Messages and Metagaming

[Anaris]

Well, the takeover messages specifically mentioned that peasants were being killed, though I can't remember it entirely since it's out of my message history by now. Then the scribe report said that population went down by one, I think. Again, this is all by memory, so I might be remembering something wrong.

Shouldn't we assume that if multiple nobles (which the reports Edmund were sent listed more than one noble) are attacking and killing peasants during a takeover that a scribe note would reflect more than 1 death? Or given the game mechanics, we ignore it since we know it takes a while for actual depopulation?

Oh, sorry; I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about looting, not TO messages.

The new TO system is still (unfortunately) unfinished. None of its actions have any game-mechanic effect aside from moving the TO along towards either a Love TO or a Fear TO.

It's just one more thing that's on my list.

[Anaris]

This discrepancy is built into the game design and there is no getting around it - you pretty much have to do one of the two things described above.

The only way around it would be to integrate infiltrator actions to things that can happen for other reasons. You'd need some kind of crime/control system where your warehouses could get sabotaged by NPCs if they had reason. That's not a small undertaking, but until it happens, the only people who do sabotage warehouses or assassinate nobles are other nobles. That's just the way of the BM universe.

I have been considering adding more events like this to add some plausible deniability. Perhaps not to every infiltrator action (or other nasty thing people can do and maybe not get caught), but at least to some.

[Ender]

Oh, sorry; I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about looting, not TO messages.

The new TO system is still (unfortunately) unfinished. None of its actions have any game-mechanic effect aside from moving the TO along towards either a Love TO or a Fear TO.

It's just one more thing that's on my list.

Ah, that would explain it then. So I guess either assuming the reports are rumors or the scout report was false was the best bet anyway. Thank you.

[egamma]

I have your solution right here

[Eirikr]

I have your solution right here

+1 Well played, sir.

The serious discussion in here has been very enlightening. I agree pretty staunchly with some things and have had others shown as good alternatives. Overall, I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks everybody!

[Penchant]

I have a question to add that seems related, though if it isn't I apologize.

What happens when two game related messages more or less contradict each other in a RP sense?

For example, earlier in the FEI war Edmund was sent reports via Greater Aenilia that said the Arcaean army in, erm, Nahad, I think, was murdering peasants, pillaging, burning, etc. Since the reports shared with Edmund looked official, he assumed they were and applied the appropriate outrage to what he saw as unnecessary violence. When confronted a few turns later with the fact, however, Velax was able to provide a scribe report that noted that the population of the city and it's infrastructure was relatively unchanged.

Now, it's possible the reports of pillaging and murdering were falsified, but they looked legitimate (I never looked into it, so if anyone reveals it now I suppose my question is invalidated, though at least I'll know). The scribe note obviously wasn't falsified since it can't be. So, here Edmund was stuck with two seemingly legitimate sources that totally contradicted each other. I played it off as Edmund disbelieving an Arcaean's ability to count so many people for a report at once, but I didn't particularly like doing it since a scribe note obviously isn't going to be wrong but I have every IC reason for believing the earlier takeover reports saying villagers were being slaughtered wholesale.

Its not metagaming to believe him, because when you check the reports that the scribes of your realm who have no reason to lie tell you the same story, then it would seem that the Arcaean is actually telling the truth.

[egamma]

Its not metagaming to believe him, because when you check the reports that the scribes of your realm who have no reason to lie tell you the same story, then it would seem that the Arcaean is actually telling the truth.

The scribes are working together to tell you the same lies.

[Vellos]

I'll speak up as one of the proponents of the, "You should believe nobles over minor functionaries" camp.

The problem arises in instances where the game itself is ambiguous. I recall a case in PoZ where my character was at odds with one of Tim's characters over the situation surrounding one of Perth's characters' controversial actions.

Long story short, the early RPs were contradictory: many characters made totally impossible statements about what happened, or RP'd drastically different events. Characters claimed to hear and see things from miles away, and alleged weather out of line with the season, etc. And the game only states a small amount of information: yes, it's undeniable that so-and-so was arrested. But it is quite debatable what the exact details were. And in a confusing situation with lots of IG reports coming out (such as a religious uprising followed by arrests follower by upset peasants), the game can sometimes create contradictory reports, or reports that are at minimum very, very hard to reconcile into a coherent narrative.

Game mechanics do trump RP. But, IMHO, game flavor text only kind of trumps RP. And when game flavor texts don't always perfectly align, and then players trying to retcon their actions to fit those flavor texts all tell different and incomprehensible stories...

I choose not to trust the peasant scribes. I'll still to the word of the nobles I trust.

---

To a related question I think was asked: is it meta-gaming to forge the trappings of message details, like timestamps and formatting and such. IMHO, no it's not. Think of it as, IG, our characters forging the seals on the letters and the signatures and such. There are non-textual clues to a letter's validity, we simulate them by developing our own non-textual (or at least para-textual) clues.

[Indirik]

To a related question I think was asked: is it meta-gaming to forge the trappings of message details, like timestamps and formatting and such. IMHO, no it's not. Think of it as, IG, our characters forging the seals on the letters and the signatures and such. There are non-textual clues to a letter's validity, we simulate them by developing our own non-textual (or at least para-textual) clues.

I agree with this. Forging the timestamps and addressees on a message is no different than forging the Date or salutation on a paper letter. I have heard a few people vociferously claim that doing so is metagaming, but I absolutely don't agree.

One think to be careful of: Different people handle the matter of IC-forged messages differently. Some people roll with it, and others react quite strongly in an OOC manner. So be careful, and be aware that some people might really get pissed off.

[Indirik]

Well, one I've heard recently in-game, is the idea that a peasant could have been the one that did the assassination attempt, even though there was only one other noble in the region.

Yes, I've seen this claim, too. The thing is, a peasant has never, in the entire history of BattleMaster, ever been arrested in the process of attacking a noble. It's one of the quirks of the world. Peasants are never implicated in any assaults on nobles. It just doesn't happen. So to adjust your character's thinking to assume that such a thing would require you to RP your character as believing that something that has never, ever happened is a plausible explanation of events. i.e. you're character would have to be a moron.

Or so the argument goes. Again, Bedwyr had some really good arguments for this school of thought.

[Scarlett]

Peasants are never implicated in any assaults on nobles.

They assault priests all the time.

They also form mobs and kick out region lords.

[Anaris]

They assault priests all the time.

Mobs of them, in the public square, after perfectly understandable provocation by the pronouncement of heresies and blasphemy.

They also form mobs and kick out region lords.

Again, mobs of them, in broad daylight.

None of this remotely resembles a lone infiltrator sneaking into your camp at night and stabbing you in the dark.

[Indirik]

They assault priests all the time.

They also form mobs and kick out region lords.

En masse, yes, groups of them do things. But they never do it solo. And they never get arrested for it. And they never end up in your dungeons for it.

[Blue Star]

Mob attacks sometimes go unreported, sometimes. I mean if a noble gets wounded from a attack and has no idea he was attacked two peasants who were very unhappy might of shoved him into a alley knocked him over the head with a club and beat him up really good, and left him for better or worse. mm never walk alone unless your a good swordsmen and are aware of your surroundings.

[Penchant]

Mob attacks sometimes go unreported, sometimes. I mean if a noble gets wounded from a attack and has no idea he was attacked two peasants who were very unhappy might of shoved him into a alley knocked him over the head with a club and beat him up really good, and left him for better or worse. mm never walk alone unless your a good swordsmen and are aware of your surroundings.

That is what we call a mugging, which does happen in BM. They just never kill you or try to either.