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.
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.

Another thing I'd like is for AI-only Murder Plots to be limited to where there is a concrete benefit to offing the other guy. Around 80-90 per cent of all AI/AI murder Plots arise simply because Character A doesn't like Character B's face.

It's different if one of the characters is Player-driven. But if both sides of the Plot are AI-driven, I'd like the AI to be limited to plots where the plotter stands to gain a concrete benefit, like a piece of land, or even the other character's spouse. Especially if it's women, and one woman decides to murder her way to the throne by killing the King's current wife. That's a benefit to the murderer, if she doesn't get caught, that is...

But most of the plots I've seen in CK2 seem to revolve around landless characters scheming to kill other landless characters to no observable benefit...
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
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.

Yes it is a bit strange how I, a lowly count in the far north of Scotland, know about every landed character in India, their family and their courts. There could be a fog of 'knowledge' where only the most famous/prestigious characters would be known past immediate/intermediate borders. Again though that could be a game option... :p

EDIT- Spelling.
 
Last edited:
  • 9
Reactions:
Yes it is a bit strange how I, a lowly count in the far north of Scotland, know about every landed character in India, their family and their courts. There could be a fog of 'knowledge' where only the most famous/prestigious characters would be known past immediate/intermediate borders. Again though that could be a game option... :p

EDIT- Spelling.

I'd personally support a game rule for fow where you only see characters within your diplomatic range, but am of the opinion that most other systems could cause problems or performance issues.
 
Interesting. We who agree that info about people and murder should be more limited are all being disagreed on. I guess some players game the game too hard to tolerate realism.
 
  • 13
  • 1
Reactions:
Yes it is a bit strange how I, a lowly count in the far north of Scotland, know about every landed character in India, their family and their courts. There could be a fog of 'knowledge' where only the most famous/prestigious characters would be known past immediate/intermediate borders. Again though that could be a game option... :p

EDIT- Spelling.
I'd personally support a game rule for fow where you only see characters within your diplomatic range, but am of the opinion that most other systems could cause problems or performance issues.
This is veering heavily off-topic, but what does blocking out information about characters that you already can't interact with add to the game? Personally, I enjoy looking beyond my area of influence in CK2 to find interesting developments from time to time, to see what has been going elsewhere. Having access to that information gives no advantage whatsoever, and it's easy to, you know, not look there if you don't wish to. But, I suppose that particular thing might not be terribly problematic as a game rule - I just don't quite understand the desire for it.
Interesting. We who agree that info about people and murder should be more limited are all being disagreed on. I guess some players game the game too hard to tolerate realism.
Now now, easy with the strawmen when you're disagreed with.
 
  • 11
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Now now, easy with the strawmen when you're disagreed with.
There is a difference between a reasonable guess and a strawman, but I would guess you know better, since apparently you aren't guessing.
 
  • 9
Reactions:
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.
Why? If a cabal of English noblemen want to kill the king while he's warring in France, they can hire someone to go to the army and put some poison in his wine. They don't need to do it themselves.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
Interesting. We who agree that info about people and murder should be more limited are all being disagreed on. I guess some players game the game too hard to tolerate realism.
I was about to respond and knock over your strawman but figured Tuo did it for me

This is veering heavily off-topic, but what does blocking out information about characters that you already can't interact with add to the game? Personally, I enjoy looking beyond my area of influence in CK2 to find interesting developments from time to time, to see what has been going elsewhere. Having access to that information gives no advantage whatsoever, and it's easy to, you know, not look there if you don't wish to. But, I suppose that particular thing might not be terribly problematic as a game rule - I just don't quite understand the desire for it.

Now now, easy with the strawmen when you're disagreed with.

I think it would add code that improves little but adds places for bugs to hide.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Why? If a cabal of English noblemen want to kill the king while he's warring in France, they can hire someone to go to the army and put some poison in his wine. They don't need to do it themselves.
Then they need to find an agent (if you don't remember that, check the intrigue and seduction DD) in the king's entourage of war, not have poison come out of nowhere. In the spirit of playing a game, players should have better control over how they get murdered, but then ...
I was about to respond and knock over your strawman but figured Tuo did it for me
*Chuckle
I guess some people prefer making a strawman by claiming I am making one.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Then they need to find an agent (if you don't remember that, check the intrigue and seduction DD) in the king's entourage of war, not have poison come out of nowhere. In the spirit of playing a game, players should have better control over how they get murdered, but then ...
And why would said agent have to be a nobleman of some sort (ie anyone actually in the game)? Wouldn't it make more sense to hire a cook or a cupbearer to poison the king than some courtier or noble?
 
  • 6
  • 1Like
Reactions:
And why would said agent have to be a nobleman of some sort (ie anyone actually in the game)? Wouldn't it make more sense to hire a cook or a cupbearer to poison the king than some courtier or noble?
Ok.

You have a point with a cook, and it would make sense to use an untraceable person. However, how are you supposed to remote control someone with Middle Age tech? Even telegrams had to be succinct and were of limited accessbility, and that was invented centuries after where Crusader Kings 2 ended.

Next we have the cupbearer. I trust you remember that Cupbearer is an honorary title you could grant to your courtiers in CK2? Being a (theoretically) event-heavy position, its return could be expected for CK3.

The reason why it should be someone of prominence is because only such people could have maintained pathways of communication, especially across great distances like trans-Channel plots.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Ok.

You have a point with a cook, and it would make sense to use an untraceable person. However, how are you supposed to remote control someone with Middle Age tech? Even telegrams had to be succinct and were of limited accessbility, and that was invented centuries after where Crusader Kings 2 ended.

You don't need remote control. You send one of your trusted servants with a bag of gold and let them handle things once they get there.

Next we have the cupbearer. I trust you remember that Cupbearer is an honorary title you could grant to your courtiers in CK2? Being a (theoretically) event-heavy position, its return could be expected for CK3.
I'd forgotten that cupbearer was a ceremonial title, but my larger point stands. A noble interacts with dozens of servants every day, none of whom are within the scope of CKIII, and many if not most of whom are theoretically able to assassinate him if given the right incentive. There's no need for the instigators of the plot to travel to the victim's location.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
You don't need remote control. You send one of your trusted servants with a bag of gold and let them handle things once they get there.


I'd forgotten that cupbearer was a ceremonial title, but my larger point stands. A noble interacts with dozens of servants every day, none of whom are within the scope of CKIII, and many if not most of whom are theoretically able to assassinate him if given the right incentive. There's no need for the instigators of the plot to travel to the victim's location.
How are you supposed to RPG if some data stream that doesn't even show up in the game's interfaces could assassinate you?
 
  • 6
Reactions:
If you've got nothing better than a straw man, then I think I'm done with this discussion.
If you insist on believing that getting killed off by uncontrollable unseen people in your court is part of an RPG experience, I agree to end this discussion.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
If you insist on believing that getting killed off by uncontrollable unseen people in your court is part of an RPG experience, I agree to end this discussion.
You do realise the event descriptions in CK2 literally described the lords and ladies hiring people to do the killing, for instance hiring bandits, or having a maid smother a baby. The events in CK2 didn't describe the nobles doing the murdering.
 
  • 9
Reactions:
The king in the trailer never saw the killer coming, cool guys don't look at explosions.
You do realise the event descriptions in CK2 literally described the lords and ladies hiring people to do the killing, for instance hiring bandits, or having a maid smother a baby. The events in CK2 didn't describe the nobles doing the murdering.

And how are you, realistically speaking, supposed to randomly hire a servant or maid in Prague, give them a bag of gold, and expect them to assassinate someone in Paris? (A very horrible playthrough experience of mine saw my vassal nephew King of France be murdered by said lord in Prague. This is stuff I hope does not show up in CK3 - the possibility to intercept hostile networks before they can spring a plot under my nose)

You contact another, local figure of prominence and invite him or her into the plot, trusting that common interests can compel him or her to finish it.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
Agree with OP. Been on this subject several times before.

In my opinion, Game rules should:
- NOT enable/disable features. If such game- rule is needed for this, the feature is wrongly implemented in the first place. !!!Important!!!
- Set the degree of a feature. For example, degree of Exclave treatment
- NOT dictate how game should be played. IE not one edge of the scale should disable Achievements.
- Enable/disable railroading events, IE events that will happen without regards to the state of the world. (Norse raiders/Crusade/Nomad invasions/Other invations etc)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
In my opinion, Game rules should:
- Set the degree of a feature. For example, degree of Exclave treatment
- Enable/disable railroading events, IE events that will happen without regards to the state of the world. (Norse raiders/Crusade/Nomad invasions/Other invations etc)
I agree with these two.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions: