Hello.
I am unhappy with the event writing in CK3. In fact, now that populist factions have been fixed, I would say that the event writing is the single worst thing about CK3 right now. For me, the main point of events is to make me feel like I am actually experiencing the life of a medieval ruler. I don't necessarily need everything that happens to be perfectly historically accurate, but historical plausibility is important to me. While I acknowledge that CK3 is a game, and some things need to work differently than they did historically for gameplay reasons, there comes a certain point where an event does not contribute to making me feel immersed in the world, and instead actively detracts from my enjoyment of the game. When I see an event and say to myself "This does not make any sense! Who wrote this?! And why!?", I am already past that point. That event does not fulfill its purpose.
In a lot of cases, the reason for "This does not make any sense!" is triggers that are too lax. When writing an event, it is common to have a certain kind of character in mind for it. If the event selects a character that actually fits the assumptions under which the event is written, then it works. If the event selects a character that does *not* fit the assumptions of the event, then it does *not* work. I think that this is the most common problem in CK3 event writing, and it can be fixed by using stricter triggers.
Sometimes though, the event itself is so nonsensical that stricter triggers will not help. For these cases, I support the addition of game rules to disable absurd/supernatural events, like there was in CK2. I know that the devs have recently stated that they prefer to improve events rather than disabling them by game rule, but sometimes I just don't see any way to make them make sense.
Given the recent release of the friends and foes event pack, I decided to have a look at the new events included in this pack and talk about what I consider to be the worst examples of events that violate basic believability. I will be talking about what the event does, why I think it's bad and what I would suggest to fix it.
Distaste to Detest (bp1_yearly.7100):
What does this event do?
You are taking a walk in one of your counties. A peasant drops a pile of manure on you from a window and loudly proclaims to everyone that [your rival] sends their regards before running away.
Why is it bad?
This event seems to have been written under the assumption that your rival isn't your vassal or below. Because if the rival was your vassal or below, I would expect an option to have the rival arrested for crimes against the crown. If you want to argue that doing this *wouldn't* be considered a criminal offense, and literally throwing shit at the king was actually perfectly legal, then I would would like to see a source for that because I don't believe it for a second. Also, if you want to argue that a peasant publicly proclaiming who they did this for isn't enough evidence: A lot of other crimes in this game don't need anything more than a single (sometimes very dubious) witness in order for the game to consider them crimes.
...There is also an option to kill your rival's cat in response, which I also find to be a bit strange, although not "wtf"-levels of strange. Why is your rivals cat randomly strolling around in your county? It does not really make sense.
My suggestion for fixing it:
Restrict this event to rivals who aren't your vassals or below.
Living on a Prayer (pilgrimage.6007):
What does this event do?
A miracle worker offers to cure an illness of your friend. This includes things like blindness, leprosy, bubonic plague and cancer. There is a positive chance of success for this.
Why is it bad?
I can accept that people recovering from deadly diseases could be interpreted as a "miracle", but people who have had their eyes gouged out suddenly being able to see again is blatantly supernatural and nonsensical.
My suggestion for fixing it:
Remove blind from the list of traits that can be cured by this event, or alternatively gate it behind a supernatural events game rule.
Shelter from the Storm (bp1_yearly.0100):
What does this event do?
You are traveling somewhere in the wilderness for an unspecified reason, when you are surprised by a storm. People in service to [your rival] are also traveling here in the wilderness for some reason, and have a place to take shelter. Your options are:
-> You politely ask for shelter
-> You sneak in and snoop around for secrets (requires scheming, intimidation or wealth focus)
-> You try to befriend someone to get in (requires a diplomacy focus)
-> You try to seduce someone to get in (requires temptation or chivalry focus)
-> You attack them. If your rival is your vassal, you gain minor tyranny.
-> You stay out. Chance to get sick.
Why is it bad?
This event is a typical example of too lax triggers, of the variety where if you can't find a character who is actually a good fit for the event, you just progressively loosen the requirements. This is bad writing. If you can't find a character who is a good fit for the event, that event SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.
The event first tries to find a one of your rivals who is your vassal of at least count+ tier who is an adult ai and not at war with you. Under these circumstances, this event makes sense: I can see randomly meeting some of my vassal's men somewhere in the wilderness, and I can also see attacking them for their place of shelter and gaining tyranny for it. If there are no vassals who fit these requirements, the event tries to grab your liege if they are your rival. Randomly meeting the men of your liege in the wilderness also makes sense, but attacking them for their place of shelter does not. Why is doing this not considered a crime against the crown? Why does it have no consequences whatsoever? Anyway, if your liege also does not fit, the event tries to find a neighboring ruler of the same rank, then *any* neighboring top liege, and then a courtier. That last one is thankfully impossible in practice because courtiers can't pass the trigger, but *any* neighboring top liege? If the abbasid caliph and the byzantine emperor are rivals, how likely is it that they *randomly* run into each other's men somewhere in the wilderness? Why did no one else notice this incursion into their territory before? I don't buy it.
Sidenote: The trigger for seduction targets is also way too lax. The target can't be chaste, which is already better than a lot of random adultery events in CK3, but there really should be a check for might_cheat_on_every_partner_trigger for these. If you are an ai, there should also be a check on that trigger for yourself before you can pick the seduce option.
My suggestion for fixing it:
This event should be restricted to rivals who are in the same realm, so it makes sense to randomly meet their men. If your rival is your liege or above, the option to attack their men should either be disabled or considered to be a crime. might_cheat_on_every_partner_trigger should be added for the seduction option.
Great Expectations (bp1_yearly.2020):
What does this event do?
One of your spouses with an eligible child who isn't your primary heir asks you to make that child your primary heir. You have the following options:
-> Ask them to kill one of your rivals. They then make a simple intrigue/martial check to see if they succeed, are imprisoned or die.
-> You agree in exchange for gold/hook. The child becomes your designated heir.
-> Ask them to get you a new courtier.
-> You imprison them just for asking.
-> You refuse.
Why is it bad?
Imagine you are the abbasid caliph and you ask one of your honest/compassionate/just secondary wives to murder the byzantine emperor for you. Five days later, she gives you the emperors head on a platter. I ask you: Do you think this makes sense? If you answered yes, then I am going to conclude that you just don't care that much about basic plausibility or believable characterization.
Rulers also do not have the authority to designate their heir unless they have absolute crown authority. Why does everyone else in your realm suddenly accept heir designation just because your spouse asked nicely? And why does your spouse not understand that designating your heir doesn't make much of a difference if your primary title is elective?
My suggestion for fixing it:
Limit this event to rulers with access to heir designation and without an elective law on their primary title. Exclude spouses who are craven, content, just or compassionate from participating in this event. Limit the murdered rival to people who your spouse would actually have a reasonable chance to kill in a matter of five days, which realistically is... Not many. Count-Rank or lower in the same realm maybe? Ideally just remove the instant event-murder and make them do an actual murder plot instead.
Hook, Line... (bp1_yearly.5709)
What does this event do?
You are fishing with one of your friends, when you find out that your rival is also fishing with one of their friends in the area and starts trash-talking you. You can start a brawl or a duel or pay prestige to do nothing.
Why is it bad?
I keep using this example, but picture this scene: You as the byzantine emperor go fishing with one of your friends, when the abbasid caliph shows up, who is also fishing in the area with one of his friends. He then starts insulting you and you have a fight. When you win, you smack a fish in his face and throw him in the water. You and your friend have a good laugh about it and go home, while the abbasid caliph begrudgingly goes back to his own realm, plotting his revenge at the next fishing trip to the byzantine empire.
My suggestion for fixing it:
Limit this event to rivals in the same realm. Although if an absurd events game rule is ever introduced, I would be fine with relaxing that trigger if absurd events are turned on, because I find this one legitimately funny.
Additional Note:
This same problem (your rival randomly showing up in your realm when that makes *zero sense*) also occurs in bp1_yearly.5717, bp1_yearly.5720, bp1_yearly.5728 (which also assumes stealing one of your artifacts isn't a crime if your rival is a vassal or below), bp1_yearly.3201/bp1_yearly.3202 (the abbasid caliph invites a byzantine vassal to a fake feast in Constantinople and then duels the vassal there), and bp1_yearly.1031.
The Cat-apult (bp1_yearly.5722)
What does this event do?
Your rival shoots your cat out of a catapult.
Why is it bad?
I don't think I have to explain this.
My suggestion for fixing it:
Gate it behind an absurd events game rule or delete it.
It Takes Two (bp1_yearly.9015)
What does this event do?
If you have a doppelgänger, your parent informs you that you are long-lost twins. The parent has apparently abandoned one of you in order to secure the succession.
Why is it bad?
Given that I have been playing as my current character's parent before, don't you think I would have noticed the existence of an additional child? Seriously, this has the same bullshit retroactive causality logic as the fake bastard event.
My suggestion for fixing it:
Gate it behind an absurd events game rule or delete it.
"Honorable" mentions:
-> bp1_yearly.5713 is an event about a spouse with money issues, and does not check how much money the spouse actually has.
-> bp1_yearly.5725 is an event where you are looking for a spouse, but if you are not of the dominant gender of your faith or your faith has equal views on gender, this event can lead to a same sex marriage. Even if same sex marriage isn't allowed.
-> bp1_yearly.4030 divorces a vassal without checking if divorces are allowed in the vassal's faith. It also does a patrilineal marriage without checking if the vassal's faith or culture is female dominated.
-> bp1_yearly.5001 + followups add kinslayer trait even if kinslaying is accepted.
...And this concludes my criticism of the event writing in the friends and foes event pack. It's bad. But it could be improved.
