.

[Sacha]

Sounds interesting enough, but at first glance it seems a bit... convoluted. New players have enough on their plate already since it still appears a lot of them are pretty much left on their own after joining, and I can think of quite a number of older players who'll go ape!@#$ over this, since they would "lose all the power we've gained over the years for no reason" and other such reasons, founded or unfounded. Plus, there's the whole oath change that just got pushed through on stable which people are still dealing with.

I like the idea, especially for intrigants and schemers among us, but I just don't think it's worth the hassle in the current BM atmosphere...

[vonGenf]

In what status would you intend new characters to be created?

If new characters are landed nobles, then I can foresee all kinds of troubles. Would a new estate, owned in his own right by a new character, suddenly pop up in a highly centralized realm? That would make no sense. Would they only appear in rogue regions? I can see all types of possible exploits.

On the other hand, if new characters start as unlanded nobles, then the only power they have at the beginning is that of their sword, and that's not much. They would need to swear an oath before they achieve anything, and you would not have gained much in terms of "normal gameplay", although this scheme would indeed open new possibilities in terms of secession.

One way to make this works realistically for new characters would be to start all new characters in an adventurer-like class, and allow them to work for themselves up to the point where they can receive a piece of land for their actions. This would generate an actual method for generating new freeheld land. This is a huge departure from the current gameplay however, I don't think it should be done.

[Tom]

In what status would you intend new characters to be created?

In fact, I think we should overhaul our character creation process.

Instead of the current duchy-centric one, why don't we show new characters a list of open estates and allow them to pick one, spawning them right there, in that realm and all? That would give free estates more of a "please come in" meaning, and it would also save newcomers from the trouble of coming into a realm, asking for an estate, having to travel there, etc. etc. etc.


If someone writes this up as a feature request, I'll immediately approve it.

[vonGenf]

If someone writes this up as a feature request, I'll immediately approve it.

Done! I like this.

[Bedwyr]

A few things.

1. I think the idea on revamping character creation would eliminate a number of problems, especially if you could have the oath terms as part of the visible offer.  That way everyone who is joining is explicitly joining with a given oath to help keep realm continuity.

2. It sounds convoluted, but I think in practice it would be much simpler.  If a supermajority of the political power is in the hands of the central government, you have a Absolute Monarchy.  If a majority, a Constitutional Monarchy.  If a majority is with the Dukes, a Duchal Oligarchy.  If the Lords have the majority, you have a Feudal Republic.  And if none of the above, you have Rule by Blood (i.e. the game can't figure out what you're doing, and defaults to "Okay, the nobles run everything, alright?").  There would be some variation within systems, and things could get crazy if there's a power struggle between the Dukes and Lords, or Knights and Monarch but...That's how it should be.  If you're in an active power struggle, then things will be chaotic.  Otherwise, it'll be stable once the realm figures out where it wants to be (or is forced to be by the iron-shod boots of lots of soldiers).

3. I think on the backend, it would actually be simpler than the current system, as everything is determined by a single characteristic, and this would make it more intuitive to figure out, as well as making the descriptions mean a lot more.

[Perth]

A few things.

1. I think the idea on revamping character creation would eliminate a number of problems, especially if you could have the oath terms as part of the visible offer.  That way everyone who is joining is explicitly joining with a given oath to help keep realm continuity.

2. It sounds convoluted, but I think in practice it would be much simpler.  If a supermajority of the political power is in the hands of the central government, you have a Absolute Monarchy.  If a majority, a Constitutional Monarchy.  If a majority is with the Dukes, a Duchal Oligarchy.  If the Lords have the majority, you have a Feudal Republic.  And if none of the above, you have Rule by Blood (i.e. the game can't figure out what you're doing, and defaults to "Okay, the nobles run everything, alright?").  There would be some variation within systems, and things could get crazy if there's a power struggle between the Dukes and Lords, or Knights and Monarch but...That's how it should be.  If you're in an active power struggle, then things will be chaotic.  Otherwise, it'll be stable once the realm figures out where it wants to be (or is forced to be by the iron-shod boots of lots of soldiers).

3. I think on the backend, it would actually be simpler than the current system, as everything is determined by a single characteristic, and this would make it more intuitive to figure out, as well as making the descriptions mean a lot more.

I like it a lot.

I've always thought BM should be headed more in this direction, which is why I really like the new estates and duchal system.

[Penchant]

A few things.

1. I think the idea on revamping character creation would eliminate a number of problems, especially if you could have the oath terms as part of the visible offer.  That way everyone who is joining is explicitly joining with a given oath to help keep realm continuity.

2. It sounds convoluted, but I think in practice it would be much simpler.  If a supermajority of the political power is in the hands of the central government, you have a Absolute Monarchy.  If a majority, a Constitutional Monarchy.  If a majority is with the Dukes, a Duchal Oligarchy.  If the Lords have the majority, you have a Feudal Republic.  And if none of the above, you have Rule by Blood (i.e. the game can't figure out what you're doing, and defaults to "Okay, the nobles run everything, alright?").  There would be some variation within systems, and things could get crazy if there's a power struggle between the Dukes and Lords, or Knights and Monarch but...That's how it should be.  If you're in an active power struggle, then things will be chaotic.  Otherwise, it'll be stable once the realm figures out where it wants to be (or is forced to be by the iron-shod boots of lots of soldiers).

3. I think on the backend, it would actually be simpler than the current system, as everything is determined by a single characteristic, and this would make it more intuitive to figure out, as well as making the descriptions mean a lot more.

+1 and wouldn't your "Rule by Blood" system where the nobles are in charge be a democracy based on the current system?

[Solari]

But what if you're a tyrant, and the State and your character are inseperable?  I don't want to be a monarch.  Monarchs appeal to a higher authority for the source of their power.  That's weak.  :(

[Penchant]

A tyrant is similar to an absolute monarch but regardless of the title in the real world if you are a leader but all your subjects disregard what you say then you have no power, ex. if the general were to order the armies to do something but they all ignored him then he really isn't leading anything.

[Bedwyr]

+1 and wouldn't your "Rule by Blood" system where the nobles are in charge be a democracy based on the current system?

Not necessarily.  You could have Rule by Blood if 45% of the power is with the Lords, and 45% with the King, after all.  You certainly could have a current-style Democracy with the majority of the power sticking with non-landed nobles, but I couldn't come up with a good name (I don't like Democracy).

[Norrel]

Not necessarily.  You could have Rule by Blood if 45% of the power is with the Lords, and 45% with the King, after all.  You certainly could have a current-style Democracy with the majority of the power sticking with non-landed nobles, but I couldn't come up with a good name (I don't like Democracy).

A bureaucracy?

[Sypher]

Not necessarily.  You could have Rule by Blood if 45% of the power is with the Lords, and 45% with the King, after all.  You certainly could have a current-style Democracy with the majority of the power sticking with non-landed nobles, but I couldn't come up with a good name (I don't like Democracy).

Aristocratic Republic maybe?

[egamma]

Not necessarily.  You could have Rule by Blood if 45% of the power is with the Lords, and 45% with the King, after all.  You certainly could have a current-style Democracy with the majority of the power sticking with non-landed nobles, but I couldn't come up with a good name (I don't like Democracy).

Aristocracy? Plutocracy? Oligarchy?

[Solari]

If we're to be literal, power residing in the hands of those without the means of production or capital—especially power over superiors—would be analogous to Socialism.