The Bendix Perspective: A BM Editorial

[Buffalkill]

Most commonly, it won't be people trying to cause chaos, it'll be that everyone is plotting for themselves. That's what causes chaos—and, more generally, when people don't care about working together as a realm/team.

And you'd be surprised—you'd be disgusted—at how many people think they can run a serious plot either all by themselves or with one or two supporters (their OOC friends, usually). The problem being, of course, that you otherwise have to resort to actually trusting people.

Pshaw! That's a symptom of weak leadership.

[Anaris]

Pshaw! That's a symptom of weak leadership.

Sure, but that doesn't stop people from acting that way, and screwing up the team dynamic by doing so.

[Tom]

This is especially true in a game like Battlemaster, which is more a game of politics and diplomacy than its name would suggest.

This is a great thought.

Yes, power very much is a part of the game. It's not a coincidence the spiritual successor is named "Might & Fealty" - the first being a synonym of "power".

We should make a difference between in-game power and power-gaming as it is commonly used, which is mostly an OOC thing.

[Kai]

Complete chaos is rarely suitable for anyone trying to gain power either, you realize. If the entire realm falls apart, what will they gain power of? Besides, one needs supporters to plot properly.

Trouble with that is tragedy of the commons. Even if the sum payoff for cooperation is higher than self interest, the individual payoff is higher for self interest, and... people leave the game.

That's just small fry work... I'm thinking more about garnering support for yourself by presenting yourself as the driving force behind a successful war, for example, and turning that popularity into political power.

I find that the people that actually work on wars, i.e. giving orders, rarely have political ambitions, because there are less masochistic methods of getting political power. Not sure if that's what you're talking about.

[BarticaBoat]

I think what he meant was people who try to make battlemaster into Game of Thrones regardless of the situation. Game of Thrones is a great drama, but that kind of drama doesn't fit in some circumstances to people. I appreciate the kind of pot-stirring it creates, but I can understand that it may throw off some other people's game when you play an overly hot-headed brute or an unexpected wily backstabber. I like it, but I think it pisses people off. Once the player is pissed off it all devolves into OOC bitterness.

Big dramas tends to create a lot of friction. Some of the best rivalries I've seen have caused people to delete characters and come to the forums to engage in flame wars. It saddens me that things get overheated between players rather than festering as bitter hatred between characters. There have been several times that I wish two players could message each other and say "Hey, I'd like x character to dick x character over as hard as possible, why don't we work together to create a rivalry for the ages?". Then again, some people don't play that way...and forcing it upon them just makes them mad. You have to find people that will reciprocate what you want out of the game.

I think that is the biggest issue with Battlemaster. The locality of interaction forces you to deal with people, but sometimes those people aren't the ideal people you would want for that kind of interaction. Rather than search for greener pastures, people try to force things with people who don't want it. It makes for great stories...but pissy players.

BM is a team game "you are a member of a team from the start, and don't have to start out on your own."

So I play the game with the expectation that being backstabbed within-realm will be infrequent.

GoT wannabes who are also bad players screw up a realm, too frequently, for no reason.

Personal interest, yes. But that doesn't mean you should consider how you can screw someone over with every action. If not enough people are working together toward a common goal, then everything is chaos. Complete chaos is no fun for anyone. It's frustrating, like playing a game populated by nothing but griefers. There has to be enough teamwork that people feel like they are accomplishing something.

Nail, meet hammer.
CENSORED are simply a genre of bad Actor. I find there is a strong subset of players in this game who are insistent on making BM into GoT at every opportunity and yes it feels like you're playing with griefers. I've seen it far too much over the years from sometimes what one could call big names and it really makes me disinterested in getting involved in politics. Instead I opt to play my characters mostly solo, fleshing out their story etc etc. I've enjoyed it enough over the years I guess.
Other bad Actors would be people who play stock characters and caricatures and people who want to play TeaPartyMaster.

[Bendix]

It's good to see that a lively debate has started around column #1. I think a lot of players have provided a lot of good additions to the discussion, and I am glad people are being thoughtful and sincere in considering the issues.

I would like to remind everyone that the intention for this article was not to judge any person or group of persons, and the point is not to segregate and categorize player types for the purposes of attempting to judge their value. I would like to stress that inclusiveness of all players of all styles should be paramount.

Now, Article The Second:

Characters, Families, Risk, and Reward

Today I am going to talk about 'stakes', characters, and families as a continuation of last week's column about what constitutes power and success in a game that no one is supposed to be able to win. What are our characters and families really risking in Battlemaster, and why?

The answer would at first seem to be "not that much", because mortality is not a very powerful force in BM, especially when you can immediately create a new character to replace the one you've lost. Interestingly, death and injury are the least of the worries facing the Noble player-character. In fact, being wounded by an assassin is often more of a blessing than it is a curse, because it can give your character moral and political leverage over the assassin's home realm. Because most assassination attempts fail to kill the target, infiltrators are really better for engineering hostilities between realms than for actually getting rid of enemy Nobles. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

So death doesn't bother us. Not that it should. But if we are not risking our characters lives and/or health in any significant way, then what exactly are the stakes of the game?

What our characters and families risk is intangible, but extremely important: political influence. Which, for a medieval Noble, is exactly the way it should be, and therein lies the genius of taking death out of the equation, more or less. It creates an environment where you cannot simply kill all your problems (which is the solution in most video games), and where you have to actually be courteous (in the most original sense of the word) and respectful to at least some other characters in order to build that political influence. To put it broadly, you catch more flies with honey. To put it specifically, the King won't appoint you as Duke if you're a jerk to everyone.

This is the only game I can think of where your main weapon is politeness. By putting a premium on social/political status, and downplaying actual physical mortality, BM creates a major incentive, both short-term and long-term, to cooperate with other characters, as opposed to the backstabbing orgy it could have easily turned into.

Of course, not everyone plays the game of 'intrigue at court'. Some may play their characters (or whole families) as constantly aggressive, rude, or even anarchistic. And again, there is nothing wrong with that, but generally speaking those characters and families do not rise to prominence, and you would not expect them to. The most powerful characters in BM may have evil intentions, but they also have to have good interpersonal skills to realize those goals. Essentially, you are reward for not taking risks.

The rewards of 'socializing your way to the top' do not just apply to your character, but to the whole family- when other players have had interactions with one character out of your family, they will inevitably make assumptions about the rest of your family. Not that there is anything wrong with that, either. Now, this is an issue that comes up semi-frequently in the game- ideally, a person should not be judged because of the family they come from. But in reality, or at least in the period of time where BM is set, that is exactly what happens. When you take controversial actions as a character, you are also risking your family's overall image, which is entirely realistic considering the setting.

Of course, that particular dynamic is not really intentional. Since your family is the sum of all the characters you have created, it is inevitable that, to other players, your family of characters will be seen as a sort of metaphor for your personality. Whether or not that is accurate is not the point. That's just the way the mind works. It is a basic principle of association. Much like the way 'power gaming' is actually IC for a medieval lord, so is making assumptions and judging a person based on social status. Again, the game mechanics use player psychology to keep them in character.

This becomes especially true if you play all your characters the same way- other players will assume that is your personality, and most people believe personality is a fixed trait. Ergo, they will assume you will always play your characters the same way, unless you prove them wrong.

Here is my point: be aware of your family's overall image, and make an effort to not play every character the same.

So if every character in your family is aggressive or crazy, it becomes banal; consider playing a character who is sane and rational to balance it out. And if every character in your family is charming or brilliant, consider making a few mistakes on purpose, or you run the risk of becoming boring.

*   *   *

So this one didn't quite turn out the way I had hoped when I started writing it. I just had too much relevant material that it was hard to decide what to leave in and what to leave out. Some of that material will inevitably show up next week, in article #3, wherein I discuss the role of academic drama in Battlemaster.

[Kwanstein]

The image-based allotment of power is responsible for stagnation. Keeping ones image clean means playing straight, and playing straight doesn't lead to much excitement. Further, building an image takes time and the more time one spends building it the better it is, so seniority is very important. The ranks in seniority don't often change, so there is not much turnover.

An order more conductive for interesting play would be one based on merit. One where players gain positions not by election, but through power. The power would come from the military muscle a challenger and his cohorts could drum up. Secession would function, when a challenge is made against the designated heir (perhaps chosen by the previous king), through a civil war system. Rather than the current civil war system, which paints civil war as being a dishonourable function, one used purely by rebels, undesirables, this civil war system would have an air of normality. It would be known as a righteous means for taking the throne. God favours the righteous, so triumph in battle demonstrates ones right to rule. Nay sayers will be beheaded.

This has the added benefit of being historically realistic.

[Kai]

Yes the problem is that the way to get power is all words and no actions, and then you get a position which thrives on inaction like duke, hooray. The reason its so hard to find generals and marshals is that you need to do something other than sit on a pile of gold and occasionally complain about food and then secede if you are bored.

[Blue Star]

Personal interest, yes. But that doesn't mean you should consider how you can screw someone over with every action. If not enough people are working together toward a common goal, then everything is chaos. Complete chaos is no fun for anyone.

Hey, chaos is fun! I have to get my kicks once in awhile!


Personally, I fear for anyone attempting to play the game like Game of Thrones book or movie. You not gonna get far. Now if their were inner conflict sure maybe, but their isn't. Though I do think they have some similarities, I say that being vague, regarding a few realms. I have seen arguing and nothing getting done that has destroyed realms when they could of worked together, or realms that have gone to war with themselves to claim Titles and to such, but nope I still haven't seen John Snow (wonder if he's in BoM).

[Tom]

Personally, I fear for anyone attempting to play the game like Game of Thrones book or movie. You not gonna get far.

You should wait for Might & Fealty :-)

[Gustav Kuriga]

Hey, chaos is fun! I have to get my kicks once in awhile!


Personally, I fear for anyone attempting to play the game like Game of Thrones book or movie. You not gonna get far. Now if their were inner conflict sure maybe, but their isn't. Though I do think they have some similarities, I say that being vague, regarding a few realms. I have seen arguing and nothing getting done that has destroyed realms when they could of worked together, or realms that have gone to war with themselves to claim Titles and to such, but nope I still haven't seen John Snow (wonder if he's in BoM).

Congrats for generalizing the whole series as huge public political scheming. I'm sure there wasn't more subtle stuff than overthrowing the entire realm... no, there couldn't be.

[Blue Star]

You should wait for Might & Fealty :-)

Tom, O I am waiting don't worry I will jump aboard, just been busy.

Congrats for generalizing the whole series as huge public political scheming. I'm sure there wasn't more subtle stuff than overthrowing the entire realm... no, there couldn't be.

I was briefly generalizing it, yup. 

[Tom]

Tom, O I am waiting don't worry I will jump aboard, just been busy.

Just follow this and you'll not miss it:
http://forum.mightandfealty.com/index.php/board,7.0.html

Enough off-topic.

[Bendix]

Greetings, readers! Unfortunately the next article will be late, due to the impending start of the schoolyear. I work in the field of education and this is always the most difficult time.

However, I did have a little twinkle of an idea while talk to a friend about my own reading habits. When I read a novel, I tend to automatically cast the most vivid and interesting characters using actors from real life. For instance, if a character in a story has a sort of gruff and quiet demeanor, I might imagine that character being played by Tommy Lee Jones or Clint Eastwood. If a character is kind of mischievous or roguish, I might think Edward Norton or John Leguizamo, or possibly a comedian like Jim Carrey. If a character is English, I would cast an English actor or an actor whom I imagine could pull off an English accent (so not Clint Eastwood).

So here is a little exercise: Who would you cast to play your Battlemaster character(s)? Would the older eccentric and fun-loving Erik Eyolf be played by Michael Caine? Would the young Emperor Velax be played by James Franco? Would the steely and ruthless Atanamir be played by Daniel Craig?

I find that if you can picture an actor playing your character, you can learn things about your character that you yourself only know subconsciously. Our brains tend to associate actors with certain character achetypes (particularly if they're often cast in the same kind of role: Bruce Willis is usually a Police Officer, Ian McKellan is usually a wizard, etc.)

This could also be a good way to help define your character to others.

[Buffalkill]

It changes depending on my mood and the tone of what I'm writing. When he's condescending, he sounds like the lord from Braveheart that killed Wallace's wife. When he's quixotic, he sounds like Joaquim Phoenix in Gladiator. When he's trying to win over an audience he sounds like Robert the Bruce from Braveheart. Sometimes he sounds like Inigo Montoya from Princess Bride, or Arthur, King of the Britons from Holy Grail. The last letter he wrote was to an adventurer and was in the voice of Jaffar from Aladdin (oddly). His butler sounds like Hedley Lamarr in Blazing Saddles, and his unit captain was just some mix of Cockney and Irish, but he's dead now.