Btw: None of the situations you describe are common in my games. This is simply not the place where you find that sort of players.
Well that's good to know, however I find that a little hard to reconcile with your previous post...
That the majority of players seem to have great issues with having vassals - let alone being vassals themselves - is something that can't be remedied by any amount of rules. It's just bad role-playing on the part of those players.
So which is it, do none of the players avoid having vassals or do the majority of them? It can't be both.
And if the vassal problem doesn't exist, then why is there a need to institute rules to prevent that sort of thing? Why make the rule tying domain size compared to BS with stability? If there is no problem with people not making vassals, then why is there a need to make a rule to penalize them for not making vassals?
All the proposed rule will achieve, other than further penalizing those with low BS, is to encourage players to put off making any vassals until they reach that magic threshold where the penalties outweigh the perceived disadvantages of making a vassal.
The excuse that the rule is needed to "explain" the existence of small dynamic domains is a total fabrication, as the rule in no way explains them.
Another RP special. Short, antagonistic and not really worth anyone's time.
What is the purpose of such posts? Are they supposed to make a point? To annoy people? I don't get it.
That actually sounds more like your remarks in this post, after all, if saying something is a mistake is considered antagonistic then saying somebody's remarks are pointless and not worth anybody's time most certainly must be. Exactly what is the value to anybody in this post of yours? What possible purpose could your really have other than to let me know you don't really like the way I post. Well guess what? I really don't care. I learned many years ago that there were only three people whose opinion of me is of any importance - and sorry you aren't my daughter, nor are you one of my sons.
And yes there was a purpose to my post, the purpose is to make a point - which clearly you didn't get. Oh well, not really my problem. The fact that you don't get the point does not mean that there wasn't one.
And if anybody is antagonized by my innocuous remarks on here, then I suggest they turn off the computer and do some serious looking inward to see why they are so quick to seek out excuses to take offense where none exists.
Is already addressed by the RoE ruleset. It's a strategic role-playing game. It's about domains and dynasties, BUT ROL-EPLAYED THROUGH CHARACTERS, IN PARTICULAR YOUR REGENT.
Yes I know, and that is exactly why you have the problems that you need these rules to fix. Oh wait, that's right, you don't have the problems after all, but you still need the rules to address the problems you don't have, just in case.
After who know how many hours of playing RoE I can say we've had a fair bit of interaction and personality.
Playing when the various proposed new rules were not in effect, therefore this fact is of no relevance whatsoever. My point is that the proposed rules will discourage that sort of thing.
The present rule set is good, no not good, excellent, it is the best Birthright variant I have come across, that's why I use it in my campaigns. It needs a few tweaks here and there, and there is the odd bug in it, but it most certainly doesn't need clumsy rules like those being proposed, nor does it need rules that take it further and further away from its roleplaying roots.
As your rules now stand, a player can play his domain (though why anybody would want to is beyond me) or a player can play his regent, and players in the same game can play either way, both methods can coexist in the same game. that is one of the great strengths of what you created, and I see no reason to take that away fro the game in the name of "simplicity"
Look, there is no need to ruin your wonderful ruleset in an attempt to recreate a PBEM version of the Gorgon's Crown game, but what the Hell, it's your baby, you do what you want with it - you won't be the first person to come out with something awesome and then turn into a piece of junk in an effort to improve it when it needed no improving. So go ahead, geld your prize stud if you want, luckily I have a copy of the rules as they stand now, before the current effort to ruin... sorry, to "improve" them started, so nobody can ruin them for me.
Again this assumption that role-playing isn't important.
Well that assumption is based on the repeated statements by yourself and pretty much everybody else on here that it isn't. I am glad to know that that isn't the case, though if it really isn't, then perhaps you could explain the current drive to remove as much of the role playing aspect from the game as possible, I'd really appreciate it if you could, because it makes no sense to me to remove as many opportunities to actually role play if role playing is important to the game.
