So, which is worse? The Blight that appeared in Paisly for a week or so earlier this ear, or the Aurvandil invasion?
Quote from: Velax on July 24, 2012, 06:40:49 AM
So, which is worse? The Blight that appeared in Paisly for a week or so earlier this ear, or the Aurvandil invasion?
This, the blight thing just scared the crap out of D'hara but the battle actually did hurt D'hara though it mainly only hurt our troops, not the region.
End of the Moot is nigh!
Quote from: Velax on July 24, 2012, 06:40:49 AM
So, which is worse? The Blight that appeared in Paisly for a week or so earlier this ear, or the Aurvandil invasion?
I don't know, ear infections can be brutal... ;D
And here we go again....
Quote from: Penchant on July 24, 2012, 06:43:06 AM
This, the blight thing just scared the crap out of D'hara but the battle actually did hurt D'hara though it mainly only hurt our troops, not the region.
Yet ;)
Luckily for D'Hara, the battle in Maeotis did enough damage to Aurvandil's army to prevent us from casually de-walling the city in a handful of days as we did to Rettleville. But strangely enough, we're able to run a take over, which I assume is a colony take over, which means I very strongly hope it fails, I don't want to lose our star general to a new colony. (Assuming I am correct in thinking the person who started the take over, founds the colony). Luckily for us however, we can access the market in Paisly to redistribute our food.
One look at Paisly's markets is hilarious though, endless buy offers from Barca and D'Hara, one of the lords in Aurvandil suggested we make endless sell offers at of 100 bushels at 10 gold just to taunt them, which would just be cruel. I wonder if D'Hara will actually continue this war, or do the sensible thing and make peace with Aurvandil where we would sell them enough food to end their starvation immediately, 'cause God knows why but Aurvandil likes D'Hara and would rather support them than fight them.
I thought CTOs were still broken? You must have a neighbouring region connected via sea lanes?
Isn't madina connected to paisly?
Quote from: Darksun on July 24, 2012, 04:43:03 PM
I thought CTOs were still broken? You must have a neighbouring region connected via sea lanes?
Oh, we do, the Madina - Paisly route. I never considered that. Well this makes things interesting, though Aurvandil more than likely won't complete the TO, we're only doing to "suppress the region" and assert our authority.
Quote from: NoblesseChevaleresque on July 24, 2012, 04:39:59 PM
But strangely enough, we're able to run a take over, which I assume is a colony take over,
Paisly is Madina's neighbor by the sea route, there is no reason why it would have a to be a CTO. It's probably a normal TO.
Quote from: NoblesseChevaleresque on July 24, 2012, 04:39:59 PM... I assume is a colony take over, which means I very strongly hope it fails, I don't want to lose our star general to a new colony. (Assuming I am correct in thinking the person who started the take over, founds the colony).
That *used* to be how it worked. Now, it doesn't. (Well, CTOs are broken now, but that's the way it worked before they broke.)
Takeovers don't actually affect a region's stats while they're in progress, do they? Even a fear takeover.
Quote from: Velax on July 24, 2012, 05:30:26 PM
Takeovers don't actually affect a region's stats while they're in progress, do they? Even a fear takeover.
The annoying part as a diplomat is that sympathy and loyalty don't affect the takeover either.
Quote from: NoblesseChevaleresque on July 24, 2012, 04:51:27 PM
Oh, we do, the Madina - Paisly route. I never considered that. Well this makes things interesting, though Aurvandil more than likely won't complete the TO, we're only doing to "suppress the region" and assert our authority.
Abuse of game mechanic?
Quote from: egamma on July 24, 2012, 07:16:42 PM
Abuse of game mechanic?
I'd hardly call doing a TO you don't intend to complete to show that you
could do it if you wanted to an abuse.
I wouldn't call it an abuse to do it just to hurt the region, either, though I'm unclear on if it's effective for that or not.
Quote from: egamma on July 24, 2012, 07:16:42 PM
Abuse of game mechanic?
I have to agree with the others on this, it doesn't seem like an abuse. I wasn't worried about Aurvandil taking the region anyways.
Someone should file a report just to be sure. Get it investigated properly and all that. You don't know what those bullying obnoxious out-to-ruin-everyone's-fun Orvandeaux are up to.
I bet they eat babies during turn changes.
Quote from: Allomere on July 24, 2012, 07:49:31 PM
Someone should file a report just to be sure. Get it investigated properly and all that. You don't know what those bullying obnoxious out-to-ruin-everyone's-fun Orvandeaux are up to.
I bet they eat babies during turn changes.
Hide ya kids, hide ya wife they eatin everybody up in here!
Babies taste best during turn changes.
used to be.. failed TO makes the enemy region hate you..
with sympathy TO, would that make region like you a tad more even if you fail?
and if you are into killing stats... well, parking an army there harms morale... at least daily region reports bitch about enemy troops when daimons were in avengmil (that's separate from the bit about daimons scaring the !@#$ out of everyone)
And that army EATS ALL THEIR FOOD. Quick way to make a city starve.
Darksun that's why we've started eating their babies
Eating their babies is counter productive. That means less mouths to feed.
You should initiate a takeover only if you intend to take over the region, not for its side effects. Yes, it's not easily enforcible and people will do it anyway, but that's the idea behind "make game actions as your in game character interprets it", rather than purely for the game mechanics reasons.
Similarly, you wouldn't appoint a lord and say "oh no, it's just so the region stabilizes while we pick a good lord". Again, this is only to illustrate a point.
Quote from: Foundation on July 24, 2012, 11:06:19 PM
You should initiate a takeover only if you intend to take over the region, not for its side effects. Yes, it's not easily enforcible and people will do it anyway, but that's the idea behind "make game actions as your in game character interprets it", rather than purely for the game mechanics reasons.
Similarly, you wouldn't appoint a lord and say "oh no, it's just so the region stabilizes while we pick a good lord". Again, this is only to illustrate a point.
Then how would you suggest an occupation is enacted? The only game way I know of would be to begin a brutal take over then not complete.
Since similar things happen in both an occupation and a take over the difference being occupations are temporary.
Quote from: DamnTaffer on July 25, 2012, 12:32:05 AM
Then how would you suggest an occupation is enacted? The only game way I know of would be to begin a brutal take over then not complete.
Since similar things happen in both an occupation and a take over the difference being occupations are temporary.
Occupy the region, as with an army?
Quote from: DamnTaffer on July 25, 2012, 12:32:05 AM
Then how would you suggest an occupation is enacted? The only game way I know of would be to begin a brutal take over then not complete.
Since similar things happen in both an occupation and a take over the difference being occupations are temporary.
This isn't answering your question but there no longer are brutal takeovers it just depends how what actions you do on whether or not its a sympathy or fear takeover.
Quote from: Foundation on July 24, 2012, 11:06:19 PM
You should initiate a takeover only if you intend to take over the region, not for its side effects. Yes, it's not easily enforcible and people will do it anyway, but that's the idea behind "make game actions as your in game character interprets it", rather than purely for the game mechanics reasons.
That's like saying you should initiate a battle only if you intend to entirely wipe out the other realm. You have just described all peace treaties as abuse of game mechanics.
They initiated a takeover to show they can. It's a perfectly valid action.
Yes, do you start a war and say "we are still friends, I just wanted one region back." Then that is plainly wrong.
Quote from: Foundation on July 25, 2012, 03:13:59 PM
Yes, do you start a war and say "we are still friends, I just wanted one region back." Then that is plainly wrong.
Please ...explain how this isn't nonsense
Quote from: DamnTaffer on July 25, 2012, 12:32:05 AM
Then how would you suggest an occupation is enacted? The only game way I know of would be to begin a brutal take over then not complete.
Since similar things happen in both an occupation and a take over the difference being occupations are temporary.
Loot the place into the ground? A true "occupation" would not only see you launch the TO, but see it through and then occupy the the city on a long term or permanent basis. If all you want to do is wreck up the place and send a message, looting will more than suffice. For RP purposes, simply stationing your army there would be be enough.
I don't see anything wrong with what you're doing per se, but keep in mind that you are doing exactly what the game mechanics say you are doing. Mechanics trump RP. That means that, right now, you are brutally suppressing the populace and forcing Aurvandilian rule on Paisly, not temporarily occupying the place.
Quote from: Geronus on July 25, 2012, 04:23:48 PM
I don't see anything wrong with what you're doing per se, but keep in mind that you are doing exactly what the game mechanics say you are doing. Mechanics trump RP. That means that, right now, you are brutally suppressing the populace and forcing Aurvandilian rule on Paisly, not temporarily occupying the place.
They are temporarily brutally suppressing the populace and forcing Aurvandilian rule on Paisly.
Quote from: vonGenf on July 25, 2012, 04:26:48 PM
They are temporarily brutally suppressing the populace and forcing Aurvandilian rule on Paisly.
Ha, fair enough. They
are subjecting Paisly to their rule though.
Huh? Do you want me to explain why it's wrong to start a war and still claim to be friends?
Quote from: vonGenf on July 25, 2012, 04:26:48 PM
They are temporarily brutally suppressing the populace and forcing Aurvandilian rule on Paisly.
They aren't being brutal about anything with their TO actions, though they aren't quite as nice to the fortifications.
What Aurvandil is doing has been standard practice in BM for as long as I can remember. It's perfectly fair game to start TOs for purely tactical or symbolic reasons, and regular practice; always has been.
Quote from: Foundation on July 25, 2012, 05:27:33 PM
Huh? Do you want me to explain why it's wrong to start a war and still claim to be friends?
I don't really see anything wrong with that . . . but it'd take a pretty big sucker to believe it.
But hey, if you can convince them. . . .
Note: In case it is not clear, I think it is obvious that if you are at war with someone, you aren't their friend, basically by definition. But when have the facts stopped people from claiming otherwise?
Quote from: Foundation on July 25, 2012, 05:27:33 PM
Huh? Do you want me to explain why it's wrong to start a war and still claim to be friends?
Ever had a fight with a freind before?
They didn't really have a chance at taking over Paisly even though everyone was worrying. The region was on the brink of starvation when Aurvandil arrived and if they stayed we could just let Paisly starve to weaken Aurvandil's army. And to those who say Aurvandil would have still been able to take Paisly before the moot could fight them, they are completely wrong considering it would have taken Aurvandil quite a while to take the region since they were only at 10%.
I believe you should mean what the game mechanics say.
When you are at war, you mean to battle as enemies.
When you conduct takeovers, you mean to take over a region under your own flag.
When you appoint a lord, you mean to grant the lord the land under oath.
This is what I believe to be true and a result of "Game mechanics trump RP". Whether it is enforcible or even should be strictly enforced is beside my point.
Quote from: DamnTaffer on July 26, 2012, 06:37:10 AM
Ever had a fight with a freind before?
Yeah, but I didn't trash his house and commandeer a wing of it for myself.
Quote from: Foundation on July 26, 2012, 07:53:04 AM
I believe you should mean what the game mechanics say.
When you are at war, you mean to battle as enemies.
When you conduct takeovers, you mean to take over a region under your own flag.
When you appoint a lord, you mean to grant the lord the land under oath.
This is what I believe to be true and a result of "Game mechanics trump RP". Whether it is enforcible or even should be strictly enforced is beside my point.
The problem with game mechanics trumping RP is that game mechanics are too limiting. There is no function to install an interim lord, establish a line of succession, commit an occupation, depose lords, effectively punish nobles, run an empire the way the lurias want to roleplay themselves, family estates are indestructable, torturing nobles doesn't injure them (and its somehow powergaming to rp that they should be), advys whom leave there home nations become outlaws where as migrant peasants do not, assassinations don't kill, the combat AI is poor and so forth but all this is to be EXPECTED from a RP based game because its not viable for Tom to code for every action a noble would want to take so as a RPing character you should use the most mechanically accurate option available to you to ascertain the desired roleplay results otherwise your just working the system and not your character.
Think of it this way when a lawman in 12 century England wants to arrest someone do they:
A) Arrest them
B) Request the realms judge ban them, then after giving them 3 days to hide or flee the country attempt to arrest them
Once they have arrested there victim and they've been decided guilty do they:
A) Punish them by the relevant officials choice of execution, exile, jail time, removal of limb, witch hunt where the defendants estate, belongings, staff and family can all be purged or anything else the judge thinks of
B) Nothing but fine or ban them
The battlemaster answers are both B, where as real life and accurate roleplay as would be expected in an SMA atmosphere is most certainly A, where as you might play by the mechanics I'd like my characters life to make actual sense. IF you roleplayed burning my family home to the ground, I'd most certainly not complain, even though the mechanics are not available, I would also not complain if you roleplayed torturing my character and leaving him mutilated.
Quote from: OFaolain on July 26, 2012, 08:12:17 AM
Yeah, but I didn't trash his house and commandeer a wing of it for myself.
That metaphor is wrong, its more like holding him in a painful armlock and giving him oportunity to surrender
Quote from: DamnTaffer on July 26, 2012, 10:02:13 AM
The problem with game mechanics trumping RP is that game mechanics are too limiting.
Then make a feature request.
Quote from: DamnTaffer on July 26, 2012, 10:02:13 AM
The problem with game mechanics trumping RP is that game mechanics are too limiting.
Which, in many cases, is completely intentional. This is, after all, a game that we play for personal enjoyment. A conscious design decision is that you cannot, in most cases, permanently affect someone else's character. Which is why it is
very difficult to kill someone else's character, or do them permanent, debilitating damage.
Quoteyou should use the most mechanically accurate option available to you to ascertain the desired roleplay results otherwise your just working the system and not your character.
In some ways, yes, I agree with you. This is a decent summation in most respects. (And, really, shows a different interpretation of playing the game that is very interesting.) But along with it, you also have to use the guideline of "If you're using a game mechanic for something other than what it was intended to do, then you're probably doing something wrong". When you use game mechanics, the action itself should speak for itself. If you have to send a message to qualify the intention of the mechanic you're using, then you're probably doing something wrong.
Especially if you have to say something like "I know the game says we're doing X, but we're really just doing Y."
QuoteI would also not complain if you roleplayed torturing my character and leaving him mutilated.
You should. That kind of behavior is outside the scope/rules of the game
unless both players have agreed to it. So unless you and the other player have agreed to it before it happens, then the other player has broken the rules. At the very least, he needs to be made aware of the rules before he tries doing it to someone else who doesn't agree to it.
Quote from: Indirik on July 26, 2012, 04:11:02 PM
You should. That kind of behavior is outside the scope/rules of the game unless both players have agreed to it. So unless you and the other player have agreed to it before it happens, then the other player has broken the rules. At the very least, he needs to be made aware of the rules before he tries doing it to someone else who doesn't agree to it.
That's not what the Titans (I think) said when I complained about it happening to me.
Quote from: BardicNerd on July 26, 2012, 04:37:35 PM
That's not what the Titans (I think) said when I complained about it happening to me.
That's because it's not a Titan case. It's a violation of roleplay rules, not the IR.
Quote from: Anaris on July 26, 2012, 04:40:29 PM
That's because it's not a Titan case. It's a violation of roleplay rules, not the IR.
Which in that case are not enforced by anyone. Which means it's less of a rule (which when broken should have consequences) and more of an etiquette guideline, though I agree that it would annoy me to have someone else RP mutilating my character without discussing it with me OOC first.
Quote from: Indirik on July 26, 2012, 04:11:02 PM
Which, in many cases, is completely intentional. This is, after all, a game that we play for personal enjoyment. A conscious design decision is that you cannot, in most cases, permanently affect someone else's character. Which is why it is very difficult to kill someone else's character, or do them permanent, debilitating damage.
Yes and while I understand that that is a feature I would still be willing to roleplay round the mechanics for the purpose of good roleplaying. Expecially because it is a game and when bad things happen to you in a game... They should actually happen because there is no reason for them not to happen... Because its a game.
I would also challenge any of you to name a method of torture that isn't mutilating and fits SMA...
Quote from: Indirik on July 26, 2012, 04:11:02 PM
In some ways, yes, I agree with you. This is a decent summation in most respects. (And, really, shows a different interpretation of playing the game that is very interesting.) But along with it, you also have to use the guideline of "If you're using a game mechanic for something other than what it was intended to do, then you're probably doing something wrong". When you use game mechanics, the action itself should speak for itself. If you have to send a message to qualify the intention of the mechanic you're using, then you're probably doing something wrong. Especially if you have to say something like "I know the game says we're doing X, but we're really just doing Y."
Games like this are always limited by mechanics, both IRL roleplaying games and pc games and generally I've been taught by players and game masters to be creative because it simply makes the game more fun and easier to roleplay. Playing the mechanics (because I mean really who plays a roleplaying game because they enjoy working spreadsheets which is essentially what battlemaster is if you do) seems counter productive to the essence of the game.
Quote from: BardicNerd on July 26, 2012, 04:37:35 PM
That's not what the Titans (I think) said when I complained about it happening to me.
Why did you complain about it happening to you? You obviously in some way got into a situation where your character was captured in order for them to get tortured so there is plenty of IG justification for it. If you don't want your character to get into those situations... Don't put your character in those situations. When you send your character into battle do you think "My character might get captured and tortured, but its okay because all that will happen is they'll get to read my letters" Or do you think "My character might get captured and tortured, that would be really bad because who knows what state he'll be in afterwards"
Because it most definately IS NOT AGAINST ROLEPLAYING ETIQUETTE for a player to do anything he likes to another players character when that character is in a situation where they are completely powerless to do anything to stop them and using OOC to try to stop a player mutilating your character is DEFINATELY POWER GAMING.
It would however be powergaming for me to roleplay my character beating yours in a duel without either your permission or the game mechanics saying I won. The difference between the two situations is that if I torture your character then he is definately not in a situation to defend himself because if he was then he wouldn't be being tortured. Where as if your character and mine were to duel, there is a chance yours could win.
Also if while I was torturing your character I cut his hand off, then you RP using that hand, your powergaming.
Quote from: DamnTaffer on July 27, 2012, 12:44:31 AM
I would also challenge any of you to name a method of torture that isn't mutilating and fits SMA...
I believe it was called The Comfy Chair. Horrifying.
QuoteBecause it most definately IS NOT AGAINST ROLEPLAYING ETIQUETTE for a player to do anything he likes to another players character when that character is in a situation where they are completely powerless to do anything to stop them and using OOC to try to stop a player mutilating your character is DEFINATELY POWER GAMING.
While that may work with 6 or 8 people sitting around a table, that isn't the way that BattleMaster works. RPing the mutilation of another character without their permission is against the RP guidelines. Like it or not, those are the rules of *this* game.
Did they have waterboarding in medieval times?
Quote from: Indirik on July 27, 2012, 01:06:23 AM
I believe it was called The Comfy Chair. Horrifying.
I thought making "funny" comments like that was against SMA.
Quote from: DamnTaffer on July 27, 2012, 01:13:29 AM
I thought making "funny" comments like that was against SMA.
Nothing wrong with it in the forums.
Quote from: Penchant on July 27, 2012, 01:15:14 AM
Nothing wrong with it in the forums.
Yeah but I said a torture method that is fine for SMA. If I roleplayed sitting a noble in a comfy chair for torture someone would complain to the magistrates I was trying to be funny. And anyway Monty Python isn't Medieval.
Quote from: Lanyon on July 27, 2012, 01:11:43 AM
Did they have waterboarding in medieval times?
Pouring water into a victims mouth until they talked or drowned did says Yahoo answers but that doesn't work for the mechanics because there is a chance I just accidentally drown you
Quote from: Indirik on July 27, 2012, 01:06:23 AM
While that may work with 6 or 8 people sitting around a table, that isn't the way that BattleMaster works. RPing the mutilation of another character without their permission is against the RP guidelines. Like it or not, those are the rules of *this* game.
Its powergaming, it being allowed and encouraged by the rules of the game doesn't stop it being powergaming, it just stops it being punishable.
Quote from: DamnTaffer on July 27, 2012, 12:44:31 AM
Also if while I was torturing your character I cut his hand off, then you RP using that hand, your powergaming.
Actually no. By the RP rules of BM you are actually power gaming by cutting off the hand of a character without the consent of the player that controls the character. You might not like the rules, or agree with them but those are the rules for this game. Else we would have Judges that role-play cutting off all the limbs of everyone that arrives in their dungeon during a war then arguing said nobles can no longer lead troops into battle due to their injuries. If you where meant to be able to inflict those sort of injuries there would be a mechanic to allow it. Remember this is not a straight RP game, it is a RP/Strategy blend.