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.
