Treaties

It appears there are differing understandings of how treaties created in game work. I'm asking from a rules basis understanding that all things might have their exceptions.

If a new player takes over a position, are they, in fact, not bound by existing treaties for their position? This seems quite illogical, but if so, something I'd really like to know since how you structure a treaty then needs to change at the very least.

It has been a rule of thumb that new players are not bound by treaties signed by previous players, it used to be the case that the newspaper entry informing everyone that a new player had arrived also carried the message that all previous treaties were null & void. It is annoying to see all your diplomatic efforts destroyed all at once.

My understanding was the same as other Jason and the Real King Louis.

I always saw it as one of those game mechanisms that was needed to keep the game admin under control. In the days before the games went increasingly electronic, it could be a bit of a nightmare for Richard to keep track of which treaties were current and have copies on hand to send to new players (which feels 'safer' than expecting other players to send copies to new players, always the chance of a dishonest player being sneaky).

Couple of things about treaties which has always baffled me:

1) You sign a mutual defence treaty with a position which then goes NPC is the treaty defunct at that point or only when a new player takes over the position?

In the case of mutual defence treaties NPC never seem to do anything to protect me so am I expected to help protect them?

1) You sign a non aggression pact with a position you really dislike. Since the new player will not be bound by the treaty and can attack you is it Ok to get your pre-emptive strike in first.

I've had a frustrating time in Games because having invested a lot of time & energy into diplomatic moves with other players. Agreeing treaties, arranging marriages etc. Then player drops for whatever reason. a new player comes in and in the first turn attacks my position. without head of treaties or indeed any information of what has been happening between his position & my own.

If that player had received a list of treaties with his start up, then ok, he may still have attacked , but if he knew his posittion would suffer in the honour stakes because of his actions then he may have at least have had second thoughts.

In the Last Argument of Kings Game ( anyone remember that one) there was a list published once a year. With a side note as to how long the treaty was valid.

You could put treaties down as Trade, non-aggression, defensive, or offensive.

As to NPCs I can understand that Agema may be unaware of the various treaties signed with them. However I sometimes think that some mutually supporting positions like the HRR should maybe more pro-active in there defence of one another against either internal or external aggression. It seems most members simply sit on the side lines.

That is sort of my point. If this is a current rule, I had no idea, will be quite annoyed if it is as I've wasted time negotiating in good faith with NPCs.

If Glory is to be real, then there needs to be no difference between PC and NPC positions in this matter, and a change in position should not obviate previous treaties.

It may put more work on the GM, but I think the alternate is a damaged game.