Game rules aren't always the perfect solution!

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Edith The Wisest

Corporal
Jun 3, 2020
35
523
Game rules are pretty neat, they can be used to tailor your game but they aren't the panacea of crusader kings. Though it may be well and neat to have game rules but at the end of the days, these game rules still need to be maintained and tested for balance or for bugs. You can't just add a million game rules to the game and call it a day.
 
  • 55
  • 6
  • 4Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
More Game Rules, the better
 
  • 16
  • 14
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I remember the way it was before the Game Rules were instituted, and it was hell for those of us who didn't want unending struggle in our games. The demands for nerfs were literally never ending. As soon as they got one thing nerfed, it was on to the next thing. They'd get that thing nerfed too, and then move on to the next target, etcetera ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Whole options and choices were either bashed into the basement, or axed out of existence.

CK2 and 3 are predominantly Single Player Games, and the player is always going to be better than the AI. Also, those nerfs were being demanded by the WC Crowd, and not everyone WCs

A lot of us just like to hunker down in our demense and laugh at the AI. Others like to RP their Rulers. And we were getting knocked out of the Game due to the endless cries of Nerf Plox!

The Game Rule level the playing field in that they allow the WC crowd to have that harder game, if they want it, while leaving the rest of us free to enjoy our games too.
 
  • 24
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Well, I'll be honest. I'm not quite sure what's the point of this topic.

Do we need a game rule for every single thing that crosses our mind? No, most likely no. I would love a "all characters are replaced by Lovecraftian horrors ruling over mortals" game mode, but I garner that I'd only play that once or twice maybe, so most likely it's better left to modding (TBQH game rules feel a lot like "official" mods already...)

Are game rules a good tool to give different players with different expectations choices to play the game in a way more suited to those expectations, and thus make it way more fun for them? That's a resounding yes.
 
  • 13
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Well, I'll be honest. I'm not quite sure what's the point of this topic.

Do we need a game rule for every single thing that crosses our mind? No, most likely no. I would love a "all characters are replaced by Lovecraftian horrors ruling over mortals" game mode, but I garner that I'd only play that once or twice maybe, so most likely it's better left to modding (TBQH game rules feel a lot like "official" mods already...)

Are game rules a good tool to give different players with different expectations choices to play the game in a way more suited to those expectations, and thus make it way more fun for them? That's a resounding yes.
The point of this thread is, I believe, that there's a trend on this forum where people attempt to counter arguments against features they'd like with "make it a game rule and everyone will be happy", no matter how unfeasible that might be.
 
  • 24
  • 1
Reactions:
The point of this thread is, I believe, that there's a trend on this forum where people attempt to counter arguments against features they'd like with "make it a game rule and everyone will be happy", no matter how unfeasible that might be.
Which is still better than what we had before, with Ham Fisted, one-size-fit-all Global Nerfs meant to curb blobbing, but actually doing more harm to small realms, like Duchies and smaller kingdoms.
 
  • 10
  • 9
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Which is still better than what we had before, with Ham Fisted Global Nerfs meant to curb blobbing, but actually doing more harm to small realms, like Duchies and smaller kingdoms.
And no one has been saying that there should be no game rules - just that not every feature can be feasibly implemented as one.
 
  • 14
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I do see your point. see your point. If someone wants to do Lovecraftian Horrors, that is, indeed, best served by a Mod...
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
It does seem to be the case that a lot of threads about proposing a feature of some sort or other tend to have someone suggest "just make it a game rule." For instance, I'm pretty sure it was suggested in one of the "boats" threads, as an extreme example (and wherever you fall on the CK2 vs. CK1/3 boat issue, I think you'll agree that having the AI be able to handle both depending on which game rule you choose would be a nightmare to code).

Game rules work very well for simple things like "Can the AI use the Seduction focus?" in CK2. That's a simple binary, getting rid of it doesn't break anything, and the AI doesn't need to be adjusted (after all, it would theoretically be possible for no AI to roll the Seduction focus naturally, although the odds against that are astronomical). The more complicated things get, the more likely the different game rules are to break something. For an example, "no matrilineal marriage" seems like it should be an easy game rule, but when they implemented it, they originally neglected to adjust the marriage AI weights appropriately, such that they went for a while with the AI refusing marriage proposals under that setting because they were holding out for a matrilineal marriage they couldn't get (proposals would get a penalty "------prefers a matrilineal marriage"). And the more game rules you add (and the more complex they get), the more likely you miss something like that (in some combination).
 
  • 29
  • 1
Reactions:
Game rules are pretty neat, they can be used to tailor your game but they aren't the panacea of crusader kings. Though it may be well and neat to have game rules but at the end of the days, these game rules still need to be maintained and tested for balance or for bugs. You can't just add a million game rules to the game and call it a day.

Yeah, I saw some guy suggesting a ridiculously elaborate fog of war system as a game rule. People really need to understand how much work it would take maintaining the more complex rule suggestions instead of going "just add a game rule for it lol and everyone will be happy, it's so simple!" at every single new idea someone posts which has been extremely common here.

And then every game rule has to work with any combination of other game rules. Imagine a hypothetical situation of "Oh, no turns out this player picked the "disable india" game rule but also enabled the "chinese invasion of india" game rule" and now the game broke completely. Yes, more game rules is "better" in some hypothetical perfect world but I'd rather not see Paradox having to spend 50% of their development time making sure that all the game rules still work with every update. Technical debt is a thing.

I remember the way it was before the Game Rules were instituted, and it was hell for those of us who didn't want unending struggle in our games. The demands for nerfs were literally never ending. As soon as they got one thing nerfed, it was on to the next thing. They'd get that thing nerfed too, and then move on to the next target, etcetera ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Do you have any examples here? Are you mad over the loss of the assassination button or something? I genuinely don't remember any CK2 nerfs that seriously impacted the difficulty of the game, it has always been fairly easy.

e; Is it about Paradox trying to fix north korea mode? Because that was more of a bug fix since it was clearly not working as intended.
 
Last edited:
  • 11
  • 2
Reactions:
Do you have any examples here? Are you mad over the loss of the assassination button or something? I genuinely don't remember any CK2 nerfs that seriously impacted the difficulty of the game, it has always been fairly easy.

e; Is it about Paradox trying to fix north korea mode? Because that was more of a bug fix since it was clearly not working as intended.
Not them, but the one that immediately springs to mind is Defensive Pacts, which were introduced to stop blobbing but did so in a very ham-handed manner that poorly scales with realm size, and were introduced before Game Rules existed. Defensive Pacts (along with shattered retreats) played a big role in the initial backlash against Conclave (despite coming in the free patch).

Defensive Pacts are still one of the game rules I always have turned off when I play (despite the Conclave DLC being one of my absolute favorites).
 
  • 9
Reactions:
IMO everyone knows that deep down there can't be rules for everything, so they try to toss out their own idea first to worry less about integration.

And seriously, I really want game rules that toggle certain ahistorical stuff off. Like that count half a world away seducing my daughter in CK2. Seriously, how do you seduce someone in 'ple from Afghanistan?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
IMO everyone knows that deep down there can't be rules for everything, so they try to toss out their own idea first to worry less about integration.

And seriously, I really want game rules that toggle certain ahistorical stuff off. Like that count half a world away seducing my daughter in CK2. Seriously, how do you seduce someone in 'ple from Afghanistan?

I mean, hopefully it's fixed in CK3 as they've redone how seduction works anyhow, but the rules are a good band-aid in CK2 and didn't block ironman. I'm sure they'll give us similar options in CK3 again if things get crazy, they've already embraced the idea of adding rules for gender roles and random religions and such, I anticipate many such sliders to calibrate your historical experience.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I mean, hopefully it's fixed in CK3 as they've redone how seduction works anyhow, but the rules are a good band-aid in CK2 and didn't block ironman. I'm sure they'll give us similar options in CK3 again if things get crazy, they've already embraced the idea of adding rules for gender roles and random religions and such, I anticipate many such sliders to calibrate your historical experience.
The real problem is something not yet fixed, AFAIK: making where characters are matter. Localization in another sense, and makes sense for a character to maintain a small court (less hostile plots of any kind).
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
The real problem is something not yet fixed, AFAIK: making where characters are matter. Localization in another sense, and makes sense for a character to maintain a small court (less hostile plots of any kind).

This is more of an added feature than a "problem" IMO. We've always had some stuff like this in terms of army commanders, pilgrimage events, diplomatic range, and hiding in CK2. We also don't want to bother with too much detail. Do I really need to simulate what barony my steward currently travels through while they are collecting taxes from the whole realm?

I'm fine with soft limits like the AI mostly interested in it's neighborhood and dynasty, and longer times for plots on far away characters. I still think it makes sense for the King of England to try to sway the Pope, so we don't want to be *too* harsh here.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
This is more of an added feature than a "problem" IMO. We've always had some stuff like this in terms of army commanders, pilgrimage events, diplomatic range, and hiding in CK2. We also don't want to bother with too much detail. Do I really need to simulate what barony my steward currently travels through while they are collecting taxes from the whole realm?

I'm fine with soft limits like the AI mostly interested in it's neighborhood and dynasty, and longer times for plots on far away characters. I still think it makes sense for the King of England to try to sway the Pope, so we don't want to be *too* harsh here.
I have less of an issue with diplomatic plots (rulers have plenipotentiaries, envoys etc.), but hostile plots like murder should really have hard limits on where the character is.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions: