Author Topic: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types  (Read 3913 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)

  • **-Thuriene Donalls-** Bearer of the Rose Scepter.
  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
  • Regency: 2
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #15 on: September 03, 2013, 01:41:57 am »
That would free up law holdings, so Landed and guild could have 3 different types of holdings.
But temple, sorcerous(druids) and unlanded noble rulers will then only be able to have 2 types of holdings.
The spell casting ability of temple, sorcerous & Druids IMO doesn't make up for that handicap since they will have to fight everyone for the law holdings.
Put together with the guilds ability to gain advantage to Rule(trade) actions from guild holdings I find guilds favored in that proposal.

If it is argued that only guilds should hold trade holdings then I could argue that they don't need a bonus to rule on top of that monopoly.
But rather than argue that, I would argue that if we need a way to contain domains within a few holding types, then my previous proposal is a better way of leveling the playing field.
Thuriene Donalls.
Thane of Talinie.
Supreme Hierarch of the Northern Imperial Temple of Haelyn.

"Those who hear the word of Haelyn and obey are like plants rooted in rich, fertile soil.
They will thrive, grow and be the most beautiful flowers in the garden of man."

Offline Ruideside/OM (RP)

  • Otmar Messer, Lord-Commander, etc., etc., etc.
  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Noble
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
  • Regency: 7
  • Gender: Male
  • Come let us discuss this...
    • Bob's Worlds
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #16 on: September 03, 2013, 10:24:19 am »
Quote
plus, by stating a rule up front people can plan for it
I guess I must have been confused all these years, I thought the idea was to avoid rule-playing at the expense of role-playing - silly me.
By the Grace of My Own Right Hand, Lord Commander of the Federated Free Companies, Governor-General of the Ruideside, Marshal of the Realm, and Captain-General of the Brethren of  the Black Flag.

My Tollanar blog: https://bobsworlds.wordpress.com/

"If reason won't work - try violence"

Offline DM B

  • Green Knight
  • Deity
  • Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 5.210
  • Regency: 51
  • Gender: Male
    • Twilightpeaks.net - Hone of Ruins of Empire
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #17 on: September 03, 2013, 03:03:38 pm »
Where does manor and trade enter this equation?

This is a fix to keep landed rulers from snatching up guild holdings if leidang become dependent upon guild control.

That you control 2+ different holding types already bear the handicap of having way to many ways to spend your limited actions. So to take out the nurf bat in that situation is a bit harsh.

You would know this from personal experience...ruling a province+guild+sources=lot of grief and not enough resources.
DM Bjørn

Offline Ruideside/OM (RP)

  • Otmar Messer, Lord-Commander, etc., etc., etc.
  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Noble
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
  • Regency: 7
  • Gender: Male
  • Come let us discuss this...
    • Bob's Worlds
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #18 on: September 03, 2013, 11:03:39 pm »
Quote
ruling a province+guild+sources=lot of grief and not enough resources
Exactly, so there is no need to throw in an arbitrary rule to make it even harder.
By the Grace of My Own Right Hand, Lord Commander of the Federated Free Companies, Governor-General of the Ruideside, Marshal of the Realm, and Captain-General of the Brethren of  the Black Flag.

My Tollanar blog: https://bobsworlds.wordpress.com/

"If reason won't work - try violence"

Offline Ohlaak (Alan)

  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Sovereign
  • ******
  • Posts: 1.482
  • Regency: 3
  • The Dragon
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #19 on: September 06, 2013, 02:41:38 pm »
The best way to discourage this is too ensure that each focus of the domain is always tempting to be the primary focus of the domain.  I think Andy and Matt are good enough DMs where a multi-focus domain will have adequate challenges that their lack of specialization will not be a boon (which it is not suppose to be). 

All domains types are fundamentally equal in power.  A multi-type (focus) domain shouldn't allow you to run over a single focus domain per se. 

With this being said, I can see the value of a rule where the DM is disinclined to place adequate challenges in front of the player.

Offline Ruideside/OM (RP)

  • Otmar Messer, Lord-Commander, etc., etc., etc.
  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Noble
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
  • Regency: 7
  • Gender: Male
  • Come let us discuss this...
    • Bob's Worlds
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #20 on: September 06, 2013, 03:40:45 pm »
OK, I'll bite. Why is there a need to discourage multi-focus domains?
By the Grace of My Own Right Hand, Lord Commander of the Federated Free Companies, Governor-General of the Ruideside, Marshal of the Realm, and Captain-General of the Brethren of  the Black Flag.

My Tollanar blog: https://bobsworlds.wordpress.com/

"If reason won't work - try violence"

Offline Ohlaak (Alan)

  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Sovereign
  • ******
  • Posts: 1.482
  • Regency: 3
  • The Dragon
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #21 on: September 06, 2013, 03:53:22 pm »
Discourage was a poor choice of words.  My intended point was that a multi-focus domain should always have demands from all of its foci, such that there is a choice to and consequences when the domain focuses on only one aspect vs. others.  Basically, that the domain should under most circumstances have tension amongst its foci.

Offline Ruideside/OM (RP)

  • Otmar Messer, Lord-Commander, etc., etc., etc.
  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Noble
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
  • Regency: 7
  • Gender: Male
  • Come let us discuss this...
    • Bob's Worlds
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #22 on: September 07, 2013, 06:34:43 pm »
I still don't see the problem that this proposed rule is supposed to address.
By the Grace of My Own Right Hand, Lord Commander of the Federated Free Companies, Governor-General of the Ruideside, Marshal of the Realm, and Captain-General of the Brethren of  the Black Flag.

My Tollanar blog: https://bobsworlds.wordpress.com/

"If reason won't work - try violence"

Offline Yggdrasil (DM Andy)

  • Demigod
  • Sovereign
  • *
  • Posts: 1.029
  • Regency: 2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #23 on: September 08, 2013, 10:30:31 am »
I still don't see the problem that this proposed rule is supposed to address.

The  you presumably haven't come across the situation in play, please trust me that it is a game killer - basically under mechanical terms the uber-glomph where the ruler claims all holdings (usually by threatening pillage and offering a pittance as payment for the holdings) is the single most effective tactic to "win the game", it is the fastest route to riches, the fastest route to cutting actions "wasted" on dealing with other regents, maximises abilities and powers available to the ruler, the fastest route to preventing "spying and disloyalty", etc.

Since many players come to BR via the computer game or war-games, they do not look at the setting and see the mechanics as secondary stuff purely there to support the roleplay, quite the reverse, they see the mechanics as "the rules" and get very annoyed by "cheating" players and DMs who start making "arbitrary" decisions and levying punishments based on "stuff that isn't against the rules"  they see BR as a "board-game" first, and role-playing as secondary if they consider it at all.

In my first game one player first glomphed the jarls in his realm (surrender holdings or be executed for treason), then the guilds (surrender holdings to the guild former-jarl vassal that paid 90% tribute - or be executed for treason) and then pillaged the Oaken Grove into nothing after it "turned traitor" by refusing to provide adequate support or transfer its holdings to his pet druid vassal, all of which actions incidentally were perfectly ok with the DM as he isn't breaking the rules.

The player was furious with me for publishing diatribes against "the slaughter in the snows" (he drove out the druids in mid-winter but insisted that he'd just commanded them to leave), for declaring our alliance void over his godlessness, and raising an alliance to invade and conquer his realm "just because you're friends" - in his mind he hadn't broken the rules, he'd just made his realm more efficient, so we should have emulated his "winning tactic" not whined because we hadn't thought about the tactic and then ganged up on him (there was a big divide between the role-players and the roll-players in that game).

Players are different.  The rules need to cater for all-comers.  The rules both provide a basis to permit planning and indicate what actions are / are not deemed appropriate.

DM fiat is inherently perceived as arbitrary and unfair if it occurs without warning, is generally time-consuming to apply, and generally should therefore be used to fine-tune issues - not deal with them completely, and ideally it should always be sign-posted by mechanics that indicate that an action is disapproved of.

Another rule which I'd consider, feel free to complain up-front, is a heavy penalty to any ruler who pillages holdings in their lands (pillage is a necessary tactic or at least threat for someone trying the uber-glomph tactic), probably manifesting as a big prosperity hit, high risk of great captain events, etc.  I'm not sure how much of it I'd apply via a standard mechanic and how much by fiat, but I'd want something, even though the issue hopefully wouldn't come up in ROE III (the players are role-play vets) but it might (it almost did in ROE II at least once).
Sometimes the gods are neither subtle nor slow to anger

Offline Ruideside/OM (RP)

  • Otmar Messer, Lord-Commander, etc., etc., etc.
  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Noble
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
  • Regency: 7
  • Gender: Male
  • Come let us discuss this...
    • Bob's Worlds
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #24 on: September 08, 2013, 02:42:56 pm »
Actually I have come across that situation, one of my players swears by that very tactic, and it doesn't kill the game at all, he is the player always needing "just 1 more action) and running out of money before anybody else. Now this could be because  I was just lucky, but seeing as it has happened in three campaigns I doubt it, and I doubt it's because he is incompetent player, I am going with I am a competent DM.

So basically you are advocating for a rule to compensate for having a lousy DM. Sorry, I have no interest in that sort of thing, and as far as I am concerned it is that sort of attitude that ruins the game.

And as far as not seeing the rules and mechanics as supports to the role playing, well this rule only reinforces that attitude as it takes the fun out of things by reducing it to a predictable penalty that can be planned around as opposed to a natural outcome of the regent's poor decisions.That and your constant use of the term "fluff" to dismiss those very role playing aspects.

And nobody is talking about DM fiat here, we are talking about the DM doing his job by making the NPCs more than just faceless sets of stats.

Like I said, this is a bad rule with no valid rationale other than to cater to bad players and bad DMs, neither of which are a demographic I think any rules should even play lip service to let alone try to accommodate and compensate for. If a player screws up he dies and gets to roll up a new character and if the DM sucks, somebody else takes over as DM. That's the way it works. That's the way it has worked for the for the 36 years I have been playing the game and i don't see any reason to change that.

And like I said, if this rule is instituted - I won't be playing.

By the Grace of My Own Right Hand, Lord Commander of the Federated Free Companies, Governor-General of the Ruideside, Marshal of the Realm, and Captain-General of the Brethren of  the Black Flag.

My Tollanar blog: https://bobsworlds.wordpress.com/

"If reason won't work - try violence"

Offline Ruideside/OM (RP)

  • Otmar Messer, Lord-Commander, etc., etc., etc.
  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Noble
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
  • Regency: 7
  • Gender: Male
  • Come let us discuss this...
    • Bob's Worlds
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #25 on: September 08, 2013, 03:23:04 pm »
Quote from: Andy
sorry Bob, I fouled up the response, hopefully fixed

Let's take an example.
Let's say that Linde manages to gain control of almost every holding in Talinie, and turns his sights on Thurazor.
Well Linde has 4 actions + Court actions per DT, and so do I. However so does my vassal Donals and my vassal Taren, so I am up to 12 actions. And assuming I haven't scewed up and alienated Viktor, I can count on his 4 actions as well, and since the guild holders will likely see a better future under me than under Linde (seeing as he grabs all the guild & trade and I don't) I can count on a few actions from them - let's say 1 each.

So, to oppose Linde's 4 + 10 (let's be generous) court actions I have 12 + (let's be conservative) say a total of 7 court actions and can count on the support of another 6 + (again being conservative) 5 court actions.

Linde: 4 + 10 = 14 actions total
Me: 18 + 12 = 30 actions, with a good chance of another 6-10 actions as well.
As you can see, purely on raw mechanics, Linde, with 1/2 the available actions, is the one at a disadvantage.

So there is no need for a mechanic to penalize a horizontal monopoly realm as there is already one that slaps a devastating penalty on them. A disadvantage so severe that it will require some seriously superb role-playing, combined with some world class clever stratagems and a whole truckload of luck to overcome.

Even in your example you managed to conquer the supposedly game winning/killing realm, right?
« Last Edit: September 09, 2013, 12:52:21 am by Yggdrasil (DM Andy) »
By the Grace of My Own Right Hand, Lord Commander of the Federated Free Companies, Governor-General of the Ruideside, Marshal of the Realm, and Captain-General of the Brethren of  the Black Flag.

My Tollanar blog: https://bobsworlds.wordpress.com/

"If reason won't work - try violence"

Offline Yggdrasil (DM Andy)

  • Demigod
  • Sovereign
  • *
  • Posts: 1.029
  • Regency: 2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #26 on: September 08, 2013, 11:19:09 pm »
So there is no need for a mechanic to penalize a horizontal monopoly realm as there is already one that slaps a devastating penalty on them. A disadvantage so severe that it will require some seriously superb role-playing, combined with some world class clever stratagems and a whole truckload of luck to overcome.

a disadvantage identical to playing a realm one step away from LG compared to a peer?  It's a fairly trivial one as far as I can see.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2013, 11:58:38 pm by Yggdrasil (DM Andy) »
Sometimes the gods are neither subtle nor slow to anger

Offline Yggdrasil (DM Andy)

  • Demigod
  • Sovereign
  • *
  • Posts: 1.029
  • Regency: 2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #27 on: September 08, 2013, 11:51:12 pm »
So basically you are advocating for a rule to compensate for having a lousy DM. Sorry, I have no interest in that sort of thing, and as far as I am concerned it is that sort of attitude that ruins the game.

No I'm not, and you know it - it's a fairly minor rule to indicate that there are disadvantages to mixing holding types, and signal that the DM may step in if the situation merits, a good DM warns players, they don't just whack them out of the blue, that approach would be exactly the arbitrary behaviour that you are complaining about.

And as far as not seeing the rules and mechanics as supports to the role playing, well this rule only reinforces that attitude as it takes the fun out of things by reducing it to a predictable penalty that can be planned around as opposed to a natural outcome of the regent's poor decisions.That and your constant use of the term "fluff" to dismiss those very role playing aspects.

The people the rule, or others like it, are useful with will use "fluff" and far worse to describe role-playing, and will complain bitterly of arbitrary DM's who step in and punish them for playing "well", the ruleset should handle all sorts.

I could have a perfectly good RPG using the rules for chess, other players crave a game with much more extensive rules and some prefer little to no role-play interaction at all - I think that they're missing out but the community is too small not to invite a wider audience and then through example and experience encourage newcomers to see the fun of true RPG.

I take the view that good/bad roleplaying can influence pretty much anything, a good player could avoid or even reverse a penalty, a bad one could make it truly crippling, but the presence of a mechanic lets the player know that the situation is considered something to play round one way or the other.

And nobody is talking about DM fiat here, we are talking about the DM doing his job by making the NPCs more than just faceless sets of stats.

Fiat is exactly what you are describing, the application of a rule which isn't written down and therefore which can't be predicted or planned for is inevitably seen by some players as arbitrary.

Putting a rule (of any sort) down in writing warns that there is an issue, indicates the basic impact of the situation, and indicates (if the descriptive text is appropriate) that a smart player should discuss their plans with the DM to see the potential outcome, allowing the player a chance to then role-play as required if they want a different outcome.  By stating the ability for a player to influence that outcome the DM's input to turn the "bare stats" into "people" doesn't come as a surprise and is less likely to appear as "cheating" or "favouritism", it lets those less familiar with RPG's know that there is an "e" in role-play not 2 l's and that the DM will act to handle that "e" on behalf of the NPC's - I don't see a rule like this, or many others frankly, slowing down a veteran role-player who can sort out an appropriate looey or vassalage deal to avoid the issue.

I'm a little surprised by your vehemence given that there are so many similar rules that we are far more likely to see in practice most of which have a much larger impact, the potential loss of a free point of stability once a year if a domain is below par is hardly substantial.

Again, think of the players it is intended for, this is a PBeM, some people may never have played a tabletop RPG - and I've played with lots of people who struggle with the concept of NPCs much less the concept of NPCs with faces, agenda's, etc.  The rule is something a DM can point to and say "you were warned, read the text under it, it states clearly that tensions can be inflamed by x, y, and z... - when I enact those tensions I'm applying the rules to the specific situation, and you had fair warning."

Like I said, this is a bad rule with no valid rationale other than to cater to bad players and bad DMs, neither of which are a demographic I think any rules should even play lip service to let alone try to accommodate and compensate for.

Yes, and you were corrected before.

I'm far more concerned with rules for poor players than rules for good ones, and similarly inexperienced DM's need a more robust system than those more experienced - to say that a game should only pay attention to "the best" is both to limit it to an even smaller minority than a game normally gets and make a wide assumption that one style of play is superior to all others.  The "my kind only" approach can work in a local group where people have played together or in a community for years, it works far less well over the internet where widely varying play styles can interact without any foreknowledge or understanding of "norms" expected by one side or the other.

If a player screws up he dies and gets to roll up a new character and if the DM sucks, somebody else takes over as DM. That's the way it works. That's the way it has worked for the for the 36 years I have been playing the game and i don't see any reason to change that.

In a PBeM if a player sucks they can ruin the game for everyone and that can be a fairly large number of people in RPG terms, I'd rather the player avoided fouling up in the first place.  Given issues with BR game lifespans and the notorious drain on DM resources, any rules system which requires widespread routine intervention to keep the game on an even keel is poor - the game shouldn't "stop at the rules", but the rules should make a good starting point and indicate areas where DM intervention is more or less likely.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2013, 12:05:17 am by Yggdrasil (DM Andy) »
Sometimes the gods are neither subtle nor slow to anger

Offline Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)

  • **-Thuriene Donalls-** Bearer of the Rose Scepter.
  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
  • Regency: 2
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #28 on: September 09, 2013, 12:12:52 am »
Well.. Not counting trade and guild I control almost every holding in Talinie.

But the question is: "Is it best for me to further the agendas of Talinie and NIT by expanding my influence outside or inside of Talinie?"

Unless I have an agenda stating otherwise or the guilds are openly contesting my actions or diminishing my profit. I would personally rather have the guilds figure out the guild stuff and focus on other issues. And if a guild made trouble I would rather have another guild come take over the business in Talinie. But if the guild situation in Talinie becomes FUBAR I would rather control it myself than have empty holding levels.
I would expect negative events costing GBs each turn from bad administration.(taking away some or most of the GB I earned from holding the guilds) Heck I would probably invest a court action most turns to try and make a finances check and keep the business running as smoothly as possible. (Consulting with the DMs about how they would react to me doing so)
And I would take stability loss from poor handling of those events head on. But if my regent was a guilder as well as a noble and a priest I would play her differently and expect differently if she picked up guild holdings. So just capping the annual stability increase is not the way I would go.


With the FoW I think cooperation between multiple domains will be the win button even more than it was in RoEII. So I would rather have a player or NPC guild with a network of holdings that I can benefit from in times of trouble than I would like a more or less steady income of 10-20gb extra.

Perhaps I am wrong, and the win button is placed in province/realm sized monopolies on all holding types. Perhaps I expect too much when I expect the DM's to counter actions going against the nature of the domain/regent with events.(After fair warning)
And if either is the case, then we need to address it, as it is not in the spirit of the game that people need to create sun king type domains to get ahead or that it should be the easiest way out of a conflict just to annex your enemies holdings of another type.

It could be done in the character rules where rulers(and only rulers) could have a limited amount of proficiencies that grant bonus to specific rule/contest actions. or in some other way that grant bonus for staying on the path of your domain.
I think that capping annual stability increase is the wrong way to go about it.... This might be because I am okay with people getting a bonus, but I hate getting hit with a nurf bat, no matter how small it is.

But if the DM team think that the best way to signal disapproval of multi-domains is an annual stability cap rather than granting a bonus to those who walk the straight and narrow. Then the change is small enough for me to let it slide.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2013, 12:26:07 am by Talinie & NIT/TD(Linde) »
Thuriene Donalls.
Thane of Talinie.
Supreme Hierarch of the Northern Imperial Temple of Haelyn.

"Those who hear the word of Haelyn and obey are like plants rooted in rich, fertile soil.
They will thrive, grow and be the most beautiful flowers in the garden of man."

Offline Yggdrasil (DM Andy)

  • Demigod
  • Sovereign
  • *
  • Posts: 1.029
  • Regency: 2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Annual Stability Increase & Domain Types
« Reply #29 on: September 09, 2013, 12:53:07 am »
Quote from: Bob
Let's take an example.
Let's say that Linde manages to gain control of almost every holding in Talinie, and turns his sights on Thurazor.
Well Linde has 4 actions + Court actions per DT, and so do I. However so does my vassal Donals and my vassal Taren, so I am up to 12 actions. And assuming I haven't scewed up and alienated Viktor, I can count on his 4 actions as well, and since the guild holders will likely see a better future under me than under Linde (seeing as he grabs all the guild & trade and I don't) I can count on a few actions from them - let's say 1 each.

So, to oppose Linde's 4 + 10 (let's be generous) court actions I have 12 + (let's be conservative) say a total of 7 court actions and can count on the support of another 6 + (again being conservative) 5 court actions.

Linde: 4 + 10 = 14 actions total
Me: 18 + 12 = 30 actions, with a good chance of another 6-10 actions as well.
As you can see, purely on raw mechanics, Linde, with 1/2 the available actions, is the one at a disadvantage.

And in gold, you've spent 30 GB on actions and at least 12 more on courts behind those court actions so 42 GB - minimum.  Your court actions are mainly at penalties from being a small court, and unless you've got treaties already in place a lot of your actions won't get advantage and hardiness.

He's spent 17 GB to get 3 base actions (and a free action) + 7 court actions (plenty for most stuff) and so has 25 troops units more than you assuming overall parity in total realm income - and that's assuming that he hasn't planned and built up troops that were then garrisoned in which case he could have double that.  His court actions start with a bonus as he's got a bigger court and internally everything is advantaged and hardy cutting his costs to a minimum and allowing him to maximise the amount that goes into war.   Your espionage actions better be very effective, he only needs 1 action to wage war...

But it doesn't stop there, in peace Linde spends no actions keeping his guys onside, he spends no actions fixing fights they start, he has no problems with vassals that are disloyal or actively working to undermine him, etc, every single action improves his single realm.  Your team on the other hand often spends actions against another team members or in diplomacy squabbles.  His base economy is likely to be larger (in Gb but not RP) - your team should recover from a pillage fest sooner, but once a realm fills up a lot of your actions can go wasted.

Its a Gulliver vs the Lilliputions model, yes, the little guys can tie the big fella down, but they can also trip each other up and get stomped piecemeal.  A good roleplayer should be able to get their team pulling together and take down the big guy, build a strong realm more quickly, etc - but a good role-player could also do a lot with the Gulliver model.

A key disadvantage that the Gulliver approach would have incidentally is RP - RP caps can greatly reduce the income benefit of dominance.

Quote from: Bob
So there is no need for a mechanic to penalize a horizontal monopoly realm as there is already one that slaps a devastating penalty on them. A disadvantage so severe that it will require some seriously superb role-playing, combined with some world class clever stratagems and a whole truckload of luck to overcome.

You over-estimate the benefit of extra actions, if your vassal has no money for a court or regent actions - necessary to maintain an equivalent army - then you have no action bonus at all, if they have just 1 or 2 GB for actions then those actions have to be well placed.  And in a game with a lot of internal dissent the Gulliver may well have more actions - not fewer - to spend against outsiders or on growth, add that to their income advantage and they can be well ahead.

I wouldn't say that there needs to be a strong mechanic, it depends a lot on how much internal dissent there is supposed to be in the game and the roleplaying ability generally, it depends a lot on how open a DM is too clever roleplaying, espionage, etc - some DMs are quite restrictive and that limits the advantages of mass action spams a lot.

Quote from: Bob
Even in your example you managed to conquer the supposedly game winning/killing realm, right?

Yes, but then I like to think that I'm a better role-player than he was  ;)  I'd got alliances with 4 realms, good relations with my jarls, had two churches and the guilds on my side, attacked with surprise following pre-espionage, etc.  I've also seen it go horribly badly in games and don't want repetition.  I note that in many BR games NPC's are barely played - RoE's approach helps the problem a lot, while the change in law holding income methodology  is a huge enough change that it might be enough in itself, but as a concept I'm happy to consider other options.

I don't expect our NPCs to be as destructive as Bjorn's (ask Niels if you want an idea of the trouble a regent could have), but they aren't likely to grant you their every action either (except perhaps during war).

I'd note that one of the issues isn't so much that the Gulliver's win, as they foul it up for others - the guilds and temples who get ordered to get out of domains, etc lose out badly, and seeing the Gulliver get smashed before the would-be-sun-king can build up new directly held guilds and temples is poor comfort, even when a new roleplayer takes over the now vacant realm they have a big fixing job on their hands.  I had one game where the same player did this 3 times on different realms, I wound up practically screaming at the DM to kick the guy out.
Sometimes the gods are neither subtle nor slow to anger