Making Stuff Happen - A Rant

[Perth]

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.

Obviously you've never played the greatest board game of all time: Diplomacy.  ;D

[Huntsmaster]

Obviously you've never played the greatest board game of all time: Diplomacy.  ;D

I would like your assistance in Warsaw. In return, I will backstab you in Berlin.

[Geronus]

I would like your assistance in Warsaw. In return, I will backstab you in Berlin.

You all should play Pax Britannica sometime. It is one of the greatest diplomacy-oriented board games I have ever played.

On another note, if you like Diplomacy and don't mind making a little more complicated I recommend Machiavelli. It's set in renaissance Italy, uses Diplomacy's basic rules and introduces various scenarios and additional mechanics to spice things up.

[Huntsmaster]

On another note, if you like Diplomacy and don't mind making a little more complicated I recommend Machiavelli. It's set in renaissance Italy, uses Diplomacy's basic rules and introduces various scenarios and additional mechanics to spice things up.

That actually sounds fantastic.

[Huntsmaster]

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

Heh. Well, this should be fun, then.

[JPierreD]

Heh, great game indeed.

[Chenier]

Heh, great game indeed.

But so dreadfully long. :O

[Stue (DC)]

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.

I also prefer such kind of ruler, believing they can make more stories and thrills, but the problem is that you actually cannot be neither tyrant nor overly strong ruler, as ruler has no powers.

so, knowing that ruler is weak, many will often complain loudly against every bold speech. and that is when tension is relieved before even creating any in-game event.

if such tyrant would have real power, many will fear of opposing him directly and publicly, but would have strong incentive to work against him behind the scene by all available means once he crosses the line.

for instance, if ruler would annoy lords too much, they would overthrow him and reform to republic, or if all nobility took arms against him, maybe they would decide to make democracy. however, such scenarios would make sense if there would be distinction between tyranny, monarchy, republic and democracy in way of real council powers. than every realm would find balance for herself, with many internal conflicts; sole distinction of ruler power in different regimes could easily become driving force for very dynamic internal political life.

[Bedwyr]

I also prefer such kind of ruler, believing they can make more stories and thrills, but the problem is that you actually cannot be neither tyrant nor overly strong ruler, as ruler has no powers.

While I quite agree that Rulers are currently far weaker than they should be and need some means to counterbalance the Dukes, I would take issue with this.  It is possible to have a strong absolute Ruler.  I play one, and I've played in a couple of realms that had them (though admittedly most were some years ago when Dukes had less power).

[Vellos]

I would like your assistance in Warsaw. In return, I will backstab you in Berlin.

An excellent one-line description of Diplomacy.

[Chenier]

I also prefer such kind of ruler, believing they can make more stories and thrills, but the problem is that you actually cannot be neither tyrant nor overly strong ruler, as ruler has no powers.

so, knowing that ruler is weak, many will often complain loudly against every bold speech. and that is when tension is relieved before even creating any in-game event.

if such tyrant would have real power, many will fear of opposing him directly and publicly, but would have strong incentive to work against him behind the scene by all available means once he crosses the line.

for instance, if ruler would annoy lords too much, they would overthrow him and reform to republic, or if all nobility took arms against him, maybe they would decide to make democracy. however, such scenarios would make sense if there would be distinction between tyranny, monarchy, republic and democracy in way of real council powers. than every realm would find balance for herself, with many internal conflicts; sole distinction of ruler power in different regimes could easily become driving force for very dynamic internal political life.

Being ruler, judge, and duke would help with that. ;)

[Silverfire]

Meh. I've had an enhanced version of that problem: when Alanna still ruled Pian en Luries, people would often complain that she didn't do enough, or say enough.  Indeed, there were certain people who would complain to her (or OOC to me) that the realm was too quiet, and thus she had to say something.  Of course, they couldn't say anything themselves; that obviously wouldn't work. Besides, it must be the Ruler's job.

But when she would try to do something, or make some sort of speech to get the realm interested, half the realm would complain that she was being tyrannical, and that everyone should overthrow her.  No matter what it was she was trying to do.

I don't understand how this is possible. Pian en Luries was my favorite realm to play in during the time that Brom and Alanna had some good intermixing for all of those in game crazy rebellious times. I never thought Pian en Luries didn't have something going on. We almost always had monsters to fight which made daily actions almost commonplace, while there was a ton of politicing going on in the background. Sure, I guess not much was seen publicly of that, but so many people were involved (on both sides) that I fail to see how people could have been left out enough to feel nothing was going on.

On the second note, I don't see what is wrong with the overthrowing piece? The point of the game is to have fun and have some awesome interactions. Pian en Luries was fun precisely because the Dukes and ruling council members involved both lords and knights in different vies for power in some form or another, some of which were a pursuit at taking the Crown itself. Now, I can understand where being the ruler it isn't as appreciated to have to defend her crown all the time, but I would think that this is more of the goal of what we are looking for in the game. A realm where nobles can be involved to the lowest level for or against their leadership.

At any rate, I can bet it wouldn't have been as interesting to play Alanna as a ruler if every single person in your realm just rolled over and accepted everything said as fact and the will of the gods. I think Alanna was very well RP'ed but I also thought that some of the interactions that came from that time were very enjoyable on multiple fronts, primarily because so many players were involved for such a long time.

[Stue (DC)]

While I quite agree that Rulers are currently far weaker than they should be and need some means to counterbalance the Dukes, I would take issue with this.  It is possible to have a strong absolute Ruler.  I play one, and I've played in a couple of realms that had them (though admittedly most were some years ago when Dukes had less power).

yes, that would be the point, things were different... i don't deny at all that it is impossible to have strong ruler right now, and there are some now and than, but their power is hanging on tiny rope, as good will of button-holders can change and nothing in game can oppose that.

I think the whole idea of having lords and dukes somewhat untouchable is profound, as the whole bm is, but things slipped somewhere in tweaks, and we now have untouchable positions, and those who play it passively cannot be blamed if we all know that is the most effective way to retain power. once they would be forced to do at least something to keep their posts, things can change radically, and there would be no need for "too much peace" or fear of too large realms that endlessly expand while being completely dead in terms of internal affairs.

I believe to understand that lords should never be removable easily, if hold on feuds is basics of complete feudal system, mechanics just needs some "vortex" that would eventually create permanent need to play internal politics. direct taxing of cities could be something in that direction, if it ever comes alive.

chenier, taking power by taking many positions, yes, it is to be admitted that players who want to play tuff game cannot be blamed for doing that if that's one of rare opportunities to play power-grabber at all. Personally i think it defeats concept of team play and interaction (though i use it myself when no other feasible option exists in some circumstances).

[JPierreD]

chenier, taking power by taking many positions, yes, it is to be admitted that players who want to play tuff game cannot be blamed for doing that if that's one of rare opportunities to play power-grabber at all. Personally i think it defeats concept of team play and interaction (though i use it myself when no other feasible option exists in some circumstances).

Sorry but team play and interaction is not SMA.  :P

[Stue (DC)]

Sorry but team play and interaction is not SMA.  :P

sorry but i see very little sense in your notion if we know that teamplay and interaction are major game values, and everything else is revolving about it.

i cannot even closely understand what it has to do with sma. in sma you are required to hold your character as strictly medieval person, to avoid expressions, subjects and way of living which does not fit middle age, but how it could be against interaction?!

i would personally prefer sma on all continents, and am trying to play all my chars sma to the extent possible.

maybe you feel term "interaction" as something like ooc chat, but interaction is general term much wider than chatting. there is good and bad interaction, flavored, and non-flavored, sma or non-sma, but without interaction we have nothing, almost everything in game are sole messages.

and teamplay is play of aware individuals who prefer to conduct their activities together with others in some sort of mutual coordination, so what is more valuable and appealing than that? of course, someone could call ooc ganging as teamplay, but that is something completely different, that is abuse and is not actually teamplay, as ooc gangers ignore other players who would naturally be part of some team in ic environment, and form their "team" goals and strategies outside the game.