BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Locals => Dwilight => Topic started by: Indirik on December 16, 2011, 08:41:25 PM
-
So, I was just thinking today (probably brought on by the recent Zuma torture report Magistrates case, or the discussion over whether or not realms named after the character are SMA) that there are probably a lot of routine things we do that some players would consider non-SMA. And that other people have no problem with.
What I'm primarily looking at here are the smaller things. Everyday actions that our characters take. For example:
- Visiting a local tavern or inn. Is that non-SMA because nobles would never visit a common tavern? Or are these considered to be the medieval equivalent of a high-class establishment catering to the nobility?
- Is asking for a scribe note SMA? Is demanding a scribe note SMA? How about saying that since an official scout report wasn't provided via scribe notes, that there is no proof that someone was in a region? The medieval version of "Pics, or it didn't happen!"
- In the Lurian lands (not sure if this is common elsewhere) lords are often referred to by the region name, rather than, or in addition to, their personal names. So you call him Duke Giask because he's lord of the city of Giask, instead of Duke Frank because he's lord of a city and his name is Frank Jones. Is this "more SMA" or merely a local cultural thing?
- Is talking about "5,000 CS" of enemy troops non-SMA? Or is it OK because the game itself uses the term, and thus if the game itself uses it, it's acceptable?
But I'm not just talking about these specific things. I'm also interested in other things that you do, or that you have seen other people do, that you would consider non-SMA. Or even things that other people have said are non-SMA, but that you think are fine. And also, I want to know why you think they are OK or not OK. So don't just say "Asking for scribe notes is non-SMA". Tell us why you think that it is non-SMA.
-
You just have to have a justification.
For CS, I theorize that our scouts are members of a scouts' guild, and that as members of that guild, they have come up with a formula for estimating the strength of the enemy forces. So asking for CS is asking for your scout to use his guild training, and as nobles, we simply communicate among ourselves in that format, rather than coming up with our own.
As for names, I normally use title and family name--"Marquis Gellander" rather than "Marquis Gornak" or "Marquis Raviel." If the person I am corresponding with uses region name, I will switch to that. Since I often correspond with people of higher status than myself, if they use my first name, I typically take that as a sign of friendship--which is good for a trader like Gornak.
-
- Visiting a local tavern or inn. Is that non-SMA because nobles would never visit a common tavern? Or are these considered to be the medieval equivalent of a high-class establishment catering to the nobility?
- Is asking for a scribe note SMA? Is demanding a scribe note SMA? How about saying that since an official scout report wasn't provided via scribe notes, that there is no proof that someone was in a region? The medieval version of "Pics, or it didn't happen!"
- In the Lurian lands (not sure if this is common elsewhere) lords are often referred to by the region name, rather than, or in addition to, their personal names. So you call him Duke Giask because he's lord of the city of Giask, instead of Duke Frank because he's lord of a city and his name is Frank Jones. Is this "more SMA" or merely a local cultural thing?
- Is talking about "5,000 CS" of enemy troops non-SMA? Or is it OK because the game itself uses the term, and thus if the game itself uses it, it's acceptable?
1. Tavern- Depends on how your noble enters. If he enters, tosses out the peasants, requisitions the establishment, etc; or if he is insulted and disgusted to be there, fine. If he just hits up the tavern for drinks and tall tales... you're obviously playing a D&D character... which are aptly referred to as "Adventurers."
2. Asking for a scribe note is fine with SMA, IMHO. It is plausible that scribes could send details in some way if we posit that nobles have these vast legions of scribes (which we do). I have argued elsewhere that I think demanding a scribe note (as you aptly put it: "Pics or it didn't happen") is extremely non-SMA. It privileges peasant scribes over nobles, presumes a categorical difference between scout reports and letters of which characters would not be aware, and is an unnecessary imposition on RP by game mechanics. Game mechanics trump RP, but such things are an example of one player wanting things to go his/her way, so imposes an extremely broad approach to game mechanics on other peoples' legitimate RP.
3. This is very SMA appropriate. It's far, far more appropriate than referring to nobles by their first name alone. If people dispute it I'm almost 100% sure I can find documented cases of it being done in at least France, some German lands, and England.
4. I generally try to give counts in terms of men, but I'm okay with CS for several reasons: 1. like scribe notes themselves, CS is a very useful convenience. I don't expect people to conjure up different explanations of scribe notes or make SMA explanations for why we have instant letters. You can't get around it; CS seems very similar. 2. CS is a reasonable assumption. If I say, "There are 300 soldiers," that's not what a professional scout (like the ones we hire) would actually tell me. He'd say something like "There are 300 soldiers; they look heavily armed, organized, led by nobles XYZ; looks like mostly armed thusly.... etc" But those details can be conveniently summarized as CS, especially since the game doesn't give details distinguishing between pikes, spears, axes, swords, armor types, etc.
----
Now for my own list:
5. Plate armor- I'm okay with the occasional lord who is a hero or cavalier walking around in plate. But when every other noble seems to be wearing 15th century top-of-the-line plate armor, whether he is from a backwater scrub forest or a recently elevated adventurer... not very SMA.
6. Republics and democracies- I say this with qualifications. I am find with republics and democracies, as long as they are not REALLY republics or democracies. As long as they are still elitist, governed on a hierarchical basis, categorically reject humanism (in the sense of all people being basically the same), etc. I play in two republics. I would say that in Terran we do a good job being a republic of nobles; we give great authority to Senators, are very militaristic, have no real "advocates of the people," and are obsessively preoccupied with culture and civilization and the refinements of life for which we fight so hard. I would say in Riombara, it's like playing an 20th century political simulator: peasants have rights, everything belongs to the State, taxes are as centralized as possible, judicial codes are framed around implicitly inalienable rights.... it's getting better; there are an increasing number of players in Riombara with a real interest in Medieval governance. But it's still a long way from anything remotely appropriate in BM. Which isn't to say it's not fun; it is fun to play in Riombara, I'd recommend it to anyone... just saying it could be much better, and isn't right for BM.
7. Inappropriate names- They still happen. They're more subtle now, though. Frequent obvious references to other settings, every religion that ever referenced Tyr and Zisa, characters named after extremely well known fantasy characters (I'm fine with somebody picking a minor reference; the Vellos family name is stolen from a faction in the space sci-fi game EV Nova, but few people notice), realm names that sound like Starcraft factions (Terran).... names. On this, I actually liked Solaria and Kabrinskia, because I could see motivations that, even if there wasn't a huge historical precedent, I could understand how a noble could arrive at those decisions within the medieval context.
8. Atheism- less common now, but still happens. Just as bad is apathy. I'm guilty of it too; but I don't really know how to fix it in regards to religion. I feel like I'm talking about RL....
-
I'd like to claim that nobles, especially council members, writing letters to adventurers, is non-SMA. If I understand correctly, the more "SMA" method would be to write out a cookie-cutter standard message that says something impersonal about the noble's general intentions, and then stamped or something, and passed out by messengers to post on stuff. But very rarely, possibly not at all, would someone whom others would see as a traveling commoner get a letter from a king or equivalent.
-
I'm okay with Terran--Terra Firma, and various forms of Terra, have been around since Roman times.
On the other hand, these names aren't very SMA:
Assassins
Minas Ithil
Minas Thalion
-
- Is asking for a scribe note SMA? Is demanding a scribe note SMA? How about saying that since an official scout report wasn't provided via scribe notes, that there is no proof that someone was in a region? The medieval version of "Pics, or it didn't happen!"
It's not great, but it's game mechanics, and is unavoidable. Besides, you can make an excuse; "The scout's guild is infallible and have developed ways to make their letters uncopyable, my scout can easily tell that this is a legit report". It's not great, but trying to avoid it is even less great. Getting offended if someone asks you for a scout report instead of your word is fine as well, since they are placing the word of a commoner- even if it's a very trustworthy commoner that belongs to the most well-established and trustworthy guild in the world- above yours. But asking in the first place isn't non-SMA.
I think more people should treat advies like dogcrap. While it's perfectly normal for the vast majority of nobles to be at least slightly civil with their servants, more nobles who outright steal and attack advies would make the advy game more fun and suspenseful, but I've yet to encounter any of that on either my advies or my nobles.
-
I'd like to claim that nobles, especially council members, writing letters to adventurers, is non-SMA. If I understand correctly, the more "SMA" method would be to write out a cookie-cutter standard message that says something impersonal about the noble's general intentions, and then stamped or something, and passed out by messengers to post on stuff. But very rarely, possibly not at all, would someone whom others would see as a traveling commoner get a letter from a king or equivalent.
I often send RP's instead of letters, signing them with Cedric Campbell, First Scribe. So I do agree on that.
-
On BT I just had a scribe of mine walk into 2 advies' (separate) rooms in my city and order them to march into the blight. Without any further explanation. Then I waited to see how they'd react. One hasn't responded, the other has and will be doing as I said.
(When he asked for advice I wrote back though... kinda wish I hadn't done that afterwards but oh well, I still want to know if he can survive.. :P)
-
Keep in mind that SMA is only Dwilight. I'd rather not get into things that apply to other islands.
-
Oh, really? Really? Okay.
Only courtiers should be literate. Noblemen in the Middle Ages were rarely literate -- in fact, Henry I of England was nicknamed "Beauclerc" because, unusually for an English king, he could read. Adventurers shouldn't be literate at all.
Where's the cannons? The English deployed cannons on the field as early as 1346 at the Battle of Crécy. I suppose we could say this is what special forces are.
Nearly 50% of the region names on Dwilight are non-SMA, and I hate them with a passion.
1. Tavern- Depends on how your noble enters. If he just hits up the tavern for drinks and tall tales... you're obviously playing a D&D character...
Or Sir John Falstaff.
-
I think the whole "everyone can read" is more for convenience, since there'd be no way to play really if very few people could read. It would also be a real pain if we got more accurate with our depiction of human language and divided Dwilight into language groups. Seriously, name one continent in the real world where EVERYONE can understand the same language. Antarctica doesn't count, although in that case, I'd like to point out there are different countries with research stations there too. Sure, there are some places where there is a dominant language, but even so, there will still be people who speak only their native language.
In BM terms, maybe nobles are rich enough to afford tutors to teach them the "universal language". But then, where do those commoners learn it? They couldn't ALL be born to speakers of the "universal language". But whatever, it's a decision made so we can actually play the game.
You want some more things that are done for the sake of gameplay that I think aren't SMA? (And I'd like to add, most aren't even SBA, serious believable atmosphere)
1. You don't need to eat, drink, excrete wastes, or egest (Those of you who prefer the more common terms, the latter two just mean you don't sweat, piss, or poop.)
2. Traveling to the different buildings in a region to buy paraphernalia, recruit troops, visit the temple, etc, takes no time. That means either one building serves all purposes, or you have a teleporter that conveniently only works in town.
3. If you play your proportions right, you can have every guy in your unit carry a banner, work in threes (I think it requires 3 people to carry a cart) to carry a cart, operate a siege engine, AND fight...with no penalty to their ability to fight on the open field. I can believe they keep the carts back when they actually fight, but they definitely bring the banners and siege engines to the battle. This means they probably stick the banners on their backs like samurai or something. Even better when it's cavalry leading a useless siege engine while carrying banners and riding (If anyone's ever ridden a horse, I'm sure you know how really hard it is to stay balanced on the animal, especially when you have a flag waving out your back, with one hand on the reins, leading a huge tower that you aren't going to use, and still have the ability to charge forward with your heavy spear carried presumably in your other hand.
4. There is at least one invincible peasant in every region. Have you ever seen a region with 0 population? No, because at any given moment, the power of true Invincibility is bestowed upon a random peasant who cannot die until the population rises above 1. Then in that case, he/she might die, unless he/she is selected again to be that one invincible peasant.
5. Non-heroes won't die (unless executed or death duel). I can write a whole lot about this...
6. Infiltrators are contractually bound to use non-lethal techniques. See, you can die in a death duel, but no matter how many times or how deeply you thrust your infiltrator blade into someone, that guy will never ever die. Batman would be proud of the non-lethal takedowns.
7. Adventurers need to eat and do other stuff only so long as they have money. Once you spend that last silver coin on food and other expenditures, somehow, magically almost, your adventurer becomes a freaking superhuman machine of endurance, requiring no nourishment or whatever else that silver coin was used for. Now why couldn't the adventurer display such camel-like resilience when he still had money? Perhaps desperation drove him to access great powers...Yeah, not buying it. The results I am familiar with when people run out of money to pay for food are generally frozen corpses outside in winter.
8. The only items nobles touch that adventurers also touch are unique items and magic scrolls. You wonder just why a noble is so averse to taking a fancy ring, or a set of ancient documents. I can understand the animal parts, and even the uncut gems. But what's wrong with some expensive toy? I mean, in its description it even says: "An expensive toy for the children of a noble or wealthy merchant." So why doesn't the noble take it for his kid or something? Hello? Game? You listening to logic? No? Ok...have a good day then.
9. You can only send a letter to one contact at a time. What, too much to ask for another name to be put on the recipient list? (I'm talking about the option to send a message to ONE contact in the message sending options.)
10. There is no difference between day and night with the exception of the purely superficial and aesthetic differences in the sidebar. Battles occur with everyone being as effective at night as on a nice bright sunny day. Look, game, there's a reason why people in the past used night attacks as a very useful tactic to get the jump on an enemy position. It's because humans don't see too well at night, and their lighting options back then were mainly in the form of fire torches which don't give very good lighting and don't have a very large radius. And on that note, apparently your archers have infravision because they can hit enemy soldiers just as well at night as in day. Either that, or each of your soldiers in every unit in every army is carrying a brightly burning torch. Which only makes me wonder how they juggle that with the banner and cart and siege engine (See number 3)
There's more, but those are just ten short little things that make me wonder.
-
What little things that people commonly do do you consider non-SMA?
All the things you have just listed Artemesia are game mechanics that obviously do not perfectly reflect real life, but have apparent pragmatic reasons behind them...
You must have SO much free time on your hands..........
-
*IF* you were paying attention, you'd notice that it was directly in response to Vaylon Kenadell's post about literacy, which I proclaimed, as you, vanKaya, just did, was a matter of convenience for playing the game, or, in your words, "have pragmatic reasons behind them". So I gave a lot more examples to illustrate the point that we shouldn't go by that.
However, it seems as though you took the completely opposite lesson. Very interesting. Perhaps I should brush up on my ability to communicate with people lol.
-
*IF* you were paying attention, you'd notice that it was directly in response to Vaylon Kenadell's post about literacy, which I proclaimed, as you, vanKaya, just did, was a matter of convenience for playing the game, or, in your words, "have pragmatic reasons behind them". So I gave a lot more examples to illustrate the point that we shouldn't go by that.
However, it seems as though you took the completely opposite lesson. Very interesting. Perhaps I should brush up on my ability to communicate with people lol.
I think, perhaps, that VanKaya was suggesting you start a new thread.
-
Indeed.
It just gets tiresome when people prattle on and on about the differences between BattleMaster, a browser based computer game, and real life.
It could literally go on forever.
In real life you need time to sleep. In real life we don't have turn changes. In real life you physically see the people you're interacting with. In real life you can recruit in places other than the capital. In real life you didn't have to command just one unit. In real life..... blah blah blah....
I just don't see what the point is....
And I know you were responding to other people who themselves were going off topic, but you literally springboarded from
"Only courtiers should be literate. Noblemen in the Middle Ages were rarely literate -- in fact, Henry I of England was nicknamed "Beauclerc" because, unusually for an English king, he could read. Adventurers shouldn't be literate at all."
to
"In battlemaster you don't !@#$"
Wut?
-
Ain't it funny? No, will be what everyone's about to say. Yeah, yeah, whatever, I couldn't care less what you think either.
Almost from the start this thread was pretty much doomed. You want to know a major factor for why any discussion about SMA is going to lead to bad places? Because very few of us, if any at all, have Ph.D.s or equivalent degrees in Medieval studies of any sort.
-
I think Artemesia's point was that these inconsistencies are going to exist despite our attempts to deal with them and many of the things that are done that are non-SMA (e.g. using scout reports as infallible documents) are just done to make the game simpler.
I think you might actually be agreeing...
-
Ain't it funny? No, will be what everyone's about to say. Yeah, yeah, whatever, I couldn't care less what you think either.
Almost from the start this thread was pretty much doomed. You want to know a major factor for why any discussion about SMA is going to lead to bad places? Because very few of us, if any at all, have Ph.D.s or equivalent degrees in Medieval studies of any sort.
Now hold on a minute... I happen to be an expert roleplayer 8)
-
Ah, but in the context of SMA, I was under the impression that Serious Roleplayer was oxymoronic. In the event that it is not, those types are generally called actors.
-
Ah, but in the context of SMA, I was under the impression that Serious Roleplayer was oxymoronic. In the event that it is not, those types are generally called actors.
Hi, I'm an actor whose hobby is doing medieval recreation.
Now, if only I had more time to do epic medieval RPs on Dwilight.
-
http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/High_Tech_Game
Not sure how this hasn't been mentioned yet.
Didn't you and I collaborate on some of that, Artemesia, or am I imagining things?
-
I am really not concerned with game mechanics anachronisms or oddities, such as instant letters, day and night being the same, etc., etc. There are very good reasons for all those, that involve the ability to effectively play the game. I'm pretty sure that we as players can look past this stuff, and get on with the game.
What I'm looking for are things that players have their characters do that others see as non-SMA.
The literacy aspect is interesting. But then most people treat "letters" as more like face-to-face conversation. Even when the correspondents are thousands of miles apart, people write letters and argue back and forth like they're all sitting around a meeting table. Given that, does the matter of literacy ever really come up? I can't recall off-hand any time it has been mentioned.
The inappropriate names one is a good one, but a bit difficult. Enforcement has varied from time to time, and the criteria has changed. Names that come from things like anime and video games will probably be viewed as SMA or not based on the experiences of the each individual person. I probably wouldn't get almost any anime references, while they would other people gag.
-
The literacy aspect is interesting. But then most people treat "letters" as more like face-to-face conversation. Even when the correspondents are thousands of miles apart, people write letters and argue back and forth like they're all sitting around a meeting table. Given that, does the matter of literacy ever really come up? I can't recall off-hand any time it has been mentioned.
In regards to the literacy thing, a pretty big amount of people I've played with all seem to at some insinuate that their letters are written and transcribed by scribes anyways, so that makes the issue of literacy a bit of a moot point. I mean, hasn't everyone at some point blamed a typo or mistake on their "idiot" scribe? If not everyone, I feel it is a fairly common thing. So, nothing implies our nobles are literate, merely that they can have a scribe transcribe for them and read other's letters to them.
-
I would think that most nobles would know basic reading and writing, and basic arithmetic below 100. I mean, if the nobility can afford to educate the scribes, they can damn well afford to educate their own children. This way your noble can double-check his scribe's results to make sure that he actually wrote what the noble told him to write, and your noble can still read his orders if his scribe kicks the bucket mid-campaign.
So why use scribes at all? Well nobody wants to read your noble's chicken scribbles handwriting. Maybe nobody can read it. While Sir Blockhead has been training his horsemanship, swordsmanship, leadership skills, etc., his entire childhood, the scribe has been practicing producing a florid script that would make angels weep.
And I always suspect that "honor" really means math skills. You can command up to as many men as you can count. Wouldn't that make a lot of sense? ;D
-
The most annoying thing for me is people not actually thinking as their characters, but thinking of them as characters. Especially in the little things. Torture being one of the more common examples, but things like sex (yes, keeping it a family friendly game, but I think since rape is a game-mechanic option pg-13 seems acceptable) or other personal motivations seem to fall by the wayside. But the absolute worst aspect of this for me is on things like Cavalier restrictions on looting or Hero civil work. I was guilty of this for a while when I started playing, I'll freely admit, but it annoys the hell out of me when I see someone say "Sorry, I would loot, but I can't, Cavalier you know".
-
Given that, does the matter of literacy ever really come up?
Oh, absolutely. Literacy is outlawed in Outer Tilog, and scribes are regularily executed for the crime. :-)
-
But the absolute worst aspect of this for me is on things like Cavalier restrictions on looting or Hero civil work. I was guilty of this for a while when I started playing, I'll freely admit, but it annoys the hell out of me when I see someone say "Sorry, I would loot, but I can't, Cavalier you know".
How do you justify it then? Say, "I refuse to loot. My code of honour forbids it"? Could do that...but then how do you justify ordering others to loot if you're a marshal or general? That would hamstring your entire army or realm and likely get you kicked out of the position.
-
"I said do what I say, not do what I do."
Taking the Cavaliers not looting example, I see many possible nuances. Why is someone a cavalier? Amaury Capet didn't become one out of motives of honor, but because Cavaliers gain more recognition from battle, and because they can command more cavalry than other classes. The looting restriction in his case was an inconvenience, not a matter of personal conviction. He ordered lootings during the Lurian Civil War to cripple the enemy's economy through starvation, killing some 100,000 peasants in the process, and the reason he did not join in was not because he considered looting dishonorable, but because partaking as a Cavalier would look poorly in the eyes of his peers.
My biggest SMA-related annoyance is inconsistency in character behaviors. One week Sir Kepler will be a Champion of Virtue, the next week his men are seen raping and slaughtering defenseless peasants, that sort of thing. It's like everyone's a schizophrenic, bringing up the personality that best suits him that day and making a 180 degree the next day.
-
Well, mental illness can be transmitted in the family. And it's SMA to have incestuous families with a !@#$ton of mental problems. I say it's perfectly SMA lol. The crazier the more realistic, because that definitely means he/she/(s)he/it is a product of nobles trying to keep their pure bloodline intact by partaking in mixing blood within the same bloodline...if you know what I mean, lol.
It's those nobles who don't show some form of insanity, horrible physical mutation, or extreme sexual deviance (like lusting after horses, for example), who are non-SMA, and don't belong on Dwilight lol.
See my new thread for an interesting theory.
-
How do you justify it then? Say, "I refuse to loot. My code of honour forbids it"? Could do that...but then how do you justify ordering others to loot if you're a marshal or general? That would hamstring your entire army or realm and likely get you kicked out of the position.
Simple. I will not dirty my hands with such, that is why I have you all to do it for me. There was a huge difference between doing something yourself and having it done, which interestingly I think only the Far East models successfully of all the islands I've played on. Jenred is the one lone nutjob who insists that ordering something is the same as doing it yourself, while all the rest of the Rulers (quite correctly) insist that he's being quite silly.
-
I would like to see a continent-wide "Order of Cavaliers", guild which only accepts Cavaliers as members, and sets a code of conduct on them, and kicks them out if they violate it.
-
In regards to the literacy thing, a pretty big amount of people I've played with all seem to at some insinuate that their letters are written and transcribed by scribes anyways, so that makes the issue of literacy a bit of a moot point. I mean, hasn't everyone at some point blamed a typo or mistake on their "idiot" scribe? If not everyone, I feel it is a fairly common thing. So, nothing implies our nobles are literate, merely that they can have a scribe transcribe for them and read other's letters to them.
Aye. I'm sure I haven't been terribly consistent about this, but generally...Jenred is literate, as he handles enough correspondence that is too secret to entrust to scribes that he has to be by now. Arlian is literate. Malcolm is literate. Damian, Darkwind, Rhennthyl, Lucator, and Colin probably had very basic literacy skills, but have scribes handle most everything for them.
-
Accepting the presence of characters in my realm that my own character could never realistically endure, for the sake of playing with them because, OOCly, they are fun to play with. I'm guilty of this.
Also, accepting foreigners and pardoning traitors because "we need more nobles and can't afford to drive them away". I'm guilty of this too....
-
Accepting the presence of characters in my realm that my own character could never realistically endure, for the sake of playing with them because, OOCly, they are fun to play with. I'm guilty of this.
Although it's FEI and not Dwilight, I could never understand how Adgharhinists and Sartanians could be in the same realm together. And to have a king who follows one of the two faiths, and tries to be "fair" about allowing the other to exist in his kingdom. I mean, come on... the faiths are mortal enemies, and both consider the other to be the root of all evil. How does that even work?
-
Although it's FEI and not Dwilight, I could never understand how Adgharhinists and Sartanians could be in the same realm together. And to have a king who follows one of the two faiths, and tries to be "fair" about allowing the other to exist in his kingdom. I mean, come on... the faiths are mortal enemies, and both consider the other to be the root of all evil. How does that even work?
At the very least they should insist on being in separate armies.
-
Although it's FEI and not Dwilight, I could never understand how Adgharhinists and Sartanians could be in the same realm together. And to have a king who follows one of the two faiths, and tries to be "fair" about allowing the other to exist in his kingdom. I mean, come on... the faiths are mortal enemies, and both consider the other to be the root of all evil. How does that even work?
They are also very close and may be considered a variant of each other. We claim it's the same Gods, just that the other side mixed up their order in the hierarchy. Aenilians, on the other hands, are pagans who pray to ghosts (how ridiculous!).
I think there is a sense that "absorb and assimilate" may be a more viable strategy than "destroy and conquer" (not that it ever worked, mind you). Others may have different justifications.
-
Although it's FEI and not Dwilight, I could never understand how Adgharhinists and Sartanians could be in the same realm together. And to have a king who follows one of the two faiths, and tries to be "fair" about allowing the other to exist in his kingdom. I mean, come on... the faiths are mortal enemies, and both consider the other to be the root of all evil. How does that even work?
Because that's not true. There is a group of Adgharists who identified Sartan as their evil god, but not all Adgharists believe that, and not all of them think the Sartanians are evil so much as deluded into following the wrong deity. The Sartanian perspective is even less monolithic.
And yes, I've talked to half a dozen Adgharists and probably a dozen Sartanians about it with Jenred.
-
Well, from what I've seen in the almost three years I've been on FEI, that's completely /not/ the impression I've gotten from them.
-
Well, from what I've seen in the almost three years I've been on FEI, that's completely /not/ the impression I've gotten from them.
Probably the most vocal people are the most radical ones.
-
Northern Ireland, anyone?
-
Well, from what I've seen in the almost three years I've been on FEI, that's completely /not/ the impression I've gotten from them.
If you listen to the radical types, indeed not. If you spend time trying to negotiate with the more reasonable types (and killing off, forcing into exile, and destroying the powerbase of all the non-reasonable types), a different picture emerges.
-
SMA Pet Peeve:
Orders and the general idea among many (usually generals & marshals, obviously) that all nobles in the realm or army are some sort of conscripts who are expected to do nothing unless told, and must explain their every action and seek permission to move about or do things on their own.
haven't run into it excessively on Dwilight - it used to be a game-wide problem that still pops up from time to time.
-
SMA Pet Peeve:
Orders and the general idea among many (usually generals & marshals, obviously) that all nobles in the realm or army are some sort of conscripts who are expected to do nothing unless told, and must explain their every action and seek permission to move about or do things on their own.
haven't run into it excessively on Dwilight - it used to be a game-wide problem that still pops up from time to time.
On Dwilight, my Marshal character generally only gives extremely general directives. "Let's try to keep our duchy free of monsters" or "looks like we all need a refit." And mostly I let the members act on their own and they are expected to individually respond to threats like monsters without much prodding, especially if it is within their region.
From time to time, more formal orders are given for instance we need to rally to a border altogether to respond to a foreign threat or something. But mostly, I try to have him treat everyone as what they are: Nobles leading their own units of soldiers who should be capable of doing what needs to be with very little prompting.
-
On Dwilight, my Marshal character generally only gives extremely general directives. "Let's try to keep our duchy free of monsters" or "looks like we all need a refit." And mostly I let the members act on their own and they are expected to individually respond to threats like monsters without much prodding, especially if it is within their region.
From time to time, more formal orders are given for instance we need to rally to a border altogether to respond to a foreign threat or something. But mostly, I try to have him treat everyone as what they are: Nobles leading their own units of soldiers who should be capable of doing what needs to be with very little prompting.
This is admirable (and I try to do the same) but seems like more of a philosophy of playing than an SMA bullet point.
-
Yeah, I agree with Solari. Some might have commanded like that back in the day, but others used an iron fist as well.
-
Yeah, I agree with Solari. Some might have commanded like that back in the day, but others used an iron fist as well.
i think i didn't state my point very well:
as a rule, there were no standing armies during that time. (As a rule, there were no "marshals" a lord would turn his knights over to, but I guess that's a game necessity)
I dislike this "iron fist, control your every movement like an automaton " type General, but I dislike it more when your realm isn't even at war and they still expect to be in charge of your every turn's actions & that you need "permission" to do anything on your own.
Doubt there is much that can be done about it, so I just leave those realms.
-
i think i didn't state my point very well:
as a rule, there were no standing armies during that time. (As a rule, there were no "marshals" a lord would turn his knights over to, but I guess that's a game necessity)
But BattleMaster does have standing armies. And Marshals. Indeed, the main focus of BattleMaster is on war, which was not the case in most real medieval realms.
I dislike this "iron fist, control your every movement like an automaton " type General, but I dislike it more when your realm isn't even at war and they still expect to be in charge of your every turn's actions & that you need "permission" to do anything on your own.
The fact that you just got banned for ignoring military orders, then saying that you owed nothing at all to your liege, then calling said liege—who was also the Judge—a fool, has nothing whatsoever to do with your sudden complaint about this, does it?
Doubt there is much that can be done about it, so I just leave those realms.
Actually, in my experience, nearly all realms, when at war, require that their nobles follow orders at least once in a while, or they will get banned.
BattleMaster is not a single-player game. If everyone basically did their own thing and ignored their Marshals and Generals and lieges except when it suited them, yeah, it probably would be more like the real medieval period.
But it would be a terrible game.
-
But BattleMaster does have standing armies. And Marshals. Indeed, the main focus of BattleMaster is on war, which was not the case in most real medieval realms.
The fact that you just got banned for ignoring military orders, then saying that you owed nothing at all to your liege, then calling said liege—who was also the Judge—a fool, has nothing whatsoever to do with your sudden complaint about this, does it?
Actually, in my experience, nearly all realms, when at war, require that their nobles follow orders at least once in a while, or they will get banned.
BattleMaster is not a single-player game. If everyone basically did their own thing and ignored their Marshals and Generals and lieges except when it suited them, yeah, it probably would be more like the real medieval period.
But it would be a terrible game.
dude, don't go in and read up other realms messages and then post faulty opinions.
I posted my dislike of this on this forum BEFORE any of the controversy around my character happened. He was not banned for "disobeying orders" - he never did that. I never said anything remotely like "I owe nothing to my liege" And we are not really at war, only on paper, and my character was part of the Home Defense anyway.
Stick to giving opinions about things you are actually involved in, please. In-game letters that are not your business are not your business to opine on in the forums.
-
dude, don't go in and read up other realms messages and then post faulty opinions.
Dude, I talk to people OOC who are in your realm.
I didn't even know you were in Fissoa until this incident.
You saw that I was paraphrasing and didn't know all the details, and your immediate conclusion was that I was reading your messages?
-
Dude, I talk to people OOC who are in your realm.
I didn't even know you were in Fissoa until this incident.
You saw that I was paraphrasing and didn't know all the details, and your immediate conclusion was that I was reading your messages?
"Dude",
you should give opinions on things you know for yourself, not second hand accounts that you got wrong but posted as fact.
you weren't "paraphrasing" anything - "The fact that you just got banned for ignoring military orders" is not a paraphrase.
Stick to your own opinions, not regurgitated gossip.
-
Generally, when I was marshal in PeL/LN I tried to formulate orders as 'We (the army) rally in Keplertown.' as opposed to 'Everyone move to Keplertown.' For battles, something like 'We march to attack the hordes in Keplertown' instead of 'Everyone attack Keplertown'.
-
I would like to see a continent-wide "Order of Cavaliers", guild which only accepts Cavaliers as members, and sets a code of conduct on them, and kicks them out if they violate it.
This WILL be happening. My character has had plans for it for at least a real life year, but he only recently got back to PeL and is in the position to get a lordship to found it shortly if he wishes it.
The difficulty will come in getting envoys of other realms that are cavaliers to come and join it. This was the problem in slowly spreading the Keepers of Lore to now be continent wide but without any guildhalls really.
-
This WILL be happening. My character has had plans for it for at least a real life year, but he only recently got back to PeL and is in the position to get a lordship to found it shortly if he wishes it.
The difficulty will come in getting envoys of other realms that are cavaliers to come and join it. This was the problem in slowly spreading the Keepers of Lore to now be continent wide but without any guildhalls really.
sweet. what island?
-
sweet. what island?
I'm guessing that "... he only recently got back to PeL ..." means that it will be Dwilight. Especially since this is the Dwilight board.
-
I'm guessing that "... he only recently got back to PeL ..." means that it will be Dwilight. Especially since this is the Dwilight board.
Yes its Dwilight.