Making Stuff Happen - A Rant

[LilWolf]

Re: Rulers, I've had this problem myself. Sure people want you to be publicly active and leading by example, but sometimes you're doing so much stuff behind closed doors making that extra effort can be a real chore. I was also conflicted by the nature of my position. I did want to talk more, but RP wise, I don't feel like I should be engaging in banter with my nobles or having an ale in the tavern or whatever. You're the King. Of necessity, the way the ruler engages with the realm is going to be different to the way the average noble can.

There are many RP solid ways of the king interacting with the nobles of the realm. Throw a party, invite people on a hunt(always thought it'd be a nice game mechanics addition if you could actually organize a hunt at your estate, sort of like an mini tournament) etc.

As far as time consumption goes, sorry, don't have the power to add hours to a day :)

[Tom]

Rulers have a duty to do their best to keep things from stagnating, but players have no right to complain when they aren't making any efforts themselves.

That's *my* mantra. Too many people expect things to magically happen.

Actually, the game is set up in the exact opposite way: Those who are in power have every incentive to keep the risks low and not have too much change - they have more to loose than they have to win. Those at the bottom are the ones who should be pressing for change and action. They have much to win and little to loose. Like in the real world, the main incentive for a king to go to war should be so internal politics calm down while everyone focuses on the external enemy.

Unfortunately, too many of the lower people put the pressure on. Some of the changes I have in mind are intended to change that.

[Anaris]

Actually, the game is set up in the exact opposite way: Those who are in power have every incentive to keep the risks low and not have too much change - they have more to loose than they have to win. Those at the bottom are the ones who should be pressing for change and action. They have much to win and little to loose. Like in the real world, the main incentive for a king to go to war should be so internal politics calm down while everyone focuses on the external enemy.

I even tried that!  They were opposing the war I was trying to fight!  :'(

[Geronus]

I even tried that!  They were opposing the war I was trying to fight!  :'(

You weren't doing it right then! To succeed you have to whip your realm into a patriotic frenzy! Your enemy obviously wasn't compelling enough. Fissoa? Small potatoes, not very threatening to the Lurian way of life. What you needed was something like the Red Menace of Sanguis Astroism! Now there's a boogey man to frighten the children with...

Honestly I don't think it's possible to distract PeL with a war - you just don't have any enemies nearby who are big enough and threatening enough to make war a truly unifying event. With Fissoa, everyone's going to recognize it for what it is - a distraction.

[Anaris]

You weren't doing it right then! To succeed you have to whip your realm into a patriotic frenzy! Your enemy obviously wasn't compelling enough. Fissoa? Small potatoes, not very threatening to the Lurian way of life. What you needed was something like the Red Menace of Sanguis Astroism! Now there's a boogey man to frighten the children with...

Honestly I don't think it's possible to distract PeL with a war - you just don't have any enemies nearby who are big enough and threatening enough to make war a truly unifying event. With Fissoa, everyone's going to recognize it for what it is - a distraction.

That's the problem, right there.

What I should have done is encouraged (OOC, probably), a long time ago, the creation of a realm in Sallowtown/Shinnen, or the expansion of Aquilegia (though that came to a bad end without any help from Alanna...).  That would have provided Pian with a nice close realm to fight.

[Stue (DC)]

Actually, the game is set up in the exact opposite way: Those who are in power have every incentive to keep the risks low and not have too much change - they have more to loose than they have to win. Those at the bottom are the ones who should be pressing for change and action. They have much to win and little to loose. Like in the real world, the main incentive for a king to go to war should be so internal politics calm down while everyone focuses on the external enemy.

Unfortunately, too many of the lower people put the pressure on. Some of the changes I have in mind are intended to change that.

that is exactly how i feel to understand it, but the problem is that there are no internal conflicts for simple reason that few in power have interest to initiate conflicts. if seats of those in power would be endangered at least to some extent, they would have incentive to do something which will enable them to hold their powers, but if the most effective way to hold powers is to be passive, as is now in my opinion, than we have lack of events.

[Chenier]

One problem is that rulers without ambition aren't getting toppled enough by others with it.

I, for one, like to aim big. So when I seek positions of power, it's not to crush the realm under my heel and have them beg for mercy. It's to crush everyone else's realms under my heel and have *them* all beg for mercy. A ruler who isn't doing enough on the continental level is easy pickings for me to invade or to replace/manipulate with agents and puppets.

One needs patience, though, these things do take a lot of time...  ;D

[JPierreD]

Perhaps a good question to make, instead of "why were/are people not accepting me as a ruler?", would be "what do /I/ want in a ruler I'm subordinated to?". If you don't want a power-monger ruling you, then you should not be surprised people oppose you when you hold too tight to power.

I personally like rulers who are not too attached to their positions (which don't see the throne as an actual personal possession, but as a transitive job), and that don't rule too much for themselves (hoarding gold, not splitting loots, keeping a much larger personal army than the rest, etc.). I cannot see how those who do not act like that can maintain a successful realm for long.

That is OoC-wise, of course. IC there will always be tyrant and madmen characters, but those shouldn't surprise their players for receiving opposition, and being eventually kicked out.

[Anaris]

I personally like rulers who are not too attached to their positions (which don't see the throne as an actual personal possession, but as a transitive job)

That doesn't fit very well at all with SMA.

[Chenier]

Perhaps a good question to make, instead of "why were/are people not accepting me as a ruler?", would be "what do /I/ want in a ruler I'm subordinated to?". If you don't want a power-monger ruling you, then you should not be surprised people oppose you when you hold too tight to power.

I personally like rulers who are not too attached to their positions (which don't see the throne as an actual personal possession, but as a transitive job), and that don't rule too much for themselves (hoarding gold, not splitting loots, keeping a much larger personal army than the rest, etc.). I cannot see how those who do not act like that can maintain a successful realm for long.

That is OoC-wise, of course. IC there will always be tyrant and madmen characters, but those shouldn't surprise their players for receiving opposition, and being eventually kicked out.

Having the most days in realm helps. A lot.

We get the rulers we elect, so bitching about it is kinda stupid. People *are* making them gain power and then constantly reconfirming it, after all.

[Shenron]

One problem is that rulers without ambition aren't getting toppled enough by others with it.

I, for one, like to aim big. So when I seek positions of power, it's not to crush the realm under my heel and have them beg for mercy. It's to crush everyone else's realms under my heel and have *them* all beg for mercy. A ruler who isn't doing enough on the continental level is easy pickings for me to invade or to replace/manipulate with agents and puppets.

One needs patience, though, these things do take a lot of time...  ;D

You wait and watch Fissoa then ;)

Absoloute Monarchy here we come.... oh I should stay quiet about this stuff....  :-X

Hopefully most of my council doesn't use the forum!  ;D  ;D  ;D

[JPierreD]

That doesn't fit very well at all with SMA.

That is OoC-wise, of course. IC there will always be tyrant and madmen characters, but those shouldn't surprise their players for receiving opposition, and being eventually kicked out.

[Anaris]

I'm not talking about tyrants and madmen.  I'm talking about good old-fashioned absolute rulers.  You know, real Kings and Queens, the ones who truly believe they rule by the will of the Gods, or otherwise have a natural right to rule.  Not your pansy-ass "let's vote on stuff" rulers.

[Shenron]

I'm not talking about tyrants and madmen.  I'm talking about good old-fashioned absolute rulers.  You know, real Kings and Queens, the ones who truly believe they rule by the will of the Gods, or otherwise have a natural right to rule.  Not your pansy-ass "let's vote on stuff" rulers.

Yeah this is my favourite style too. It creates lots of drama and fun.

[JPierreD]

Those are good, for a while, but while playing with /players/ they are bound to become tyrants if they never get old, sick or have any other IC reason to stand aside of power after some time.

It was used the analogy that BM should be played like you'd play a board game with friends. Surely it's usually not good for everyone if one's always in charge, being the rest the servants. Unless you have a particularly unusual and working mix of personalities, and manage to delegate enough power, resources and tasks to keep the rest entertained, you are bound to need to cede your place to someone else sooner or later.

This is specially true for the most active rulers, those who monopolize the diplomacy, decision-taking and other game-experiences like that.
It sums up in "share the toys, others want to play too". Of course IG it makes total sense, but we are not real medieval lords, we are players.