Bring back the One Province Rule

[Gandalfus]

What it says on the tin.

[Poach]

Can't vote on tapatalk but I vote to bring it back. If I can't access a desktop before the vote closes please add one for bringing it back.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

[Gandalfus]

Gotcha.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Solidly against. I dislike limiting RP written in the rules and this is a big drag on RP and strategy. The better solution is simply to make getting another province very hard to get.

What we have now in the game is not wars of legitimacy, or who is king, some people are fighting wars of conquest These sorts of wars should be made much more difficult (especially if waged against an NPC) because they are essentially a House's war of survival. It should be possible for a high lord to hold off an LP invader through modifiers and emergency levies etc. We should handle this in game and not, essentially, make wars of conquest impossible.

Also, I really disliek the format this is being done in. A single vote thread without any discussion and not even a definition of the rule to be brought back? We can do better than this...

[ficenzi]

What Ponti said. Don't see why it shouldn't be allowed, better to just make getting another province very hard. Also, don't see what's wrong with wars of conquest. They should be possible, but just really hard. It would make an independent kingdoms scenario interesting, or getting to that point through RP interesting (if it ever happens).

[Gandalfus]

The rule to be brought back has been used since the early game, and I presumed that people would know what they were voting for seeing as its such a mainstay of the game.
You can still engage in wars of conquest, it just restricts one lord holding all the land. You can grant the newly gained titles to other main characters or even another player, its just to prevent one lord holding two rich provinces. It was mainly introduced to prevent people signing up with two provinces on game start, IIRC.

[ficenzi]

So, could one lord hold one province and his brother be lord of another province and their brother lord of a third province, and all three lords be under the control of the same player if this rule is passed?

[Lord Dread]

So, could one lord hold one province and his brother be lord of another province and their brother lord of a third province, and all three lords be under the control of the same player if this rule is passed?

No.

[Trot]

So, could one lord hold one province and his brother be lord of another province and their brother lord of a third province, and all three lords be under the control of the same player if this rule is passed?

Yes that was allowed in the previous rps when the rule existed. It happened before.

[Pontifex Maximus]

^ this is why we need discussion. Ask three different veteran players what the rule was and you'll get three different responses.

[Gandalfus]

Yes, it is possible for that to happen, as Trot said, although it's extremely unlikely


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pericles of Athens]

You're allowed to do that. If the Karstark revolted I beat them and I wanted to take the keep (instead of granting it to the next in line) and give it to Brandon's line I could. I mean I wouldn't, but I could.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Though obviously a single player could nothold two keeps with a single character absent some sort of award of a land, war of conquest, or some other ereason. You can't just grant yourself lands or claim lands right off the bat.

[Gandalfus]

Yeah, like I mentioned, the rule first came about because people would just sign up a character and grab a rich province to go along with their main one


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zeus Almighty]

Mmmm tricky. I've seen it happen in the past, but seldom to prevent power housing a player or two in respect to keeping us honest. I'll gvote no for NOW, because I like where this game is going, I think it can take the game in an interesting direction. I think that this should be revisited if such a time as a restart occur

[Dirty Chai]

Actually, I think the rule was removed after HB/Poach added in a new rule or "background rule" for creating random NPC houses so players can't sign up a house and claim they're married to an heiress of the neighboring fiefdom, and then "press the claim" and insta-expand. Everyone did that back then, before this rule. Then they added the rule about randomizing neighbors if you tried to interact with them (see Oz's Dayne making alliances with NPC houses in Dorne), so the one-province limit became unnecessary.

Also everyone hated it.

If this game made rules and stuff to emphasize other kinds of conflict (example being John Lackland vs the Barons over taxes), then I'd still vote to reinstate the one-province limit.

But instead I'm changing my vote to no. Though I still think Skylord shouldn't be able to just use Dragonstone as a free source of 500 knights..

[Lucius Malfoy]

Well if we don't have the one province limitation and remain with two, we should make it known that you cannot gain income from both locations, something which has been known in the past. You can earn income through both locations from two separate characters, not one. Which means you would have to instate an additional character from your line-up as the holder or grant the title to another player-controlled character. It would give one player a huge advantage, especially if they are higher nobility and control very rich areas.

For example, if a Lannister player was to own two provinces and they were both Lannisport and Casterly Rock, that would be 130,000 GD a year. Add on Casterly Rock's extra bonuses (+10% and +5% income), that would expand to 140,500. Skylord, hate to use you as an example, but you have been gaining income from both KL and Dragonstone since we started, which equals 110,000 GD a week. Alone that yearly income is unfair to those who can't have two provinces from the start. LPs and the King/Queen are the only ones who can hand out vacant titles and ruined holdfasts from the start of the game, thus automatically have two provinces. If they were allowed to just gain income from two locations, then there would be players who wouldn't hand out titles solely for that reason and keep the immense boost of income to themselves. It also defeats the purpose of constructing buildings to improve income for yourself if you can just have a huge income boost from two locations you control.

So if we don't have the one province limitation, then we should clarify that you cannot earn income from more than one location; one location per character in terms of income. Whether that's a character you control (as in someone who is signed up) or another player-controlled character. The clarification will ensure this problem does not happen again and that there is still balance.

[Dirty Chai]

We could add in some different options, like you can place a steward in control of it. Pretty sure we already have castellan rules, but not sure if they're basically giving someone else a fief or if its just creating a local placeholder officer for you.

[Lord Dread]

I would kinda support LM's proposal though it should solely concern actual LPs and the King himself - kinda feel it would be unfair for High lords, as Ponti currently benefits from both the Twins and the Bloody Gate, while having achieved last one by good ammount of RP. So there should be exceptions.

[Trot]

We could add in some different options, like you can place a steward in control of it. Pretty sure we already have castellan rules, but not sure if they're basically giving someone else a fief or if its just creating a local placeholder officer for you.

That would be the equivalent of turning it into a nonherditary title. I don't think I have a problem with that.