1 Ruler Per account

[Zakky]

That is the ideal that we wanted back when we said Generals shouldn't send orders to the army. In most realms I have been a part of General dictate every aspect of the war. There may or may not be a council that discuss matters but the General sends out all orders for movement, refit and the like. The marshals only job is formations, pretending you are in a realm that uses them. Otherwise the General orders also include all required line settings.

In Luria, I generally only send marshals (or the military council) what I want armies to get done for the coming week. It has worked quite well so far. The only time when I actually directly ordered armies was when marshals wanted me to do it to reduce confusion of having the same order across 2 armies. But for about 3 or 4 months, we've managed to maintain a system of general only ordering marshals and marshals ordering TLs directly. So I'd say, it is entirely doable. But you need to find active marshals which is quite a challenge these days with reduce players.

[Zakky]

People are free to speak up and/or protest. If everyone remains silent about it then nothing will be done.

Since General is a thankless job, people tend not to complain unless the general sucks a lot. Usually, if your general is even half decent, you don't object because you can't fill his shoes.

[De-Legro]

In Luria, I generally only send marshals (or the military council) what I want armies to get done for the coming week. It has worked quite well so far. The only time when I actually directly ordered armies was when marshals wanted me to do it to reduce confusion of having the same order across 2 armies. But for about 3 or 4 months, we've managed to maintain a system of general only ordering marshals and marshals ordering TLs directly. So I'd say, it is entirely doable. But you need to find active marshals which is quite a challenge these days with reduce players.

Sure its doable, people just mostly don't. It is one more point of contact, one more delay with orders getting out depending on people play time etc etc. Besides so many realms no only have 1 army.

[Zatirri]

I personally think what's important s that players are honest with themselves.

If you're a ruler, and you notice your realm isn't doing well, or it's completely silent, or that all new players that join leave within a week; are you what is best for the realm at this time?
There are some realms that are large, keep a constant ruler, and are doing well. No issue with that at all, clearly what they're doing is working for them.
My issue is with the realms that bleed players, particularly new players. If you can't retain nobles, something is wrong and needs to be fixed.

But from a more subjective view, I think rulers need to be willing to take risks. They need to be trying to create a story.
As a ruler, they're like the directors of the realm's story and all the nobles below them are characters in it.
If everyone's sat idle, you should find something for the realm to do.
Be that a war, aiding an ally, a pilgrimage, or a roleplay event.
Anything.
If you can't, then be willing to step aside and let someone else try.

[Vita`]

I think bad thing when one player have all these jobs AND DOES NOT LET OTHERS DO THINGS. This is real bad - now players only sit and wait for what order for today.

Agreed. The Government Rules (to which all government players are expected to abide) state:

As leaders of the realm, it is your responsibility to look out for the fun of all members of your realm. Even in internal conflict, it is your responsibility to ensure that all parts of the realm are enjoying themselves. Do not actively suppress player attempts to engage one another in the interests of asserting your dominance over the realm.

If all your attempts to work it out have failed (we always encourage players to try to work out their issues themselves first before involving Titans), the Titans should absolutely know about government leaders not fulfilling their obligations.

I do not think a rule in game can fix this very much. I think TAKE AWAY RULES from others is what helps. If you want me to do a thing, show me it more fun than do my own thing instead.

The rules exist to protect players and a balanced game. No-holds barred BM would be *way* worse.

EDIT: Also I have this thought - everywhere is "we are game for play together". But I see these generals never play together. Always is one person say everything. I play in one realm, I ask - "Why never the marshal tell me orders? Only sponsor who is also vice marshal"

Yes, Generals are to involve other players' characters.

Even in small realm, no one want to take positions. Why make worse with own realm?

Yup, absolutely.

[Zakky]

I personally think what's important s that players are honest with themselves.

If you're a ruler, and you notice your realm isn't doing well, or it's completely silent, or that all new players that join leave within a week; are you what is best for the realm at this time?
There are some realms that are large, keep a constant ruler, and are doing well. No issue with that at all, clearly what they're doing is working for them.
My issue is with the realms that bleed players, particularly new players. If you can't retain nobles, something is wrong and needs to be fixed.

But from a more subjective view, I think rulers need to be willing to take risks. They need to be trying to create a story.
As a ruler, they're like the directors of the realm's story and all the nobles below them are characters in it.
If everyone's sat idle, you should find something for the realm to do.
Be that a war, aiding an ally, a pilgrimage, or a roleplay event.
Anything.
If you can't, then be willing to step aside and let someone else try.

People already know if they want to make things fun, they need to take risks. But do people want to let go of their hard earned titles? Doubt so.

[De-Legro]

People already know if they want to make things fun, they need to take risks. But do people want to let go of their hard earned titles? Doubt so.

That is a pathway to fun for some, not for all. And hard earned titles? It is also not particularly consistent to have a RP world full of risk takers.

[Vita`]

I personally think what's important s that players are honest with themselves.

If you're a ruler, and you notice your realm isn't doing well, or it's completely silent, or that all new players that join leave within a week; are you what is best for the realm at this time?
There are some realms that are large, keep a constant ruler, and are doing well. No issue with that at all, clearly what they're doing is working for them.
My issue is with the realms that bleed players, particularly new players. If you can't retain nobles, something is wrong and needs to be fixed.

But from a more subjective view, I think rulers need to be willing to take risks. They need to be trying to create a story.
As a ruler, they're like the directors of the realm's story and all the nobles below them are characters in it.
If everyone's sat idle, you should find something for the realm to do.
Be that a war, aiding an ally, a pilgrimage, or a roleplay event.
Anything.
If you can't, then be willing to step aside and let someone else try.

Absolutely this.

[Tom]

By my very humble opinion:

There isn't a term limit in the game because there wasn't one on real-life kings as well. However, real-life kings have a built-in term limit, it's called life expectancy. It is something (aging) that I brought more strongly into Might & Fealty because I felt like I hadn't done it right in BattleMaster.

I would strongly support any idea to increase ruler turnover without making too hard rules about it. But our players being who they are, they will quickly find ways around any restrictions. So the driving force behind should be PLAYERS.

And in any government system, if the players want to change their ruler, they can. So if someone rules for 10 years, apparently most players in the realm are happy with that, or they would've thrown him out.

[Gildre]

Tom speaks wise words.

It absolutely MUST be player driven. The players have plenty of resources at their disposal. They can protest gov members out, they can organize rebellions, Dukes can cede (although more difficult with the 15 noble min, but they can still change their duchy allegiance to another realm).

This whole discussion bothers me a little bit. I do not like being a ruler. In fact, it is probably my most disliked position. Yet, I find myself continually taking up the position because of lack of interested candidates. And then I see people complaining about players having more than one ruler character.

Seriously?

It isn't a conspiracy. It is a handful of people trying to keep the game from completely stagnating.

These same people who are complaining are the same people who just log in and click orders and log out. If you can't even put in some effort to being a Knight, how do you think you will be successful at being a ruler and making an entire realm interesting?

These people need to stop complaining and actually start contributing to the game.

[Vita`]

The actual facts are that out of 46 realms, there are only thirteen realms ruled by a family with multiple rulers. That is, only five families (Foxglove, Ketchum, Beatrix, Pryde, Abjur) with two rulers and one family (Altenahr) with three rulers. Specifically, Sirion-Westgard, Morek Empire-Nivemus, Avernus-Eponllyn, Astrum-Nothoi, Angmar-Redhaven with double rulers and Gothica-Arnor-Grehkia with a triple ruler.

[Zakky]

The ruler turnover rate dropped because there just aren't enough people. It is easier to keep a small group of 10~20 people happy. But it becomes hard as the noble size increases. 90 people realm is a nightmare to rule compared to 10~20.

[Medron Pryde]

I only rule one realm.

Though I HAVE ruled at least five different realms on three continents.

[Vita`]

My apologies, I've got you stuck as 'permanent ruler of Nothoi' in my brain. So that makes it even less multiple-rulers in BM. ;) Really don't see this as a huge issue.

[PolarRaven]

Thinking about this, the recent push towards larger realms will see many less realms and therefore most of the game will be ruled by just a few families.  I believe Vita said somewhere there are currently 46 realms total.  If each island ends up with only 4-5 larger realms, that would reduce the ruler population down to around 20 positions.  I am currently one of the 46, but it is unlikely that I would be one of the 20.

We could see 5-20 families "ruling" the game.